Peanut Gallery - Eloise/Kevin debate

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Peanut Gallery - Eloise/Kevin debate

Thanks to jcgadfly for thinking of this.  This thread is for anyone to comment on the debate between Eloise and Kevin.  Feel free to say anything you like about the debate in here.

I would like for there to be a gentle..um.. person's agreement between Kevin and Eloise that they either will or will not look at this thread.  It would be an unfair advantage for one to see comments and the other not.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This is my opinion, but

This is my opinion, but there's something not right about a thread being limited to a couple people. I think there could have been a better format for a debate.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:This is my

MattShizzle wrote:

This is my opinion, but there's something not right about a thread being limited to a couple people. I think there could have been a better format for a debate.

As easily as we go off on tangents and threads get jacked around here - I think it's a good thing (at least for a debate)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
i like it.  lets see how it

i like it.  lets see how it goes  but i am all for doing something like this more often.

however - what if a new person accidentally puts a thoughtful post in their closed debate?  can those just be pasted here instead of deleting them entirely?


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise actually wins this

Eloise actually wins this one.  I saw it last season.  I won't spoil it.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:MattShizzle

jcgadfly wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

This is my opinion, but there's something not right about a thread being limited to a couple people. I think there could have been a better format for a debate.

As easily as we go off on tangents and threads get jacked around here - I think it's a good thing (at least for a debate)

 

Ditto, it's a no-brainer to allow theists one on one opportunity when an atheist agrees.  Of all the theists here Eloise is one of the more honest and pleasant, should be an interesting read.

In fact we've struggled with this before when people ignored the rules we ended up with excessive mod work.  To make this easier on everyone I created a new forum:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/oneonedebate

The debate is the only thing in it right now, and please ask for use of this function very sparingly, but we can do this in the future as well.  Just make sure to pick a opponent who isn't just pulling your chain.  

Here is how the ONE on ONE debate forum is set up...

1) Debaters must receive a special access role applied manually.  Only people with the special permission and the mods listed below can post or edit.   The following people can apply the "One on One debate" role:

Sapient
Rook Hawkins
Yellow#5 (AKA Mike)
KellyM78
HambyDammit

2) When debate is complete the ONE on ONE debaters will lose their access role

3) The people listed above and below are the only people with mod powers in the ONE on ONE debate forum.

Jake
Todangst
LeftofLarry
Richard Carrier
Darth_Josh
Zombie
Deludedgod
Bob Spence
Rich Rodriguez
ShaunPhilly

4) All users including anonymous users can read the forum. 

 

I encourage everyone to stumble the post, digg it, and submit it on social/bookmarking networks.  Here is the actual debate between Kevin and Eloise on God and Religion.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote:however -

shelleymtjoy wrote:

however - what if a new person accidentally puts a thoughtful post in their closed debate?  can those just be pasted here instead of deleting them entirely?

 

Just fixed that problem.  Smiling  Nobody will be able to post there except people who are pre-approved only for their debate time, and a small handful of mods.  RRS for teh win.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Wonderful idea

Oh, this is so exciting!  I can't wait to see what they say!


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
OK, now to me this I can

OK, now to me this I can agree with if it's in a special section for that. I just thought it seemed wrong being in a regular section and doing it that way (BTW if you CAN limit who can post is there any way to make it that only non-theists can post in FTA - the none of the mods have to clean it up?)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:BTW if you

MattShizzle wrote:

BTW if you CAN limit who can post is there any way to make it that only non-theists can post in FTA - the none of the mods have to clean it up?

Been working on that one slow and steady.  Sort of in the middle of project, although at 3pm today I thought an end was in sight... turns out it was just gas.

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It does seem to only be a

It does seem to only be a problem with the newer theists - or the asshats that do it anyway and wind up getting banned for breaking other rules anyway. Still there are the new ones who just don't read the sticky or the description in the box linking to the forum (of course isn't not reading typical of theists? They don't read their own holy books for the most part it seems)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Kudos to Sapient for the

Kudos to Sapient for the awesome solution to the problem.  This is going to be an awesome format, I think.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I am atheist and a big

I am atheist and a big Eloise fan, as many of you know. IMO, the arguments between atheists and pantheists is more of a science one, on the true nature of consciousness.

    ..... and hey, the Pope, and his types, spouting Abrahamic dogmas, are NOT allies of Eloise's simple philosophy ..... Eloise's god is not separate from anything in all the cosmos, as all is connected to the "force".     DA 

Lets continue to call the force, "god", so that we can help all the more to eliminate all crippling dogmatic definitions under that ancient title/name/concept. Go science. 

    ..... and Shezzzzzz, was that dirt simple Jesus philosophy misunderstood, and perverted, or what !?!?   errrrrrrrr  

                        damn it, igod  

((( No,  I don't believe in some god,  I AM GOD ! ..... No theory about it .....  

     [ Wish we could bump/track that thread .... oh well, thanks again, all of you that are RRS ] 

                                 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Mustard: Welcome to the

Mr. Mustard: Welcome to the first, semi-official, structured written debate! Here with me is Mr. Ketchup. . .
Mr. Ketchup: Hi.
Mr. Mustard: and as this is the first debate I'd like to congratulate the RRS supporters on this momentous occasion. Or whatever. It looks like the debators are strapped in, helmets checked, and are ready to begin launching all missiles.


Eloise wrote:


I'd like to start with borrowing from a recent topic in the AvT forum . . .
What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part . . .
And this will be the basis of my argument, I will ask you only to consider -
What is this that exists?

Mr. Mustard: Hmm, it looks as if at this point Eloise might be using a radical variation of Pascal's Wager.
Mr. Ketchup: Yes, and radical it is. There's no threat, so it's not a wager.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah. She seems to be assuming that there is something and asking what that thing is. It may still be that she's not really talking about anything.
Mr. Ketchup: Let's get back to the action. . .
Quote:

I am here to show you a realistic ontology which leads . . .
I will begin with some slightly technical definitions . . .

Mr. Mustard: Already Eloise has broken out the hammer of physics!
Mr. Ketchup: Put on your science goggles folks, this could get Feynmannian.
Quote:

The standard model postulates that the universe is madeup of particles . . .
As indicated in the first paragraphs we will consider this relationship as it applies to your own human and sentient existence.

Mr. Ketchup: Wow, what is it that they say about "those who write long diatribes?"
Mr. Mustard: I'm not sure. That was a lot of reading though, and I hope the people viewing at home are okay.
Quote:

Your material existence is comprised, with a small degree of contrived simplicity, of the intersection between these two categories . . . We can concieve of information passed via this field to the brain over multiple channels.

Mr. Mustard: Very interesting.
Mr. Ketchup: Were those statements supported?
Mr. Mustard: I'm not sure, I just say that whenever someone says something that sounds even remotely scientific.
Mr. Ketchup: If Kevin has a hard time grasping technobabble it could lead to a lot of mistakes on his part.
Mr. Mustard: Very true.
Quote:

Ordinarily one can concieve of the B-E field distributing information through your external senses . . . this distribution of information preceeds the configuration of the universe in any stage of its evolution, including the state of your physical being, and so your physical being is informed, by this distribution, how to be.

Mr. Mustard: We might have the first shot-at-the-feet here. It sounds like Eloise is trying to run the arrow of time backwards.
Mr. Ketchup: It does sound like she is commiting to a post-causal reality, which isn't necessarily any more established than an interpretation of QED.
Mr. Mustard: This is definitely an unexpected turn of events.
Quote:

So far we have fairly simply established that what exists operates under the very same rules as those that govern the sensory attributes of a sentient organism . . .
Pre-empting any possible objections, I agree it is not enough for existence to be able to sense itself . . . (it must) possess some specialised organisational structure analogous to a brain in which to order and 'compute' the sensory data.

Mr. Ketchup: Not the objection I would have made.
Mr. Mustard: No. She hasn't established the link between the system, that seems  more similar to an economy than an organism, and sentience.
Mr. Ketchup: It seems to me like whatever this thing she is talking about is just the universe itself, or physics.
Mr. Mustard: I'd say the universe.
Quote:

Again we look at the internal sensory faculty which recieves the distribution . . . then we are precisely less an object unto ourselves in the universe than we have supposed.

Mr. Ketchup: She seems to be operating on a very loose definition of sentience.
Mr. Mustard: Let's hope she picks it up and clarifies that.
Quote:

And if this is the case then our brains are no more belonging to us, . . . the universe is sentient in being specialised in computation, just as we are, in fact exactly as we are.

In summary of the concluding points.

1. Qualitatively the sentience of a living being is inseparable from the fundamental processes that produce a physical universe - a half integer spin field exchanging information over integer spin distribution.

2. Quantitatively the classical concept of an individual sentience belonging to a human entity is impossible unless that sentience belongs equally to the universe in which it operates.

C: All that exists is both qualitatively equal to our own sense of existence and quantitatively equal to its massive potential. Ergo all that exists is completely compatible with the definition of an omni-being God of which we are the image.

 
QED.

Thankyou and I shall now look forward to Kevin's opening statement.
 

Mr. Mustard: Mmm, very shaky ground.
Mr. Ketchup: Yes. It's all very complicated.
Mr. Mustard: It does seem to add an aweful lot to the situation and doesn't necessitate anything.
Mr. Ketchup: Well, she said in her opening statement that she wasn't going to necessitate anything.
Mr. Mustard: Yes, but she has to necessitate SOMETHING. Otherwise, what's the point?
Mr. Ketchup: Up next, Kevin's opening statement.
Mr. Mustard: Right after this commercial break!


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Mustard: Welcome

Mr. Mustard: Welcome back.
Mr. Ketchup: In case you didn't read the last post, when we left Kevin was about to deliver his opening statement.
Mr. Mustard: We'll go to the forum now for somewhat live, hours old coverage. . .

Kevin R Brown wrote:

My primary objective in this debate is to impress upon the reader that atheism

The scientific method has never been appropriately used to demonstrate the existence of a God. Until it is, God is nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking; a concept dreamed-up in more primitive times to explain what humans were curious about, but had no means of really examining.

Mr. Ketchup: Ugh, a science lesson?
Mr. Mustard: I know, and we just got done with one.
Mr. Ketchup: He's wasted a lot of space re-iterating what both parties agree on already.
Mr. Mustard: Yes. Maybe he's trying to keep things organized by focusing on laying out his subject first.
Mr. Ketchup: Maybe. We'll have to see.
Quote:

My secondary objective here is to demonstrate that religious 'moderation' is an unsuitable term for anyone to take for themselves. There is no such thing . . .

Mr. Mustard: I'm not sure that the second objective is necessary.
Mr. Ketchup: I think I would like to be as rational as possible.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, in which case he states that atheism would be the correct choice.
Mr. Ketchup: So why even address moderation?
Quote:

There's no objective criteria for being a moderate or a fundamentalist . . .This is not a system of healthy contrasts. The lines here are blurred, at best; more likely, they're hardly existent at all.

Mr. Ketchup: I think I speak for the both of us when I say that I'm disappointed.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, a lot of shooting into the breese.
Mr. Ketchup: But that means a loss of ammunition, and I didn't see any good hits from Kevin's side.
Mr. Mustard: After the break, Kevin's rebuttal.
Mr. Ketchup: Oh? I though Eloise was supposed to go next.
Mr. Mustard: That's what it says!
Mr. Ketchup: Well be right back.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Oh for goodness sakes ....

Oh for goodness sakes .... That word we presently often spell  G O D  is here to stay a long long while .....

Eloise is laughing at our silliness regarding that word G-O-D .... and uses science to make her points. 

Many of us atheists have no problem with that word spelled G-O-D, until silly dogmatic assumptions are implied.

   I say Eloise deserves a "Science/Philosopher" badge. She is beyond "theisms" ..... all of them ....  !!! 

   I found a girl , "Fearless Eloise" !          

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTyEScrJwUw

      " afraid of nothing" ..... ( as best as any can !      ) 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Ketchup: Who was that

Mr. Ketchup: Who was that guy?
Mr. Mustard: Let's get back to the floor. . .

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Rebuttal 1
Quote:

Whether or not God exists is not of particular importance.

I disagree.
If God does exist, . . . who sew death and misery through fraudulence, etc.

Mr. Mustard: Let it be written that atheists are much better at responding than starting out.
Mr. Ketchup: So it is said, so shall it be done.
Quote:

Quote:

What is important is that something does exist of which our lives are an indivisible part . . . What is this that exists?

I agree that this is an important problem; as such . . . I'm going to plug your ensuing argument into the procedure model for the scientific method, to see if it might qualify as a theory.

Mr. Mustard: Oh I do love a good ordered layout.
Mr. Ketchup: It's going to waste a lot of space though.
Mr. Mustard: Who cares? It's a written debate!
Quote:

Let's take a look:
   1. Problem . . .

Mr. Mustard: That was kind of disappointing.
Mr. Ketchup: He took an a priori argument and put it into the framework of the scientific method.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah. I guess I thought he was going to use an a priori counter-proof or something.
Mr Ketchup: It's not interesting, but it does serve a purpose.
Mr. Mustard: What's that?
Mr. Ketchup: I think he's talking about the fact that you can write all the arguments you want, but without something testable we're no better off for all the work.
Quote:

Here we have our first hang-up . . .that suggests speculation rather than established principle...

Mr. Mustard: I have to object to that. All the things she talked about don't usually require citation. If you cited the sources, all you'd end up with is a list of people who have the same names as the things after which they're named after!
Mr. Ketchup: He makes one point in the second part though, and that is validating a god-thing leads to all kinds of bad stuff.
Mr. Mustard: Yes, but the kind of god that Eloise is talking about isn't, as far as I can tell, all that godly.
Mr. Ketchup: Yes, it does seem to be just another way of looking at the universe.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, like calling a rose an organic sculputure.
Mr. Ketchup: I just don't see the point yet.
Quote:

Quote:

In a less ordinary sense, we can also conceive . . .

This, for example, is outright speculation. Not established principle. 'One can say' a number of things, about any topic; that does not make what is said valid.

Mr. Ketchup: He's brutally missing the point now.
Mr. Mustard: She's saying that under the given rules the system somehow matches a definition of god. You don't need support to say "Oh, that cloud looks like a dragon."
Mr. Ketchup: I think in the sentence he was referring to she was making an analogy to a physical process.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, that too. The material that makes us up interacts with its surroundings, sensing in a way. Of course, she's comparing that mechanism to an organic sense. Just because it's called an observation doesn't mean that the thing doing the observing can think.
Quote:

Quote:

. . . fairly sure to be beyond denying that upon discovering how it does this we are very unlikely to discover that it doesn't at all. . .

Again, this is speculation. . . .

Mr. Mustard: Speculation, maybe, but not unfounded speculation.
Mr. Ketchup: If he hangs his hat on that, he may find that he's without a hat sometime soon.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, he might be out of his league if he doesn't keep up with the quantum science.
Quote:

So far we have fairly simply established that what exists . . . and 'compute' the sensory data.



...We have not established anything, . . .

Mr. Ketchup: I'm not sure that's what she was saying.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah. It looked to me like she was saying something else entirely, like we already talked about.
Quote:

Quote:

There is a real perspective here . . . And if this is the case . . .

This is, again, purely speculative. We have no data that suggests our own brains or bodies are projections of the universe, no evidence that the universe 'thinks' to begin with, and no evidence that our brain has any perception beyond that which is provided by it's body's sensory components.

Mr. Mustard: I'm pretty sure I'm a projection of the universe. I mean, I'm part of reality, and reality is the universe, give or take a few.
Mr Ketchup: I think he was referring to the simily that Eloise used.
Mr. Mustard: Oh.
Mr. Ketchup: "Made in god's image"
Mr. Mustard: Yeah.
Quote:

Now, if we go to the next two steps in the procedure model of the scientific method, we run into further problems. . .
The eighth step is the final nail in the coffin. There is simply no way whatsoever to falsify the notion that perhaps we are constructs. . .

Mr. Mustard: Again, he's missing the point.
Mr. Ketchup: I think I see what you mean now.
Mr. Mustard: This isn't something that requires falsification or whatever. I think Eloise is really just calling the system under which the universe operates a god.
Mr. Ketchup: Mmmhmm. And Kevin's asking for evidence for that.
Mr. Mustard: He's almost robotically reciting the usual arguments we use to dismiss all other theists.
Mr. Ketchup: Yeah. He should be tackling the issue that, as you said, Eloise wants to call the van a car.
Mr. Mustard: Well, I think this deserves another commercial break.
Mr. Ketchup: Woo.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Mustard: At this point

Mr. Mustard: At this point I'm going to change the format. Rather than both of us reading a part and commenting on it, we'll both read the whole thing and then comment.
Mr. Ketchup: That was tedious.
Mr. Mustard. Yeah. Anyway, TO THE FORUM!

. . .

Mr. Mustard: This is going about how I expected now. She basically agreed with him on the scientific method.
Mr. Ketchup: She seemed to be advocating irrationality as a means toward science.
Mr. Mustard: Yeah, I didn't expect that part. The way she put it makes sense, but having imagination doesn't make you a theist. I think she shot herself in the foot with the last paragraph of the first section - she's advocating a rationally-irrational view of reality.
Mr. Ketchup: What about the second section?
Mr. Mustard: I thought it was an odd paragraph to focus on. I half expected her to waive that one off.
Mr. Ketchup: She almost gave a textbook response there. Science IS the authority on reality at the moment.
Mr. Mustard: If he would have cited cthulhu, that would have been an appeal to authority. Or Stephen Hawking. But the scientific community, of anyone, would probably know whether there is a god.
Mr. Ketchup: She seems to have lost sight of her point in the second section.
Mr. Mustard: She comes back to it in the second paragraph, saying what I was talking about earlier with a priori arguments and the necessity of support for them. The last paragraph fits my expectation.
Mr. Ketchup: Yeah, that was eerie.
Mr. Mustard: Not really. I knew she agreed, more or less.
Mr. Ketchup: I wonder why Kevin even threw that moderate part in there.
Mr. Mustard: No idea. I was just thinking that if this becomes a habit we should record it and podcast it rather than doing it in a chatroom.
Mr. Ketchup: Why's that?
Mr. Mustard: Because I have to format it all nice and stuff before I put it up in the peanut gallery. Change your name, fix spelling and grammar, and all that.
Mr. Ketchup: I was wondering why everything looked so nice.
Mr. Mustard: Now you know.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Insight from Mustard !

Insight from Mustard ! Indeed  .....     

Mr. Mustard: Again, he's missing the point.
Mr. Ketchup: I think I see what you mean now.
Mr. Mustard: This isn't something that requires falsification or whatever. I think Eloise is really just calling the system under which the universe operates a god.
Mr. Ketchup: Mmmhmm. And Kevin's asking for evidence for that.
Mr. Mustard: He's almost robotically reciting the usual arguments we use to dismiss all other theists.
Mr. Ketchup: Yeah. He should be tackling the issue that, as you said, Eloise wants to call the van a car.
Mr. Mustard: Well, I think this deserves another commercial break.
Mr. Ketchup: Woo. ~ InspectorMustard ~

                                      I LOVE RRS and things !

 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to track this

I'm going to track this thread just for Mr.Mustard's and Mr.Ketchup's awesome commentary.I feel so much more informed now.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Fuck yeah !

Fuck yeah !


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14402

                 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Does anyone get how Eloise

Does anyone get how Eloise reasons? She'll discuss some scientific discoveries, the properties of it. And then this somehow implies god. Why because it's strange and difficult to interpret? How does any scientific discovery imply god or Theism in her line of reasoning?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I think the one-on-one

I think the one-on-one debate forum is an awesome concept.  This particular debate, however, doesn't hold meuch interest for me personally.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Does anyone get

EXC wrote:

Does anyone get how Eloise reasons? She'll discuss some scientific discoveries, the properties of it. And then this somehow implies god. Why because it's strange and difficult to interpret? How does any scientific discovery imply god or Theism in her line of reasoning?

   .... because the god word exists and is all fucked up ..... fix god ! go Eloise !   


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Ketchup: We now have

Mr. Ketchup: We now have Eloise's second rebuttal.
Mr. Mustard: In a surprising turn of events, Eloise conceeded in the first section that her original phrasing led to an unacceptable conclusion.
Mr. Ketchup: In a way she seems to be drawing Kevin's attention back to the topic at hand.
Mr. Mustard: Indeed. Eloise did not propose the type of god that Kevin drew his example from, and mentioning it could be considered a red herring in some countries.
Mr. Ketchup: Really?
Mr. Mustard: No. At best it's an aside.
Mr. Ketchup: In the second section Eloise acknowledged that her initial statements may not have been entirely clear to the lay reader.
Mr. Mustard: Her clarification seems to fit right into my original idea of what she was talking about.
Mr. Ketchup: Yes. However this also means that the subject is a little less god-like.
Mr. Mustard: We are certainly not hearing anything about your standard, run of the mill god here Mr. K.
Mr. Ketchup: Definitely not. So far Eloise's rebuttal is making Kevin look like the guy who denies everything and argues the time of day.
Mr. Mustard: If Kevin can't figure out what Eloise is talking about soon it'll be a sad first trimester for all involved.
Mr. Ketchup: It's been said that in debates where neither side agrees on anything nothing gets done. Here was have what seems to be a poorly researched opponent who ends up getting nothing but concessions because he has no clue where the other side stands.
Mr. Mustard: Take a look at this third section. Eloise admits humanism in the face of Kevin's implied consequences.
Mr. Ketchup: Kevin's going to have a hard time working around that sand trap Mr. M.
Mr. Mustard: Rightly so. Kevin's 1 and a half posts behind now, and there's a whole maze of crocodiles to get to the next rebuttal.
Mr. Ketchup: Finally, Eloise takes a shot at Kevin in the fourth section.
Mr. Mustard: If the judges are deciding who has the better argumentation, Eloise must be in the lead.
Mr. Ketchup: I'm not so sure. Eloise's opening statement wasn't very well organized. It wasn't clearly structured, and the parts used in that summary should have been the set up for each section.
Mr. Mustard: They were very well phrased. I think it would definitely have helped if they were used as lead ins to subtitled sections.
Mr. Ketchup: In my opinion, the fourth section wasn't very well structured either.
Mr. Mustard: Regardless of the typos, any move in this forum must be calculated and well thought out.
Mr. Ketchup: More so in One On One than elsewhere, because of the semi-formalness of the area.
Mr. Mustard: In the fifth section Eloise apologises for not citing her sources.
Mr. Ketchup: But as both you and her said the citations weren't particularly necessary.
Mr. Mustard: No. The only thing that is controversial here is the interpretation of that knowledge, and hence the debate. Eloise catches on in the sixth section and immediately hit Kevin with a right hook.
Mr. Ketchup: It seems like Kevin might have fallen into a rubber stick trap. The set up, use words which look like good footholds to move up on. The punchline, whack 'em with the rubber stick when they try to climb up.
Mr. Mustard: Maybe you should leave the metaphors to me. Here the deny everything strategy falls on its face. Obviously, if Kevin actually knew what she was talking about he wouldn't have run into this problem.
Mr. Ketchup: Section seven, Eloise still beating on Kevin with that rubber stick.
Mr. Mustard: While Kevin underlined the sentence that indicated to him that the paragraph was speculative, he failed to mention what about it was speculative. If he meant guessing about the nature of full integer spin is the problem, it's not a great leap to say that it is unlikely that the nature of integer spin is "the understanding we have now is utterly wrong."
Mr. Ketchup: Either way, as she points out, it doesn't matter.
Mr. Mustard: Section eight isn't really worth mentioning.
Mr. Ketchup: Not much happening there.

EXC wrote:

Does anyone get how Eloise reasons? She'll discuss some scientific discoveries, the properties of it. And then this somehow implies god. Why because it's strange and difficult to interpret? How does any scientific discovery imply god or Theism in her line of reasoning?

Mr. Ketchup:  I couldn't make out what she was talking about in section nine.
Mr. Mustard: If she was talking about neurotransmission, she used the wrong terminology for that particular instance. There are electrical and chemical synapses, and describing either one in terms of spin statistics is either fool hearty or grossly misleading depending on which she means. That is, unless she meant integers as in both half integers and whole integers. It reads like she means bosons.
Mr. Ketchup: What does that mean?
Mr. Mustard: This will all end in tears. In the closing paragraphs, Eloise reiterates her argument.
Mr. Ketchup: I'm not sure a given neural pattern can be called an entity unto itself.
Mr. Mustard: Even if it is, an individual neural pattern bears little difference from the operating state of a logic circuit. This is a very loose ontology, if you could call it that. This also rings slightly of quantum mysticism.
Mr. Ketchup: Indeed it does. I remember they mentioned something about QM and neurology in "What the bleep."
Mr. Mustard: Yes. The problem is, though, that the kind of situations that would in theory allow things to work as she mentioned when referring to the Omega Point Theory don't happen under field circumstances. To my knowledge, they only occur among isolated particles where no neighbors have a chance to observe each other before the transaction can occur.
Mr. Ketchup: So you're saying that it's possible for other universes to communicate with this one?
Mr. Mustard: Interact, yes. But as David Deutsch has mentioned, a universe has to be very similar to our own along the evolutionary tree in order to do so.
Mr. Ketchup: Ah. So a world in which everyone is omniscient would be too different to contribute anything.
Mr. Mustard: Yes. It's a matter of particles in different universes being in exactly the same place at the same time and "deciding" to take different courses. The useful thing is, there's no decision to be made as the particle takes both courses. If you eliminate the possibility of one course, then only the universes in which that course is eliminated does the particle continue on unimpinged.
Mr. Ketchup: I think I'm getting a better sense of what Eloise really means.
Mr. Mustard: Me too. This concludes the first part of the first One On One debate. We'll now go to the judges and see what they think.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'd also like to add that it

I'd also like to add that it would definitely be a good idea to limit theist access to the debate forum to the more honest theists. Most of us know how well dishonest theists are able to manipulate the style of a formal/semiformal debate.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
the debate is over already?

the debate is over already? ::sobs::

i like this format.  who's next?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, I don't know who's

Well, I don't know who's next - but I insist that Mr. Mustard and Mr. Ketchup be included on the next debate panel. Eye-wink

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Well, I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Well, I don't know who's next - but I insist that Mr. Mustard and Mr. Ketchup be included on the next debate panel. Eye-wink

 

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

 

Seriously though, I often wish I had the extra, apparently free time that Inspector has to weigh in with his two cents, errrr, I mean, condies.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
More Eloise and Kevin please

More Eloise and Kevin please .... excited brain cells .... lol .... louder


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
 Condiments,

 

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

 I'm looking for the beer and brauts myself.  Anyone else getting hungry here?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, give me a taste 

Yeah, give me a taste 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks

Boon Docks wrote:

 

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

 I'm looking for the beer and brauts myself.  Anyone else getting hungry here?

 

Beer is good by me, too !


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
What happened to the

What happened to the tie-breaker round?  There was supposed to be pistols at dawn and such.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:Kevin R Brown

Wonko wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Well, I don't know who's next - but I insist that Mr. Mustard and Mr. Ketchup be included on the next debate panel. Eye-wink

Condiments, shmondiments....next time I wanna see the veggies and taters.

Seriously though, I often wish I had the extra, apparently free time that Inspector has to weigh in with his two cents, errrr, I mean, condies.

Bah, it's nothin'. It only takes me about about 30 minutes all together to catch up on everything. Those actually went really quickly compared to what I'm usually writing or working on. I'll write a bit, then do some work until something else comes to mind, and repeat until I'm satisfied.


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Hell of debate, kids.  Only

Hell of debate, kids.  Only took you two about 10 pages of text apiece to figure out that you weren't actually arguing about the same thing. 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell