Some Questions for the RRS and anyone else who feels up to it - from a theist
Offline Hey,
Brian, Kelly, since it appears you've completely dodged me on that talk we were supposed to have, I'll take your advice and post some questions here that I would have liked to discuss.
#1 You guys are evolutionists, since that's the only viable option for an atheist. However, creationists are often derided for their lack of credentials, their lack of evidence, their weak arguments, their rejection by the mainstream, etc.
However, pretty much all of this fits the bill of the Christ Mythicist. Its rejected by the mainstream, its not taught as fact in any public school, it relies on outdated, or uncredentialed "scholarship" and the arguments are either ignorant or weak.
Rook Hawkins, for instance, appears to have no foundation upon which to be speaking authoritatively for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It appears that such people (which would include characters like Acharya S as well) are the Kent Hovind of Jesus Mythicism.
That said, here's the question: Don't you think its hypocritical - perhaps even irrational - to hold to evolution for the same reasons that one would then deny the Christ Myth theory?
#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?
#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.
#4 The logic you use to debate is immaterial, is a construct of the mind, transcends space and time, and is absolute. Therefore, how does an atheist explain this without positing some kind of transcendant, absolute mind by which logic is bound?
#5 Why is the argument from evil still used by atheists? It causes a paradox. If evil disproves God, then God does not exist, but then evil cannot exist and you therefore have no evil to put into the argument from evil. Also, this causes you to have to defend the assertion of a universal negative: There is no purpose or reason for evil that can be morally justified by God. <- How can you possibly know this?
#6 If you're an atheist because you lack a belief in God, then what seperates you from an agnostic? If you lack a belief because you think its irrational to believe in God, then what seperates you from a strong (real) atheist?
#7 As an atheist, there are no objective morals. Therefore, how can you ever criticize any occurance in the bible as evil? If its only subjectively evil, then that's no more correct than saying its subjectively good.
I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?
- Login to post comments
Offline I've emailed this assclown asking for a debate on stickam concerning his claims on logic and cosmology. IF DG wants to take part, he can cover cosmology and I can focus on logic.
He whined that he wanted a debate 'elsewhere' without specifying where. I stated we could do an audio debate, seeing as his original complaints were:
1) That he didn't get a chance to go on the show.
Well then, why not go to stickam and debate in front of some of the very people who regularly listen to the show?
2) He wanted to give you guys a phone call.
Well, if that's the case, then audio debate would seem to be the thing for you, right?
3) He came here to challenge US to a debate.
So, it would follow that its up to him to actually stand behind his own words.
I'll keep trying to get him to debate.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline IrishFarmer wrote:
I really wish we could have discussed topics like these - and more - over the phone, but what are you gonna do?
Invite you to stickam, where we can have this discussion on audio.
Or were you lying when you said this too?
Tod, I'm not sure where it is but he has a conflicting quote in this thread as well. He's posted elsewhere in this thread that he didn't want to do audio because he wasn't as smart as deludedgod (? or was it you?). So he doesn't want to do audio and would rather do audio? Got it.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline I've emailed this assclown asking for a debate on stickam concerning his claims on logic and cosmology. IF DG wants to take part, he can cover cosmology and I can focus on logic.
He whined that he wanted a debate 'elsewhere' without specifying where. I stated we could do an audio debate, seeing as his original complaints were:
1) That he didn't get a chance to go on the show.
Well then, why not go to stickam and debate in front of some of the very people who regularly listen to the show?
2) He wanted to give you guys a phone call.
Well, if that's the case, then audio debate would seem to be the thing for you, right?
3) He came here to challenge US to a debate.
So, it would follow that its up to him to actually stand behind his own words.
I'll keep trying to get him to debate.
I can record it, and do my usual help with audio (ie connect you two by phone for recording, or i could simply record the stickam room convo without being on the line. You should get a debate room on stickam so you have 2 big video windows side by side.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline I just finally got to listen to the Matt Slick show today (I had heard Kelly on his show, but not the RRS show), as it was long not available and I sorta forgot about it. However, damn.. a really embarssing performance if that's the best they got. I'd say bring IrishFarmer and Slick together for a tag team match with Sapient and todangst.
I'll get the popcorn.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll take the cosmology arm of the debate if need be, but I thought he'd already said that he couldn't see any scientific flaws and he had some, er, ahem "philosophical" and "logical" objections, which were never presented, merely asserted. I can take a portion of the debate if need be, otherwise, I need to free some time to prepare my next (which is about the nature of the Problem of Interaction and the resulting absurdity of any epistemilogical grounds for the supernatural, which will conclude my series on The Absurdity of the Concept of Immaterial Minds)
Although, come to think of it, assuming he returns, is it really fair to have us both take him simultaneously?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:I've emailed this assclown asking for a debate on stickam concerning his claims on logic and cosmology. IF DG wants to take part, he can cover cosmology and I can focus on logic.
He whined that he wanted a debate 'elsewhere' without specifying where. I stated we could do an audio debate, seeing as his original complaints were:
1) That he didn't get a chance to go on the show.
Well then, why not go to stickam and debate in front of some of the very people who regularly listen to the show?
2) He wanted to give you guys a phone call.
Well, if that's the case, then audio debate would seem to be the thing for you, right?
3) He came here to challenge US to a debate.
So, it would follow that its up to him to actually stand behind his own words.
I'll keep trying to get him to debate.
I can record it, and do my usual help with audio (ie connect you two by phone for recording, or i could simply record the stickam room convo without being on the line. You should get a debate room on stickam so you have 2 big video windows side by side.
I don't have a camera, but otherwise I'm ready. Let's remember that our friend here has done the following:
1) Written a blog complaining about not being allowed to come on the radio show to debate.
2) Started a thread here to make the same complaint.
3) Claimed he wished he could call RRS on the phone to discuss this.
Then, after all these whiny complaints about not getting a chance to an audio debate, I offered him one.
And he's run away from it!
Everyone here should just keep repeating that I have offered him precisely what he claimed he wanted: a chance to come on and talk. Live. He can bring his 'notes'.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll take the cosmology arm of the debate if need be,
Cool. If he's willing to debate his claims on logic, I'm ready. I can handle cosmology too, but you've written on it more than me.
Although, come to think of it, assuming he returns, is it really fair to have us both take him simultaneously?
It wouldn't be simultaneous. If he grows a pair, we can split the time.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline He's emailing me now, bitching that he's being forced into something that he has no say in.... an audio debate.
I pointed out to him that he came here to complain that he didn't get a chance to go on the RADIO SHOW.
And that he came here to ask to speak to the RRS on the PHONE.
It was his idea for audio. Not mine.
But I think this guy's self awareness is about zero.
My sense is that after returning some of his own insults to him, he'll complain that he's been insulted and that this prevents him from debating.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Too bad all of lifes problems can't hit him at 17 when he knows everything.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline Dissociative Identity Disorder, Perhaps?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline Too bad all of lifes problems can't hit him at 17 when he knows everything.
Right now, we are still exchanging emails. Mine basically go like this:
You want a debate? Let's go. Stickam, right now. Let's go.
and he says things like:
Why are you avoiding the debate?
**************************************************
I've also offered to repost DG's quiz for him to answer.
I think I'll email them now.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Our latest email exchange:
All right, dumbtard. I've put up with about as much from you as I can take. You telling me that I have to debate you, but then you saying it won't be a debate is not a contradiction? Well then a square circle isn't a contradiction either. How can we have a debate that isn't a debate? Please explain that logic to me. I'm not going to waste one more minute of my life on this conversation. Lay out the format, or go away. Debate, or don't. Your choice. Its not going to be a lecture. Its going to have rules. Its going to be on the problem of evil. And now its going to be written. Those are my conditions. Your next e-mail will be either an acceptance of these rules, your own personal ideas for rules, or you letting me know that you cannot agree to those conditions. Nothing more, and nothing less. If your next e-mail does not conform to those conditions, I'm going to mark your address as spam. Make the choice; do you want the debate to happen? Or not? Are you an arrogant jerk, looking to stroke his ego - or were you actually serious about debating?
I'll have my finger ready on the spam button.
MY response:
All right, dumbtard. I've put up with about as much from you as I can take. You telling me that I have to debate you, but then you saying it won't be a debate is not a contradiction?
Oh, poor Phil. Let me explain it for you again:
It will be a 'debate' - don't worry. It will be a debate in the sense that we will both meet and exchange words.
But it won't be a debate in the sense that you are incapable of actual debate. You'd have to know what you were talking about to really debate. So it will be me, lecturing to you, over your ignorance.
Let me make it real simple for you. It's like this:
Announcer: "Mr. T, do you accept the challenge from Balboa?"
Mr T: I reject the challenge from Balboa, because Balboa is no challenge.
Now, is Mr T turning down the fight? No! He's a making a joke, and a point: that there's no challenge for him. So when I say it won't be a debate but a lecture, I'm speaking 'trash" Get it now? Or should I use pictures?
Lay out the format, or go away. Debate, or don't. Your choice.
Format is this: Stickam. Audio. Otherwise, you choose the first topic, you choose who speaks first (By all means, you go first), you choose the time periods. You choose everything. Save for one thing: All I ask is that we also cover logic and cosmology too.
Since you're a whiny brat who has to have everything go his way, even when you're the one issuing the challenge (something that ordinarily NEVER occurs in a challenge) I capitulate.
Whatever YOU WANT. Whatever YOU WANT.
Is that enough for you? Whatever you want? Or will WHATEVER YOU WANT still not be enough?
If your next e-mail does not conform to those conditions,
I've given in to any conditions you like. No matter what. As long as it's audio. Otherwise, anytime, any format.
You can call me and wake me up four am during a flu-inspired delirium
You can call me collect
You can call me, just call me.... anytime, any conditions.
Is that enough?
Or did I just ruin your last gasp for a way out?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline "And now its going to be written."
If thats all he wanted why doesn't he just have his fun here?
- Login to post comments
Offline "And now its going to be written."
If thats all he wanted why doesn't he just have his fun here?
because we'll "gang up" on him.
- Login to post comments
Offline Voiderest wrote:"And now its going to be written."
If thats all he wanted why doesn't he just have his fun here?
because we'll "gang up" on him.
He's looking for any and all excuses to run: here's our latest exchange:
Posting your last e-mail and mine on the RRS while leaving everything else out? No wonder you were so cordial. You wouldn't want them to see what an obsessive jerk you are by giving them the whole story? I guess I don't blame you. I wasn't actually the challenger, except to Brian and Kelly. You challenged me. However, that still doesn't justify me getting whatever I want. Normally the debaters come together and agree on the terms, but apparently that concept is beyond you. Since I pretty much get to decide everything, here are the conditions. You claimed you could sink me in two minutes. You get two minutes to make the argument from evil, and then I can rebut for as long as I please. If I feel like it, I'll give you a few minutes to respond, but it'll depend on how thoughtful your first statement is. If you debate anything like you write e-mails, then I'm not going to give you a chance to respond to what I say. I'll know by the time your first two minutes are up. Some behaviors that will cause me to end the debate. 1). Lying about what I've said at any time. 2). Ignoring points that I've made by following with a non-sequitor. 3). Mockery of any kind. 4). Implying that you are extremely smart at any time. 5). Making redundant remarks, and ceasing to do so. 6). Insisting that I'm ignorant on any or every topic. For the rest of the debate topics, I will ask you a question, and you will answer. At which point I will have as much time as I want to nitpick your answer to my question. I will then grant you as much time as I deem necessary for you to respond. You will not go one minute over my allotted time or the debate is over. After that, it might be pointless to debate on logic. I'm actually not entirely convinced of my own argument anymore. *GASP* Yes, I can expand my understanding on certain subjects. Though I may entertain you on that debate anyway, just to see where it goes. Tell me what you specifically want to debate on cosmology, so I know what kind of question(s) to ask. \n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Also, since you insist in our e-mails that a debate which is not a debate is not logically contradictory, you will explain, in front of the live audience, why you are right. You will also explain to them how me asking Kelly (and Brian) for an over-the-phone chat (months ago) implies that I'm challenging any and every RRS member to an informal debate on stickam right now, and as such that I am bound to follow up on my word. You cannot lie about any of this, or the debate is off; you will accurately represent the facts to the live audience. In fact, you'll have to do these two things before the debate can even start. Either that, or you will admit to me, privately (via e-mail) that you were incorrect. If you cannot do this, then you must explain the logic you used while making those arguments to the live audience, since you stand by them. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Another condition. You have to post the ENTIRE e-mail conversation on the RRS forums so that they can see how obnoxious and childish you really are. At times when you sent consecutive e-mails, you must post how many minutes apart each e-mail was from the last, so that they can get an idea of the timing. This can happen at any time before thursday (so that I can make sure people have seen it). When it happens, since I don't visit the site regularly, you must e-mail me the link to the topic that you've started. You can put it in general conversations, and include a little bit of background so people understand where the conversation is coming from. The e-mails must be copied verbatim, in an easy to read format. You cannot add comments to the post, you can only post the e-mails. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Finally, the debate will take place this upcoming saturday at a time which I will e-mail to you before the end of the week. I will work with you on the timing.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>If any of this does not agree with you, I really don't give a crap. You told me the conditions were mine and I've made them. Take it or leave it. ",1] ); //--> Also, since you insist in our e-mails that a debate which is not a debate is not logically contradictory, you will explain, in front of the live audience, why you are right. You will also explain to them how me asking Kelly (and Brian) for an over-the-phone chat (months ago) implies that I'm challenging any and every RRS member to an informal debate on stickam right now, and as such that I am bound to follow up on my word. You cannot lie about any of this, or the debate is off; you will accurately represent the facts to the live audience. In fact, you'll have to do these two things before the debate can even start. Either that, or you will admit to me, privately (via e-mail) that you were incorrect. If you cannot do this, then you must explain the logic you used while making those arguments to the live audience, since you stand by them. Another condition. You have to post the ENTIRE e-mail conversation on the RRS forums so that they can see how obnoxious and childish you really are. At times when you sent consecutive e-mails, you must post how many minutes apart each e-mail was from the last, so that they can get an idea of the timing. This can happen at any time before thursday (so that I can make sure people have seen it). When it happens, since I don't visit the site regularly, you must e-mail me the link to the topic that you've started. You can put it in general conversations, and include a little bit of background so people understand where the conversation is coming from. The e-mails must be copied verbatim, in an easy to read format. You cannot add comments to the post, you can only post the e-mails. Finally, the debate will take place this upcoming saturday at a time which I will e-mail to you before the end of the week. I will work with you on the timing. If any of this does not agree with you, I really don't give a crap. You told me the conditions were mine and I've made them. Take it or leave it. \n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>If you fail to comply with any of these rules, then as far as I'm concerned you forfeit the debate. After your ridiculous behavior in these e-mails, I'm not taking any chances with my time; you have to prove that you can handle yourself like an adult before the debate (or lecture as you put it since apparently I'm mentally retarded) will continue. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Seriously, you've completely destroyed any respect that I used to have for you. I'll give you a chance to re-earn some trust, but now its going to be troublesome for you.\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Remember, I did not leave an open invitation for an audio debate for any and every RRS nobody on the forums. I pointed out that I did not get a chance to have a discussion WITH BRIAN AND KELLY THE ONLY PEOPLE I 'CHALLENGED', and so I would ask some questions on the forum. This is YOUR challenge to me. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Actually, one further condition. In any follow-up e-mails to this one, if you send so much as one more lie about what I've done or said the debate is off. If you insist that me challenging Kelly to a debate is the same as challenging everyone who is a member of the RRS, the debate is off. If you insist that a debate can be a debate, and not a debate at the same time, the debate is off. If you mock me in any way, the debate is off. If you imply that you are a genius in any way, the debate is off. If you capitalize one single letter that isn't grammatically required, the debate is off. If you insist that I'm ignorant on every topic, or any topic, the debate is off.\n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>One other final condition, I can make any other conditions I want leading up to the debate, and as you said I pretty much have free reign during the debate. \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\> \u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>I've got school tomorrow and I should be in bed already, so I'm going for now. Since you apparently have no life, I'm sure I'll have your response within the next 15 minutes. I'll get back to you when I have the time. \n",1] ); //--> If you fail to comply with any of these rules, then as far as I'm concerned you forfeit the debate. After your ridiculous behavior in these e-mails, I'm not taking any chances with my time; you have to prove that you can handle yourself like an adult before the debate (or lecture as you put it since apparently I'm mentally retarded) will continue. Seriously, you've completely destroyed any respect that I used to have for you. I'll give you a chance to re-earn some trust, but now its going to be troublesome for you. Remember, I did not leave an open invitation for an audio debate for any and every RRS nobody on the forums. I pointed out that I did not get a chance to have a discussion WITH BRIAN AND KELLY THE ONLY PEOPLE I 'CHALLENGED', and so I would ask some questions on the forum. This is YOUR challenge to me. Actually, one further condition. In any follow-up e-mails to this one, if you send so much as one more lie about what I've done or said the debate is off. If you insist that me challenging Kelly to a debate is the same as challenging everyone who is a member of the RRS, the debate is off. If you insist that a debate can be a debate, and not a debate at the same time, the debate is off. If you mock me in any way, the debate is off. If you imply that you are a genius in any way, the debate is off. If you capitalize one single letter that isn't grammatically required, the debate is off. If you insist that I'm ignorant on every topic, or any topic, the debate is off. One other final condition, I can make any other conditions I want leading up to the debate, and as you said I pretty much have free reign during the debate.
I've got school tomorrow and I should be in bed already, so I'm going for now. Since you apparently have no life, I'm sure I'll have your response within the next 15 minutes. I'll get back to you when I have the time.
************************
I'm guessing high school tomorrow.
On 9/3/07, Phil na <[email protected]> wrote: Posting your last e-mail and mine on the RRS while leaving everything else out? No wonder you were so cordial.
You wouldn't want them to see what an obsessive jerk you are by giving them the whole story? I guess I don't blame you.
If I post them all, they'll see that you're the obsessive jerk Phil. Aguy who spends more time talking about a debate than the actual time it would have taken to have had it already.
That's pretty obsessive. So post em, Phil. Oh, if you don't find enough insults, salt and pepper these in: FUCK YOU, COCKHEAD, SHUT UP YOU LYING JOKE, YOU'RE A MORON.. Feel free to cut and paste them in often.
I wasn't actually the challenger, except to Brian and Kelly. You challenged me.
You came to the board looking for a challenge. Why else did you post your questions? You came to complain about talking to the RRS. Well here I am. You challenged the RRS. Here I am. Will you ever stop lying about this?
However, that still doesn't justify me getting whatever I want. Normally the debaters come together and agree on the terms, but apparently that concept is beyond you.
No, it's actually beyond you. You can't even figure out that you came to our board to challenge the RRS to a debate! When I tried to take you up on your seven questions you ran from defending any of them save for one. So you created the problem by reneging from your own challenge.
Then, as you began to whine like a bitch with sand in your vagina, I decided to just let you ramble on over whatever inane topic you wanted to debate. ANYTHING to get you to stop your incessant whining and your incessant lying ABOUT the debate and just get you to actually debate! Ali -Frazier was easier to sign than a debate with you.
The truth is: after you finish with your inane misunderstanding of the POE, I'll get to take you on.... hopefully whoever is there will still be awake.
Since I pretty much get to decide everything, here are the conditions. You claimed you could sink me in two minutes. You get two minutes to make the argument from evil, and then I can rebut for as long as I please. If I feel like it, I'll give you a few minutes to respond, but it'll depend on how thoughtful your first statement is.
My statement will go over your head. Anyway, I won't need any more time. I've already posted you the refutation to your inane mis-comprehension of what the POE. Look: Even THEISTS will cringe as you spout out your misunderstandings of the POE and your defense of POE.
Here's a hint: if one can show that an omnipotent 'god' cannot co-exist with evil, as defined by theists, then it doesn't matter if the concept of 'evil' makes sense outside of theistic framework. The concept can be accepted as a hypothetical within the theistic framework so as to examine the claim for internal consistency. So your entire defense fails. If 'evil' makes no sense outside the theistic framework, that would actually be moot.
Do you understand that? If not, I can explain it further. But seeing as you can't even work out that saying "it won't be a debate, it will be me lecturing you on what you don't know!" isn't an actual contradiction, I'm not quite sure if I can help you.
So anyway, you get to ramble on as long as you like. The longer you ramble on over a point based on a fatal flaw, the more ridiculous you'll look. I'll just point out that within the theistic framework the two concepts: omnipotence/omniscience and evil are internally problematic, and everyone in the room (theists included) other than you, will grasp the point. Because the problem is still considered a problem by intellectually minded theists. It's only the internet theist who's behind the times...
Some behaviors that will cause me to end the debate. 1). Lying about what I've said at any time.
You lie all the time. Should we stop now?
2). Ignoring points that I've made by following with a non-sequitor.
You ignore entire essays, entire posts, every question put to you. Should we stop now?
Also: you really don't have an idea of what an actual non sequitur is (It's sequitUr, again, seriously, all kidding aside, I don't screw with people over misspellings - I am really, honestly just trying to help again. It's a common misspelling anyway. I used to make it. Don't I seem friendly here?)
So since you really don't grasp what is an actual non sequitur and what isn't, I think it would be fair to have a judge decide, don't you?
3). Mockery of any kind.
Your very first post on our site was a set of personal attacks. Should we stop now?
Your blog was a set of personal attacks, Should we stop now?
Do you get that you bring this on yourself? Do you? At all?
4). Implying that you are extremely smart at any time.
You brought that up. Not me. Should we stop now?
Come on and just admit that you feel intimidated. Truth sets ya free, ya know....
Anyway, you make me look smart, because you argue over topics for which you are uninformed. And that's why you're not going to look all that good Saturday night.
5). Making redundant remarks, and ceasing to do so.
You ignore what I say, I repeat. Don't blame me for you running from what I say. Again sounds like you want a ref.
6). Insisting that I'm ignorant on any or every topic.
You're not ignorant of every topic. I bet you know your name and address.
As for being ignorant of the topics you seek to debate: You're own words will be proof of that. I won't need to say a thing.
For the rest of the debate topics, I will ask you a question, and you will answer.
That's not a debate, it's an interview. Do you want to debate or not?
Just a head's up for you own sake: No one will want to listen to you pontificate endlessly... or me for that matter. Nor will they want to hear a todangst interview. It sounds to me that your solution to your fear of debating me is that you're not going to debate at all. You're free to set up the format as you like, but remember that if there's an audience, you don't want to actually send the crowd running from the room.
So: You're making some pretty big claims. Why not answer a few questions yourself? You want to discuss transcendence and immateriality, why not define them for us?
After that, it might be pointless to debate on logic. I'm actually not entirely convinced of my own argument anymore.
Be honest: have you ever even taken a course in logic 101? Have you even read a book on logic? You've been absolutely frightened by this topic from the start.
Also, since you insist in our e-mails that a debate which is not a debate is not logically contradictory, you will explain, in front of the live audience, why you are right.
Sure!
I would love to listen to the crowd roll in peels of laughter when I explain it to them!
I'm saying it won't be a debate because it will be a slaughter. You know, like "it won't be a fight, it will be a slaughter." Trash talk. Are you really still this lost?
Debate would require that you actually were able to respond to my arguments, which in turn would require that you understand them. You won't because you don't. If you did, you'd have actually responded on the board. If you did, you'd not offer up the ridiculous debate form you've created. But hey, it's your idea..
So, the point is: Any 'debate' with you can't really be a debate, in the sense that boxing a man without arms can't really be a boxing match. Even if the sign the match and agree to meet.
Does that help you figure it out now? Do you really want to be humiliated like that? Everyone in the room will get it, right from the start. You sure you want that?
Because I'm fine with it if you insist. But I really don't want to be that cruel.
Another condition. You have to post the ENTIRE e-mail conversation on the RRS forums so that they can see how obnoxious and childish you really are.
I do hope that you will eventually one day wake up and realize that you are starting these fights. I didn't come to your site and start attacking everyone there. No one on the site will give a fuck that I call you on your ignorance and dishonesty over and over, seeing as you've basically done little but attack everyone on the site before any of the rest of us even said a word to you.
In other words, you'll end up looking like the ass. But again, hey, whatever you like. You can post them too. Go on. Oh: and if you still need more, salt and pepper these in: FUCKARD, FUNDYTARD and DIPSHOVEL(tm). (trying out a new insult)
Finally, the debate will take place this upcoming saturday at a time which I will e-mail to you before the end of the week. I will work with you on the timing.
OK! I await your contact.
If any of this does not agree with you, I really don't give a crap. You told me the conditions were mine and I've made them. Take it or leave it. If you fail to comply with any of these rules, then as far as I'm concerned you forfeit the debate.
If you run from the debate for any reason, I'll post your whiny excuse on the site. Don't run Phil. Don't look for an excuse to run. As things stand, you've basically made sure that there won't be much of a debate to begin with, so I'd imagine that things are comfortable enough even for you.
Actually, one further condition. In any follow-up e-mails to this one, if you send so much as one more lie about what I've done or said the debate is off.
I've never lied about you, Phil, so that's yet another lie from you. You lie all the time. You're lying about me now.
Phil, just so that you know: you're a pisser. Hey, just one more question: do I get to have my mic on for the debate?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline What a Georgia O'Keeffe painting he turned out to be.*
(*Cleaned up so as not to cause debate forfeiture. Am also not breathing so as not to accidentally give IF reason to call forfeiture on debate.)
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm reminded of David Letterman's occasional game "Is this anything?"
I'm going to go ahead and conclude, no... this isn't anything. I don't think that when this bizarely constructed conversation (no longer a debate) takes place it'll hit the topic at all. Instead, he'll take a page from the carm playbook and try to debate what exactly a debate is, or what a question is.
Looks like a possible place to find a good deal on some straw: http://www.agriseek.com/ IrishFarmer will need more.
- Login to post comments
Offline After reading the emails from him to todangst, I've decided I'd rather metamorphose into a snow ball and sneak into Dante's Gates than debate with someone so pathetic.
I'm going to go debate with a rock on my front porch now. When I'm done, I'm going to try and bleed it.
At least my rock doesn't have Dissociative Identity Disorder.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline After reading the emails from him to todangst, I've decided I'd rather metamorphose into a snow ball and sneak into Dante's Gates than debate with someone so pathetic.
I'm going to go debate with a rock on my front porch now. When I'm done, I'm going to try and bleed it.
At least my rock doesn't have Dissociative Identity Disorder.
My favorite part was when he called my statement:
"It won't be a debate, debate requires two people who know something about the topic, it will be me lecturing you"
a contradiction, because I was asking for a debate while 'denying' it was a debate.
I actually had to explain what trash talk was, 3 times... and he still doesnt' get it.
I don't know if it gets discussed in this exchange, but he concedes that he doesn't want to debate logic. I told him I really didn't want to talk about POE for 10 minutes, and that I'd only need a two minute response. But his desire to just ask me questions for the rest of the 'debate' is pretty inane... hopefully, if anyone at all is in the room, they'll insist on an actual exchange on a topic.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline What a Georgia O'Keeffe painting he turned out to be.*
(*Cleaned up so as not to cause debate forfeiture. Am also not breathing so as not to accidentally give IF reason to call forfeiture on debate.)
LOL. You sorta picked up on his desire to find a way to back out too, huh?
And yes Stunt gibbon, as things stand, it's hardly a debate. As things stand, he'll take 10 minutes to repeat his version of POE as he presented it on page 1, and I'll spend 30 seconds or so explaining that one can accept a claim hypothetically, in order to demonstrate internal inconsistency, without declaring an actual acceptance of truth of the claims, and then perhaps use the other 1:30 to point out the logical fallacies he used along the way.
I really don't see how it could interest anyone, so hopefullyl after that farce, he'll stick around, grow a pair, and try to defend his other arguments here. (Oh, and yes, he'll say "they are questions, not arguments!)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Todangst, if this debate actuall happens, please please post date and time. I soooooooooo want to be there.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:What a Georgia O'Keeffe painting he turned out to be.*
(*Cleaned up so as not to cause debate forfeiture. Am also not breathing so as not to accidentally give IF reason to call forfeiture on debate.)LOL. You sorta picked up on his desire to find a way to back out too, huh?
And yes Stunt gibbon, as things stand, it's hardly a debate. As things stand, he'll take 10 minutes to repeat his version of POE as he presented it on page 1, and I'll spend 30 seconds or so explaining that one can accept a claim hypothetically, in order to demonstrate internal inconsistency, without declaring an actual acceptance of truth of the claims, and then perhaps use the other 1:30 to point out the logical fallacies he used along the way.
I really don't see how it could interest anyone, so hopefullyl after that farce, he'll stick around, grow a pair, and try to defend his other arguments here. (Oh, and yes, he'll say "they are questions, not arguments!)
Yes because no one uses questions to argue points *rolls eyes* someone needa to read up on the Socratic method.
You know i really can't understand dishonesty at this extreame of a level. It doesnt make sense whatsoever.
- Login to post comments
Offline He has a deep sense of denial...
- Login to post comments
Offline It's also quite possible he'll use a good portion of his time to just complain that he's not instead talking to Brian and Kelly.
- Login to post comments
Offline He has a deep sense of denial...
- Login to post comments
Offline Irishfarmer. I will debate you.
I have no PHD in anything, I've only spent a year in College and attended (probably) the worst school in Oklahoma and still made bad grades (partially from academic boredom and partially because I was open about my atheism).
I will debate you in whatever subject you want. Whatever rules you want except one.
If you want to debate via text we do it here. It's a very simple thing to do too. You simply ignore what everyone else is saying and just click "Quote" under my posts. You can start, I can start, we can have someone else start the thread for us. I don't care.
But I'm telling you that I'm open to debate you on any subject.
- Login to post comments
Offline After telling 'Irish Farmer' that I agreed to his 'debate' but that he might want to reconsider his chosen format, he claimed I was trying to change the debate. And now he's looking to run away.
I pointed out that he should just grow a pair of balls and show up Saturday night.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Email exchange:
All right, dumbtard. I've put up with about as much from you as I can take. You telling me that I have to debate you, but then you saying it won't be a debate is not a contradiction? Well then a square circle isn't a contradiction either. How can we have a debate that isn't a debate? Please explain that logic to me. I'm not going to waste one more minute of my life on this conversation. Lay out the format, or go away. Debate, or don't. Your choice. Its not going to be a lecture. Its going to have rules. Its going to be on the problem of evil. And now its going to be written. Those are my conditions. Your next e-mail will be either an acceptance of these rules, your own personal ideas for rules, or you letting me know that you cannot agree to those conditions. Nothing more, and nothing less. If your next e-mail does not conform to those conditions, I'm going to mark your address as spam. Make the choice; do you want the debate to happen? Or not? Are you an arrogant jerk, looking to stroke his ego - or were you actually serious about debating?
I'll have my finger ready on the spam button.
That response was from the liar who stated he wanted to go to private email because...
Todangst. Since it seems you're putting on some kind of a show for your fellow militant atheists, why don't you e-mail me about the debate. That way you won't feel the need to make baseless accusations about me dodging anything, and you can feel free to actually talk to me with a bit of honesty.
This poor kid is a walking dishonest projection.
Thanks very much Todangst for wasting your time with the mentally inept, so I don't have to. I owe you one man.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline After telling 'Irish Farmer' that I agreed to his 'debate' but that he might want to reconsider his chosen format, he claimed I was trying to change the debate. And now he's looking to run away.
I pointed out that he should just grow a pair of balls and show up Saturday night.
bwhahaha, so you gave suggestions to him on the format and now he says you are trying to change the debate? Man this guy loves his self-defense mechanisms huh?
- Login to post comments
Offline After telling 'Irish Farmer' that I agreed to his 'debate' but that he might want to reconsider his chosen format, he claimed I was trying to change the debate. And now he's looking to run away.
I pointed out that he should just grow a pair of balls and show up Saturday night.
What?
You mean you didn't agree to debating at his church the winner to be determined by a panel of three pastors he/she/it has known for years?
Tod, you chicken 
<I hope you know I'm kidding by now>
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks very much Todangst for wasting your time with the mentally inept, so I don't have to. I owe you one man.
Brian, I'd need to come on the air for an hour just to tell you how moronic this guy is. He's utterly desparate to have the debate called off, even with him opening with 10 minutes, me rebutting for 2, and him getting a counter argument.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:After telling 'Irish Farmer' that I agreed to his 'debate' but that he might want to reconsider his chosen format, he claimed I was trying to change the debate. And now he's looking to run away.
I pointed out that he should just grow a pair of balls and show up Saturday night.
bwhahaha, so you gave suggestions to him on the format and now he says you are trying to change the debate? Man this guy loves his self-defense mechanisms huh?
Yes! Seriously, he's that ridiculous.
When I said "It won't be a debate, it will be a lecture: You saying something ignorant, and me lecturing you on your ignorance!" he complained that I was contradicting myself, because I was saying it was a lecture and then saying it wasn't! He even said "we won't turn it into a lecture!"
He's really that obtuse.
When I said "Choose any rules you like, but just interviewing me will bore people" he said I was trying to change the debate rules.
He's a childlike, concrete thinker. He can't handle complexity.
Saying "It won't be a fight, it will be a slaughter" to him, is actually a confusing contradiction!
I'd not insult the mentally challenged by comparing him to a develomentally disabled client. He's not up to their level.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline There's no "universe of discourse" for half the things Irish Spring wants to talk about in Logical Positivism, so I don't see how a debate between Todangst and any theist (or any continental philosopher for that matter) could ever be productive or coherent.
I've often envisioned going onto the radio show, giving my little monolog, and Todangst replying after several seconds of awkward silence "...Oh, what's that, you've begun? Pardon me if I didn't hear you, but you've said absolutely nothing!"
To which I drink a nice tall glass of hemlock.
- Login to post comments
Offline There's no "universe of discourse" for half the things Irish Spring wants to talk about in Logical Positivism, so I don't see how a debate between Todangst and any theist (or any continental philosopher for that matter) could ever be productive or coherent.
I've often envisioned going onto the radio show, giving my little monolog, and Todangst replying after several seconds of awkward silence "...Oh, what's that, you've begun? Pardon me if I didn't hear you, but you've said absolutely nothing!"
To which I drink a nice tall glass of hemlock.
You've basically read my mind. I once told the producer of the old infidelguy show that my dream debate would be this:
A large crowd shows up.
After a bunch of introductions and a big production, the theist presenter gives a lengthy 20 minute intro.
Then I take the podium and say: "The terms my opponent use are incoherent. Thank you, goodnight, and safe driving.
This is precisely why I wanted to debate logic or cosmology... to the POE, my instinct is: what exacty is POE refuting? An incoherent term, a term without any ontology. Why bother? In fact, if we did debate, I might just say "how can you refer to this 'god' in order to make your defense against POE, without stealing from naturalism? and then walk away from the mic for a cigarette break.
and I don't even smoke.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline You've basically read my mind. I once told the producer of the old infidelguy show that my dream debate would be this:
A large crowd shows up.
After a bunch of introductions and a big production, the theist presenter gives a lengthy 20 minute intro.
Then I take the podium and say: "The terms my opponent use are incoherent. Thank you, goodnight, and safe driving.
This is precisely why I wanted to debate logic or cosmology... to the POE, my instinct is: what exacty is POE refuting? An incoherent term, a term without any ontology. Why bother? In fact, if we did debate, I might just say "how can you refer to this 'god' in order to make your defense against POE, without stealing from naturalism? and then walk away from the mic for a cigarette break.
and I don't even smoke.
lmfao, i would love to see the faces on all the theists in attendence. to be so easily um pwned, i think i'd laugh til i couldn't breath anymore.
- Login to post comments
Offline For a religion that does so much to push peace, kindness, and goodwill, you'd think it's adherents would follow the tenents of the philosphy a bit better - at least the ones that want to convince anyone of it in public.
- Login to post comments
Offline I take it this "debate" hasn't happened? I lost track while I was on the road a bit.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but I felt compelled to add that point #5, far from being a contradiction, amounts to what is called a proof by contradiction. Basically you assume what you wish to disprove is true, and then you continue your reasoning until you come to a contradiction. This effectively proves your original assumtion of truth false. This method of proof is very common. It's basically the principle of falsification in science in which you do an expiriment to verify your theory assuming that your theory is true but designing the expiriment to prove the theory false if it can. If the expiriment does in fact lead you to a conclusion that contradicts your theory you have effectively falsified your theory. Also just to name a specific example of proof by contradiction you can look at the very elegant proof that the square root of 2 is not a rational number.
- Login to post comments
Offline IrishFarmer:
Its been said twice now that I don't know what I'm talking about. Yet I haven't seen one person contradict what I've said about cosmology and physics.
I just saw this post. I don't know if anyone else took the time to respond to it, I just had to respond as soon as I saw it.
"#2 If you accept mainstream scientific theories, then existence (at least as far as we're concerned) began with the big bang. How can you hold to an infinitely old universe (as a response to God not having to be created), based on this theory?"
The universe as we observe it today started with the big bang. The materials which make up the universe have always existed. The physicist Lee Smolin and his colleagueswithin the field of Loop Quantum gravity have a pretty compelling argument for all fundamental particles being made up entirely of braided spacetime. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645.800.html.
In any event, I don't know of any cosmologist who actually believes that the universe came from nothing. What we do know is that when we extrapolate the observed expansion of the universe in reverse the galaxies get closer together and all merge at a single point, at that point we reach a singularity. This is a mathematical condition of classical mechanics which cannot handle the equations of the universe at t=0 when it has no volume but lots of mass. At this point equations of gravitation derived from relativity are undefined. It's for this reason among others that cosmologists and theoretical physicists are so very interested in developing a quantum theory of gravity. Many theories have already been proposed which actually due remove the singularity. There is the famous basis of Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Euclidean Quantum Gravity, which has since fallen out of favor among the scientific community due to various problems. There is now a more recent model which is able to extrapolate back before the big bang. http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0102/0102069v1.pdf is a pretty detailed paper on another method that does away with the singularity. It does not suggest that the universe came into being from nothing.
#3 If time began to exist at the big bang (at least according to Stephen Hawkings if there is something natural beyond the big bang it cannot have affected us, and we can get no information from it), then how do you explain the universe as an atheist? For instance, if there is no space and time (no existence), then why existence? From nothing, nothing comes.
This is somewhat of a misquotation of Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking didn't claim difinitively that time came into existence at the big bang. He claimed that no information about time before the big bang survived the big bang event and so it is pointless to ask about time before the big bang. Thus for all intents and purposes time came into existence at the big bang. I hope you can see that this is not the same as saying that it is not possible that time existed before the big bang.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but I felt compelled to add that point #5, far from being a contradiction, amounts to what is called a proof by contradiction.
I pointed this out to him by email, he couldn't grasp it.
Example: "All zarks are taller than narks, all narks are taller than zarks."
I do not need to assume the existence of zarks or narks to claim this statement a contradiction. Irish farmer had a problem with abstract thinking.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline IrishFarmer:
Its been said twice now that I don't know what I'm talking about. Yet I haven't seen one person contradict what I've said about cosmology and physics.
I just saw this post. I don't know if anyone else took the time to respond to it, I just had to respond as soon as I saw it.
I did at some length in email. Irish farmer then refused to debate me over logic or cosmology, even conceding that he 'wasn't sure about his arguments anymore"
The more we spoke the more he realized he'd be humiliated in debate when his ignorance was exposed, so he eventually reneged on the debate challenge and ran.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Even though it is not the first time I have experienced this, I grow weary of it. You haven't backed up a single one of your claims. All you have done is made one-line assertions, you haven't backed anything you've said up, you've asserted problems and flaws in the essays. If there are actually flaws in the essays, you outline them. You don't just insist that you outlined them and then whine when no one believes because you haven't actually outlined because there is no reason to suppose that you can or will. You assert that the essays have "philosophical" problems, yet I have hitherto to see a single attempt at a counterargument. All you have managed to is assert that I am wrong, that's it. Over and over. You haven't justified it. You haven't elaborated. You haven't made any arguments. As I have already pointed out, if you did what you are doing in a formal debate right now, you would be out straight away. Why is it that you take the time to respond to other people but not todangst and I? Did the articles go too far over your head hence causing you to engage in pyschological projectionism by projecting your anger onto us? Or perhaps you, like most of my opponents, simply display the Dunning-Kruger effect. You haven't counterargumented. It's like arguing with a rock. Regardless of how much time you put into your argument-the fucking rock is always going to respond the same way- with nothing.
Argument: X is true, as shown by this article here
Response: You're wrong.
I might as well capitulate right now...clearly I cannot stand up to such intellectual might.
And by the way...you couldn't answer any of the questions, could you?
And now you've just informed me that you've "skimmed a few of the articles". Thats it? You haven't taken the time to read anything? Is such intellectual laziness still tolerated in our society? (Unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well said. And what makes it worse is that the supposed point for him starting this thread was because he wanted to go on the radio show to debate?! Yet he refuses to debate me, one person, in audio, because he's too afraid to face me!
It's clear that he's projecting his problems onto the world.
And yes, his gross ignorance of every topic is precisely what allows him to believe that he knows better.... (the odds of him knowing what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, is nill)
Nope. That was clear. We should just keep reposting them over and over.
****************************
I wanted to go on the radio show!
- Ok, let's debate on audio.
No, I'm too afraid! You're too smart!
- But didn't you just say my arguments were easy to refute?
Yes! But you're also too smart and too much of a challenge!
Gee, no contradiction there...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Shame on me for not reading the full thread. I quit after the first couple of posts, and started to bump deluded's essays up, hoping to get a response from farmerman. Seems I instilled a false sense of hope in Todangst.
Anyway, I'm just dying to hear this debate. It could be better than the "not not" guy from a few months back.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Its an insult to point out that he has no credentials?
Are you being deliberately dense? It's an ad hom to suppose his argument is invalid based solely on his background. You made a comparison to the rejection of creationism in favor of evolution. While creationism lacks credible proponents, it also lacks credible arguments and any shred of evidence. Since you have yet to see a compilation of Rook's arguments, your basis for dismissal is about him and his background: ad hom, "to the person."
Then perhaps you'll chastise your fellow atheists for accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about when we have yet to actually have a discussion.
In over your head a bit? It's not my concern.
Nice red herring, but I don't see how this is an appropriate response to what I've stated. If it makes you uncomfortable to believe what you believe, that's fine, but if you don't have a point then I'm curious as to why you bothered informing me that a lot of people disagree with Hitler. I already knew that.
There are moral inclinations we personally have, and moral principles we agree on as a society. That's not a red herring, that's the extent of it. If a person makes the argument that we've evolved morality, it's not to say that we don't kill each other on impulse because Charles Darwin told us not to; it's that cooperativeness and empathy are traits that have helped us survive, and so they are traits we still possess. If solitary behavior had been better for survival than social, we would be lone, fiercely territorial creatures. If cannibalism had gotten us further, we would be hunting and eating our competitor's young. If that's offensive, it's because of that innate empathy and those social standards I was talking about, not because of magic morals (simply because there's no evidence for magical morals, and there's every reason to believe the biological and social basis for morality). Your question of absolute versus relative morality is a false dichotomy, as we have no basis to suppose an absolute morality exists, even if we took religious texts at their self-contradicting word. We further have no evidence claimed adherence to such "absolute" morality affects behavior in any favorable way. If "absolute" morality was a meaningful term in reality, a Christian should be bound not to commit any "sin," rather than simply feeling regretful later.
Also if Christian morality was absolute, wouldn't they all agree on it? Why are there so many sects with different rules? If there's some underlying purpose and guidance to all of this, don't you think you could all get THAT story right?
Wouldn't you think "the law" would be the one thing the supreme creator of the universe would want you to know, with no mistakes? Why is it only hidden in vague phrases and parables? Also, if it was REALLY something this being was worried about... you'd think there might be some refresher courses for the planet. He'd poke down and see people killing each other over old books, put on the brakes and set us right? Right? Oh wait, there's none of that. Put more money in the plate and maybe someday huh?
All of this is perfectly consistant with no god. However, it takes leaping through some hoops of fuzzy logic to hold onto that belief.
True. And if christian morality is 'absolute' then this would contradict the necesary ramifications of omnipotence requiring that every existence be contingent, not necessary.
Finally, how would a theist explain god condoning and ordering rape, if rape is always evil?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Also, if any one of the popular religions were true, you'd expect a perfect record in war. If you actually had the supreme all-powerful creator of the universe "on your side", then every battle you entered would be a victory and you would suffer no casualties.
An undefeated army with zero casualties. How many of these have there been?
No you haven't. That you think you have stated something meaningful only goes to demonstrate your ignorance. When you realize that the things you bring up in your question have nothing to do with the validity of any given position then you will realize why it is a non-sequitur to ask if it isn't irrational to hold to opposite beliefs of these two totally different topics. That you seem unable to comprehend this does not bode well for fruitful discussion.
You will probably say that this is dodging the question. That too will demonstrate your ignorance.
Perhaps. You would have to discuss that with someone who considered the Jesus myth question one of importance. This, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that your question was a non-sequitur , as I pointed out and you failed to undrstand, and the fact that if you have such trouble understanding such a simple point you are in way over your head trying to debate, even considering the sophmoric nature of the topics you delusionaly think you have stumped the forum with.
To have existed for all of time.
As I said, and you snipped, when you ask such a ridiculous question you can not expect a reasonable answer. Thanks for helping to demonstrate your failure to comprehend even the most simplistic response.
Well, you would have to provide evidence that it is logically impossible to 'have time' (whatever that means) before the Big Bang in order to make such a claim. Luckily, I agree with you and will not press you for evidence. Where you got the notion that I did not agree or that I did not understand is beyond me. Perhaps more of your reading comprehension problems.
I never said you had mentioned a cosmological argument. Geez, are you really this dense. I simply answered the question and mentioned that all cosmological arguments fail because they can not address the answer I presented as a little added bonus.
Let's answer again and see if you comprendo this time. The universe has existed for all of time. There is no pre-universe state or time so questions of the origin of 'from whence came the universe' are inherently non-sensical. The big bang is the initial state of existence. Are you grasping anything yet? I doubt it, but I could always hope.
My dog is presently shaking his head at your ineptitude. First, I tried to explain to you that you have provided good evidence that you don't even have an understanding of what logic is. You of course snipped this. I guess, considering this fact, to expect you to understand that I was showing your question to be moot was probably too much to hope for.
You asked how one could account for knowledge without the existence of a, well let's call a delusion a delusion, a god in which to base it. I asked how one could base it in a god. If one can not base it in a god then why should I answer a question of how it can exist without a god, as the question then becomes meaningless. If you were to ask for a natural basis for logic then I would have a meaningful qquestion to answer.
Ill pretend that you asked the question in a meaningfulk manner and answer here. Logic is based in the way human minds process the data they receive existing in the physical universe. There is existence and then there is the human minds understanding of the nature of existence. This is where logic has it roots.
No, as I said it was incoherent. Perhaps now you have formulated a coherent thought. Let's see.
Your first premise is an unfounded assertion. There is no reason to think it true. Not to mention that, even if the first premise were granted, the entire argument becomes incoherent, as I stated it was even before you put it in this more obvious format.
You see, with your first premise granted, if god does not exist thus objective evil does not exist, then evil not existing renders it false that the problem of evil disproves the existence of god, so then objective evil can exist, so then the problem of evil does show god to not exist, so now objective evil doesn't exist, so now the problem of evil doesn't show god to not exist...... See the incoherence now?
That's why no reasonable person would ever make this argument, and as I stated when you seemed to think I did not understand your sophmoric questions, it no coherent homie.
I'm beginning to think you are just mocking theists as opposed to an actual theist who actually thinks he has some knowledge worthy of throwing insults at the predominately educated intelligent members of this forum. You're too much a caricature to be true.
No burden of proof needs shifted. The atheist needs not prove anything to begin with. If one claims that god might allow evil for a higher moral purpose they must explain why their god could not arrive at the same end by a means that does not make use of evil or else their objection is empty and the atheist need not ever consider it.
But I do have a way of determining what evil is. Perhaps you should ask me what that is. I'll give you a hint: It lies in my interpretation of objective moral values.
You've stated nothing. Are you hallucinating?
Why do you think this true?
Funny coming from a guy who has offered nothing.
I think it is more likely that some probably did and you simply did not understand.
Objective moral values are social behaviors which are either beneficial or detrimental to survival. They are objective from the perspective of the human race, which is the only perspective that can be of any relevance to a human being, as it is the only perspective they can know.
feel free to traise your objections. I've had this conversation with many, but I don't mind rehashing for you. You're special to me.
I had no problem understanding you when you were coherent. The fault for your inability to form a meaningful question does not lie at my doorstep.
I normally don't take this tone with others in these discussion but your conduct so far demands such a tone. You have shown yourself to be a poorly educated overly confident child. When you decide to conduct yourelf in a manner worhty of respect I will speak to you more respectfully. Until then I can treat you as nothing but the pseudo-intellectual brat you show yourself to be.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
EDIT IN: I'm not proofreading this.
Remember the articles you were linked to? They explain it, you just didn't read and digest them. The I have no explanation excuse no longer works, your excuse could be willful ignorance though.
Realizing that were actually related to millions of people who are so ignorant can be a downer, to add to the fact that your arrogant about your ignorance doesn't make it easier to relate to this species. I don't blame him for drinking after having to read your drivel.
You're already engaged in debates here. Man up, don't lie, grow a backbone.
You didn't sign a waiver. The point was that you simply laughed off 5 lengthy articles that address everything you've brought up. You made no posts on any of them exposing a single flaw in any of them and you laughed it off. Laugh away it's the best medicine (for being clueless).
If you want a moderated one on one style debate/discussion you could've asked for it. I of course would've refused. Now that you are here, our board rules apply not yours. You can ask people, just as I can suggest they all ignore you request. Which I will... this thread is open to anyone and everyone who is an active member of this website. If any of you have on topic posts, by all means please do as you always do and participate in this thread and all threads.
Funny, I don't know many atheists that can't justify objective morals. You're reading the wrong stuff.
Read Richard Carrier, "Sense and Goodness without God, a defense of metaphysical naturalism."
It's not intelligent to speak above your audience. That argument was used in front of 7 million Americans and the overwhelming majority of theists listening to that broadcast needed easy to understand arguments. Furthermore, when reiterating my arguments, could you at least give it an old college try to make it accurate. I didn't say male nipples disproved God, I indicated that male nipples are not reasonable creations of an intelligent entity. Male nipples lend credence to evolution, not god... but considering your comprehension sucks, I guess this lack of understanding is par for the course.
Just curious.... Why do you suppose God gave men non functional nipples, knowing ahead of time that scientists would make obvious correlations with an human evolutionary origin?
It was a reasonable assumption, and I believe a very accurate one. Prove him wrong, until then we're laughing at your arrogant willful sarcastic ignorance (it's our coping mechanism that we are related to such ignorant and yet arrogant people). Head over to the DeludedGod posts and at least start with a single valid objection, because you haven't come close yet.
Fuck you.
Fuck you, liar.
Both are functioning well.
Now that's a good one. He ran away from almost every single question, and became the laughing stock of our community the day he came on our show. He was by far the worst performance by anyone who would be considered to be a credible and respectable defender of the faith. It was the first time I had to hang up on a caller for being asked the same question 5-10 times and refusing it to answer it each time.
The question came a moment after he wrongfully claimed that Rook had presuppositions that were wrong. Since he has a presupposition about Gods existence and he was claiming Rook had presuppositions (even though he didn't) I asked... "If some presuppositions are wrong, how can we test which ones are right and which ones are wrong?"
He then started whining about a variety of issues, from too many people being on our show to talking about what he perceived as logical fallacies from 20 minutes prior. We tried to politely calm him down as we restated the question several times. He had to hear the question clearly no less than 5 times. After telling him we had enough, he said "ok, well let's have you ask the question again and will see if it's a good question." *HANG UP PHONE*
At least he got an hour! I didn't have to say a word, hundreds of people have commented on how bad he looked in that show. His defense on his own show had something to do with a hearing problem that sounded more like a learning disability (which most of us suspect he has... you as well).
It's not convenient. It would be more convenient if there was a way to pass basic logic on to you within a few words so you knew why he was a moron. But considering your willfull ignorance and lack of interest reading and refuting what has already been presented to you, I see no reason to count the ways. Presuppositionalists are just too fucking stupid to function in society, and considering you're a fan boy of his, it's likely your even less able to grasp basic concepts like... being a presuppositionalist is something to be ashamed of.
Apparently denial is not just a river in egypt.
How convenient. Oh and fuck you.
How bout you pay attention dip shit. HE SAID "You're running from the debate." Here you are debating us, and you claim you needto do it elsewhere.
THAT IS RUNNING AWAY FROM THE DEBATE YOU ARROGANT CLUELESS ASSHOLE.
I was at that place with you a month ago and I didn't run. But shall you run like the pussy that you have been accused of being and have denied over and over, don't let the URL hit you on the way out.
Why are you the only person claiming that this forum isn't functional?
RUN MUCH? Willfully ignorant pussy you are.
There is nothing more infuriating than willful ignorance. Listen close... and try to digest. These aren't insults they are the things you need to hear to get your ass in gear. Snap out of it. You are purposefully remaining ignorant to the facts, you are lacking basic logic abilities and you need to think about this often, dwell on it, focus on getting over it. Work on it. You have a long way to go. I am not trying to be mean, I know it appears that way. I have this hunch that even though you'll hate me, some of this will sink in later. Hopefully the "willfully ignorant" portion will sink in. If it does, I suggest spending the first week of your new found mental freedom researching the opposite of everything you believe. Then spend the second week questioning everything you believe and why, and researching all of it. If those processes take longer than 2 weeks use the time... I'll be doing it for the rest of my life.
You are such a fucking pussy excuse boy. You want to talk about this forum being inconvenient now?
You: Member here
Todangst: Member here
other unnamed site you want to go to: Maybe you're a member, maybe not. Todangst is likely not a member.
You want convenience? There isn't an intelligent individual in the world who would tell you that a different forum than the one you two are currently communicating at would be more convenient. You see what I'm talking about you lacking basic logic skills? The thing is, for some reason (don't ask why) I think you actually have the ability to grasp this stuff, and you might even grasp basic logic already, you just choose to ignore it so you can more easily adhere to your dogma.
Where did I say that you asserted any positions in your opening post? Are you trying to infer you haven't made any assertations as to your position while being on this site?
Your welcome, lying fraud.
For what it's worth, your dishonesty with yourself is worlds more abhorent than it is when lying to us here on the board.
So as usual they'll be willfully ignorant as well, and will only mention the things that help further their sheepish goals.
Should you and Todangst (and/or deluded god) come to terms on what you want to do. I will gladly instruct the entire mod staff here to adhere to your groundrules. You have my word now that rules that are agreed upon will be abided by. Additionally considering that both of the members who have offered you debates are moderators, I would ask them to relinquish their title of modship for that thread, so that (closer to) impartial mods will enforce rules. Additionally should the terms be that nobody else can post in the thread other than the debaters, our mods will enforce that.
It's thousands of members, and having access to the internet doesn't give me unlimited time, nor is it the extent of my posessions.
Like almost everything you posted your last statement made no sense, and is once again... really fucking moronic. My time is my most valuable asset, and if you have some way to give me a larger quantity of time than I already get, by all means... show me how that last sentence wasn't moronic. I'll even pay you $1,000 to give me 25 extra hours per week.
Well I do certainly hope to be as intelligent as Todangst and considering our long lasting relationship I have a fairly could handle on just how intelligent he is. More importantly with folks like Todangst and Deludedgod who I view as my intellectual superiors is that they are extremely well read on the areas of importance here. At the same time, neither of them seem to like working in audio, so it would seem we have a mutually beneficial relationship wouldn't it?
I didn't ask Todangst or Deludedgod to offer you a debate, in fact I was a little perturbed that they did. I was considering advising them not to waste their time on you, as their time is too valuable. However I realized before I wrote to either of them that maybe I was simply projecting my own lack of time. I never wrote them on this issue, but now they know. Nevertheless both are busy men, and you should feel honored to accept their invitation. You should stop looking at the potential debate as a fight and more of a learning experience for both debaters, and all the readers.
Right after you get some basic logic skills I'll consider a discussion, rather than me lecturing you on how logic works for an hour. This would be of course after you crush and destroy deludedgod and Todangst.
Can you even see the non-sequitors with all your strawmen sitting on top?
1. You're already debating on these forums.
2. You whine that this site is not user friendly, yet you keep posting. Stop whining and just post.
3. If you run from debate on the basis that this forum is not user friendly because you can't write posts properly, it only makes sense that you will stop posting here.
Do you really think we're this dumb? We're not buying any of your bullshit, you're wasting your time, and ours. YOU ARE RUNNING FROM THE DEBATES YOU ASKED FOR, YOU ARE A PUSHOVER.
Do you ever get used to that? I think after I was wrong over and over and over, I might actually just adjust to being wrong, and it would seem normal to be wrong. Maybe that's your problem? You've become comfortable with being wrong.
They went to bed past midnight and Kellys son continuously woke up all night long, not to mention the fact I had thought we were gonna go early the next week (check the thread for particulars). Kelly works several nights a week, she was the one you seemed to be requesting, the next time we were set to talk with you, she got called to work (this is my memory serves me correctly).
I don't believe you that you sat and stared at the screen for hours, but if this is in fact true I apologize.
So here you are... getting a debate offer from my right hand man, are you taking it or not?
As for the rest of this post... sorry I just don't have the time. I probably wont have the time to respond at length to the next one either, but we'll see.
Stop reading wank falton and listen to the shows yourself. You take the word of the mentally disturbed over your own?
Technically only one person has ever been hung up on the show, Matt Slick. There was a muslim about a year ago that took about 5 minutes to get off the phone after we all said goodby for several minutes, eventually we hung up but the circumstances were not comparable. Nevertheless, your dogmatic adherence to the opinions of the Christians you choose to believe is ruining any chance you have to get a handle on reality.
Think! RESEARCH! Don't blindly trust the bloggers you've associated with, they're lying to you, just like you're lying to yourself.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.