Pastor wants me to forward this message / debate challenge to the rrs

FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Pastor wants me to forward this message / debate challenge to the rrs

Dunno why he didn't come here directly.

Quote:

 

Hey, I'm not here to start any wars. But I wanted to ask you and your supporters to contact the Rational Response Squad and suggest that they challenge scholar Chuck Missler to a debate as they did with Comfort and Cameron. He has a background in science and all the technical stuff and although I think the Way of the Master folks did okay, Missler would bring more to the table to answer some of the questions Atheists have. Also, He has a plethora of evidence which he would provide in a debate which might be interesting to you guys. To contact Missler: http://www.khouse.org/email/
Thanks and take care,
Marc

 

 

 

Link (see page 2 of comments): blog


grimey
grimey's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
isnt jesus santa claus for

isnt jesus santa claus for adults?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:

You realize you completely misinterpreted my sentence and went on a completely off the mark rant?

My point was that the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better.

I'm sorry, how exactly were you trying to point out that I misrepresented you?

That should be pretty clear. He's saying that according to other THEISTS, no sparring partner will ever be good enough, because they will hear the debate and write off the defeat as a problem with the debator, and not the argument itself.

Slow down, read for comprehension, and concede mistakes when they happen....

here, read it again:

My point was that the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better.

Quote:

The best that I can see as a misrepresentation is you saying "theists who come to RRS and suggest debating opponents will never recommend a good enough sparring partner" vs "no theist exists that would be a good enough sparring partner". But I fail to see how you can believe the former, without believing the latter

Simple: its not HIS judgement, is the judgement of theists concering their fellow theist debators. Brian's own beliefs are not even referenced here.

Again, please ask questions and don't just assume....

Quote:
And besides this, Brian's statement is now obviously false. Just listened to a discussion with William Craig regarding Sam Harris. Apparently Brian was invited to talk on the show with Bill Craig on it - Brian refused, saying that Craig was on a higher level than him. That sounds to me like Brian knows there are people out there who are "good eough" sparring partners.

Funny that you read the proof of your error as Brian making a false claim! Did it ever occur to you that Brian's statement simply falsifies your misperception of what he said, rather than contradicts what he said?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:

You are confused about what is a belief.

No, you are just confused as to what a fallback position is...

Quote:

For any proposition, you can hold a belief that that proposition is true or false.

You are mixing your terms. Do you wish to discuss the nature of propostions or the nature of beliefs?

Let's leave clasical logic behind where it belongs: we now know that a proposition can have more than two truth values: it can be true, false or undetermined/or incoherent.

Next, you are confusing matters even more by failing to recognize that every positive assertion has a fallback. One does not actively have to hold that claims concerning the existence of 'awejfiesafjase' are false. One simply does not believe in 'it'. 

Quote:

In this case, you hold it true that the proposition P, 'God exists', that Not P.

False dichotomy. "P" may be incoherent - this is the position of non cognitivism, ignosticism.

Or it may be that you've never heard of "P" - fallback non belief, implicit atheism.

 Think also along the lines of a 'case not proven', we need not rule out the claim entirely in order to not hold to the claim... the offer made by the salesman may be true, I don't need to outright falsify his claim in order to reject it - I just need to feel that his case was not proven.

I find it funny that theists find it so impossible to consider the concept of non belief in this way, considering that they have numerous non beliefs of their own in precisely the same way.... perhaps it's a bit of narcissism - you unconsciously feel that your own religion somehow deserves to be considered a fallback position requining active refutation - simply because you believe in it 'a whole big bunch'? How can I simply disregard it!

Well, if this is the case, I disregard it just as you disregard Islam. 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: You haven't

croath wrote:

You haven't really corrected what I said. I didn't misquote or misrepresent Brian.

I will not respond again, you don't seem to have the minimum braion capacity to warrant a discussion with, sorry. I don't have conversations with walls, and you're about as close as it comes to having a discussion with one.

 

Quote:
You're arguing some sort of general idea that there can't possibly ever be good enough sparring partners for any debate of any sort, just because there might be a fan somewhere who says "you should have debated <y>". That doesn't work - because by your logic no-one will ever 'have a good enough sparring partner for any debate, and therefore Brian's statement is meaningless.

The point was THAT IT IS CHRISTIANS WHO SEND US EMAILS LEADING US TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A GOOD ENOUGH SPARRING PARTNER. EVERY SINGLE GUEST WHO HAS EVER BEEN ON THE SHOW HAS HAD AN ACCOMPANYING EMAIL FROM A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID "x" PERSON WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. MY COMMENT WAS AN ALLUSION TO THAT.

 

 

Quote:
And besides this, Brian's statement is now obviously false. Just listened to a discussion with William Craig regarding Sam Harris. Apparently Brian was invited to talk on the show with Bill Craig on it - Brian refused, saying that Craig was on a higher level than him.

I'm considering suing the radio show that misrepresented my position now. However if I spent all my time suing those who slandered and libeled me, I would never work. I've never been interested in suing for money, I am only interested in the principle. The words you heard were a gross mischarecterization of what I said.

What I said was something more like... "Bill Craig thinks he's above everyone else. The smartest person on our team is Richard Carrier, and William wont debate Richard until Richard has his doctorate." Then I made a comment about how he wouldn't talk to me.

That was as good as I remember it.

Thanks very much for finding the file, I had heard this before and didn't know where it was said.

STILL LOOKING FOR PRO BONO LAWYERS TO TAKE UP THE MANY EASY CASES THAT KEEP PILING UP.

 

Quote:
That sounds to me like Brian knows there are people out there who are "good eough" sparring partners. He just doesn't want to face them!

Yes, I do in fact believe there are good enough sparring partners. The best opponent we've ever had was a man named Lawrence who was a janitor at a hotel who was at work while he talked to us, and barely attends church. Laymen Christians are abundantly better opponents than those who have been professionally trained in how to be con men. (Bill Craig, and the several people who have Masters degrees in Theology that have been on the show)

 I could debate an atheist and represent William Lane Craigs dishonest positions better than Craig could.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Well, this thread had been

Well, this thread had been dead, and I was going to leave it die after the last reply, but now I don't think I will because of some new comments.

I will acknowledge that Brian's comments were meaning something less arrogant than I initially thought.

Sapient wrote:

I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

Sapient wrote:

My point was that the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better.


As nitpicky as it may sound, my argument was not wrong - it was just exaggerated.  Take this statement:

todangst wrote:

Simple: its not HIS judgement, is the judgement of theists concering their fellow theist debators. Brian's own beliefs are not even referenced here.


Brian did state a belief.  Brian believes that "other theists will never be satisfied with the performance of any theist that debates me".  That's Brian's belief.  I was attacking Brian's justification for that belief.  He thinks that past performance of his ability to debate theists, and their response, is an indication of future performance, and an indication of what future comments will be.

Anyway, I'm responding primarily because of other comments made:

todangst wrote:

croath wrote:
For any proposition, you can hold a belief that that proposition is true or false.


You are mixing your terms. Do you wish to discuss the nature of propostions or the nature of beliefs?


I have done no such term mixing.  Beliefs are something you hold about a proposition.  I invite you to explain to me how I've mixed terms.

todangst wrote:

Let's leave clasical logic behind where it belongs: we now know that a proposition can have more than two truth values: it can be true, false or undetermined/or incoherent.

Next, you are confusing matters even more by failing to recognize that every positive assertion has a fallback. One does not actively have to hold that claims concerning the existence of 'awejfiesafjase' are false. One simply does not believe in 'it'.


One might say, quite reasonably, that 'awejfiesafjase' is not a proposition precisely because it is incoherent or meaningless.  It is not a statement regarding any particular thing.  Which modern writers say that something can be both a proposition and incoherent, besides the outdated logical positivists?  I would have said that once a statement is incoherent it is no longer a proposition, by definition, since propositions state something that you can have a belief regarding its truthfullness.

todangst wrote:

False dichotomy. "P" may be incoherent - this is the position of non cognitivism, ignosticism.


Let's just assume that the non-cognitivist/ignosticist is correct.  That changes nothing here.  An atheist is still defined as one who holds that the proposition "God exists" is false rather than meaningless.  That's the way most people understand atheist is defined.  If you want to *change* the common definition of a word, that's your perogative.  But you shouldn't act surprised when someone attempts to use it in its usual way.

You might say that you hold the belief that "God exists" is incoherent.  The author I was responding to did not say that.  You're attempting to slip the rug from under me, saying that all along your noncognitivist/logical positivist arguments are what the other author was trying to say.  That's not the case, though - I was responding to his points, not yours.

todangst wrote:

I find it funny that theists find it so impossible to consider the concept of non belief in this way, considering that they have numerous non beliefs of their own in precisely the same way.... perhaps it's a bit of narcissism - you unconsciously feel that your own religion somehow deserves to be considered a fallback position requining active refutation - simply because you believe in it 'a whole big bunch'? How can I simply disregard it!


Hey, it's not that we think the idea of a sentence being incoherent is absurd!  It's just that we don't agree that "God exists" is incoherent.  But you, deludedgod, and I are having this conversation elsewhere (or we would be if you guys replied - don't you notice new posts anymore now that it's been moved?).  I agree that sentences can be incoherent.  I don't think "God exists" is an example of it.  I'm trying to understand why you think "God exists" is incoherent - hence our other discussions.

Sapient wrote:

I will not respond again, you don't seem to have the minimum braion capacity to warrant a discussion with, sorry. I don't have conversations with walls, and you're about as close as it comes to having a discussion with one.


A sorry loss.  I'm not sure I've really seen you argue any point intelligently yet.  You dive into threads for whirlwind diatribes then disappear into the aether for weeks.  Lucky for you you've got more intelligent atheists around here to shield you from testing what you say while you're gone.  Leaving you just enough time to claim that a theist isn't as intelligent as you and disappear before it's tested.

Sapient wrote:

The point was THAT IT IS CHRISTIANS WHO SEND US EMAILS LEADING US TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A GOOD ENOUGH SPARRING PARTNER. EVERY SINGLE GUEST WHO HAS EVER BEEN ON THE SHOW HAS HAD AN ACCOMPANYING EMAIL FROM A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID "x" PERSON WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. MY COMMENT WAS AN ALLUSION TO THAT.


You made an inference about future behaviour based on past - an inference I claimed was drastically mistaken and arrogant.  I get your point, but thanks for shouting.

Sapient wrote:

However if I spent all my time suing those who slandered and libeled me, I would never work.


And it's never occurred to you that perhaps you don't get the same respect from theists that other atheists can command, because of your arrogant, abrasive and offensive approach?  Perhaps because you're just plain rude, and that you act with self-righteous anger when people respond in kind.

You, of course, never slander do you, when you call many Christians con-men?

Sapient wrote:

I could debate an atheist and represent William Lane Craigs dishonest positions better than Craig could.


Well, if there was any doubt from my previous comments as to whether you are immensely arrogant, here we have proof.  I would *love* to see you try this - from all I've seen of your "arguments" so far, I imagine you'd be like a child trying to mimic a master artist.  But prove me wrong.  Arrogant claims about the miracles you can weave mean nothing until demonstrated.  Get down off your own cross, if you can.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Get down off

croath wrote:
Get down off your own cross, if you can.

Sapient, if I may be so bold, I suggest you follow your instincts and let this guy be.

I, for one, would be much happier if I knew you were using your time for more constructive discussions. There are other folks here that are quite capable of bantering back and forth with this character if it must be done. 


brights
Silver Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote:  I give

Anbesol wrote:

 I give the golden debate face to face - this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things. debate.

 It seems to me that if you really wanted a debate you would have already started one.  Also are you sure a debate in this forum wouldn't confuse you which would ultimately lead to dissolve your dreams of being able to debate and or your faith.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Well, this

croath wrote:
Well, this thread had been dead, and I was going to leave it die after the last reply, but now I don't think I will because of some new comments.

Always follow your first instincts. Especially when you're misrepresenting someones opinions, and have been solidly owned as a result of this. Unless your first instincts are to post that is.

croath wrote:
I will acknowledge that Brian's comments were meaning something less arrogant than I initially thought.

Good first step, but at this point you should have simply acknowledged that there is no arrogance in a simple statement of fact.

croath wrote:
As nitpicky as it may sound, my argument was not wrong - it was just exaggerated.

Exaggerated, wrong, same shit different pile. Exaggeration is misrepresentation you know.

croath wrote:
Brian did state a belief.  Brian believes that "other theists will never be satisfied with the performance of any theist that debates me

False. First of all, Brian gave no belief of his own at all. It was quite clear, if you took a moment to think about it.
Second, he said quite clearly that according to the losing side, there's always someone better than the one who just lost. Get over it already.

croath wrote:

That's Brian's belief.

Lie.

croath wrote:
  I was attacking Brian's justification for that belief.

True enough, though since he doesn't hold that belief in the first place all you've done is set up a strawman and tear it down. A 4 year old can do that.

croath wrote:
  He thinks that past performance of his ability to debate theists, and their response, is an indication of future performance, and an indication of what future comments will be.

Possibly he does. I know I do. When you've debated as many times as I have in as many formats as I have against as many persons as I have you start to see a pattern. The first couple of years you can merely attribute it to luck or some other factor. But after you've failed to see a new argument come up after 10 odd years of smacking theists around the debate table(including so called theist heroes such as Craig and Behe), it's a fully justified position to have.

I'll skip the part with Todangst as he can explain himself better than I can, and he hasn't declared a lack of interest to continue in this topic either.

croath wrote:
A sorry loss.

On your part.

croath wrote:
  I'm not sure I've really seen you argue any point intelligently yet.

You haven't looked around much have you? Sure he tends to be one of the more venomous atheists(as am I), but that hardly means his arguments are invalid. And he does in fact argue quite rationally in multiple theatres. Including TV. You ever argue you beliefs on TV? If not, he's got you beat 6 ways from yesterday.

croath wrote:
  You dive into threads for whirlwind diatribes then disappear into the aether for weeks.

You think running all the projects he does is easy? Do you run a website with a few hundred members? Do you appear on TV and organize things for a group? You're doing a good job of making a bigger fool of yourself than you already did. Are you sure you want to?

croath wrote:
  Lucky for you you've got more intelligent atheists around here to shield you from testing what you say while you're gone.

It is rather nice to have Todangst and Deludedgod and a few others around. But that hardly says anything about Sapients qualifications in the same theatre.

croath wrote:
  Leaving you just enough time to claim that a theist isn't as intelligent as you and disappear before it's tested.

I don't recall ever seeing him do that. Perhaps you can point out such an occassion. Oh, and this topic doesn't qualify. You demonstrated quite well that you weren't worth further response by misrepresenting his statement in the first place, and then defending your misrepresentation in the face of absolute failure.

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:
The point was THAT IT IS CHRISTIANS WHO SEND US EMAILS LEADING US TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE A GOOD ENOUGH SPARRING PARTNER. EVERY SINGLE GUEST WHO HAS EVER BEEN ON THE SHOW HAS HAD AN ACCOMPANYING EMAIL FROM A CHRISTIAN WHO HAS SAID "x" PERSON WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. MY COMMENT WAS AN ALLUSION TO THAT.

You made an inference about future behaviour based on past - an inference I claimed was drastically mistaken and arrogant.

Your claim is drastically mistaken and arrogant. His was perfectly logical. If a rock always falls down, it's logical to assume a rock will fall down. It doesn't necessarily mean it will, but it always has so far, and it's perfectly acceptable to assume it will continue to do so. 5000 years or so, and still no new argument from the theists. It's hardly likely to change in the foreseeable future.

croath wrote:
  I get your point, but thanks for shouting.

I'm not sure you do get his point.

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:
However if I spent all my time suing those who slandered and libeled me, I would never work.

And it's never occurred to you that perhaps you don't get the same respect from theists that other atheists can command, because of your arrogant, abrasive and offensive approach?

And it's never occurred to you that perhaps his(and my) arrogant, abrasive, and offensive approach is the DIRECT result of millenia of arrogant, abrasive, and offensive theist stupidity?

croath wrote:
  Perhaps because you're just plain rude, and that you act with self-righteous anger when people respond in kind.

Look who's talking. Not only arrogant, you're an asshole hypocrite.

croath wrote:
You, of course, never slander do you, when you call many Christians con-men?

There's no slander in objective truth.

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:
I could debate an atheist and represent William Lane Craigs dishonest positions better than Craig could.

Well, if there was any doubt from my previous comments as to whether you are immensely arrogant, here we have proof.  I would *love* to see you try this

So would I actually. It would be amusing. I don't know if I could represent Craigs position as well as Craig does, simply because my morality wouldn't allow me to lie, steal, and project like that laughable excuse for a scholar does. I can certainly rip him apart though, so it hardly matters how well I could argue from his side.

croath wrote:
- from all I've seen of your "arguments" so far, I imagine you'd be like a child trying to mimic a master artist.

It would be closer to vice versa, which is why I'd be impressed if he could do it. It's pretty easy for a child to mimic a master artist. Not so easy for a master artist to mimic a child.

croath wrote:
  But prove me wrong.  Arrogant claims about the miracles you can weave mean nothing until demonstrated.  Get down off your own cross, if you can.

Rofl. Give me one, just ONE example of Sapient claiming miracles. PLEASE. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, asshole.

Next.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
brights wrote: Anbesol

brights wrote:
Anbesol wrote:

I give the golden debate face to face - this whole internet intermediary just confuses and dissolves things. debate.

It seems to me that if you really wanted a debate you would have already started one. Also are you sure a debate in this forum wouldn't confuse you which would ultimately lead to dissolve your dreams of being able to debate and or your faith.

Anbesol won't be starting any debates here.  He was banned a few weeks ago.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Always follow

Vastet wrote:
Always follow your first instincts. Especially when you're misrepresenting someones opinions, and have been solidly owned as a result of this. Unless your first instincts are to post that is.


With a response like yours, it's hard to resist posting. I keep coming back because this is site is a constant source of amusement. So, assuming you're not a hypocrite, your first instinct must always be to post then. Or are there different rules for you and I?

Vastet wrote:
False. First of all, Brian gave no belief of his own at all. It was quite clear, if you took a moment to think about it.


False. Brian did give a belief. It was:
Sapient wrote:
I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

Brian thinks a particular proposition is true, which is what a belief is. What proposition does he think is true? This one:
Sapient wrote:

the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better....
I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.


Brian's opinion then is that given past actions of theists, Brian will never find a theistic debate partner that won't evoke an email saying "I/my hero could do better than x, debate him!". I am perfectly within my rights to object to his reasons for believing this is true. I think Brian's wrong - there are people he could debate that would hand his proverbial arse to him, and there would follow praises of that theist debator rather than comments of "debate someone better, he sucked!". Brian's arrogant to think that wouldn't happen.

Vastet wrote:
Second, he said quite clearly that according to the losing side, there's always someone better than the one who just lost. Get over it already.


This is laughable. Did you deliberately mean to hand me a concession of my argument on a silver platter? You just admitted that the "losing side" is the one that will write in about someone better. So then you agree that Brian thinks he won't ever lose a debate with a theist? How then, again, was I wrong? You're claiming Brian thinks he'll never lose a debate to a theist.

I'm over it, but it's amusing to keep discussing. Ever kept going with something you know isn't worth the time, but you do it because you enjoy it? The moment you're sick of me responding, feel free to follow your "second instinct" and don't hit reply. I'm bored while I wait for deludedgod and todangst to respond in another thread.

Vastet wrote:

But after you've failed to see a new argument come up after 10 odd years of smacking theists around the debate table(including so called theist heroes such as Craig and Behe), it's a fully justified position to have.


And in your infinite wisdom and skill as a champion of atheism, you don't repeat the same justifications for your viewpoint? Or do you always present a fresh new ideas and arguments? I don't think your theistic opponents hold the privileged position you attribute to them.

Vastet wrote:

You haven't looked around much have you? Sure he tends to be one of the more venomous atheists(as am I), but that hardly means his arguments are invalid. And he does in fact argue quite rationally in multiple theatres. Including TV. You ever argue you beliefs on TV? If not, he's got you beat 6 ways from yesterday.


Ack! The rational part of my brain is being whittled away by your reasoning. Soon you'll have me down to your level...but not yet.

Can I assume then that since Ray and Kirk have debated on TV that they're not "beat 6 ways from yesterday"? Probably even equals with that paragon of intellect, Sapient, since they share his credentials of "having embarrassed self on national TV"? Or could it in fact be that being on TV does not guarantee *anything* about the intelligence or rationality of a person? A radical concept, I know...

Brian did not argue rationally on the ABC Nightline debate. If that's what you want to use of an example of his great rationality, then I think I'm safe in my original statement. Got any other examples of his superlative debate skills?

Vastet wrote:

You think running all the projects he does is easy? Do you run a website with a few hundred members? Do you appear on TV and organize things for a group? You're doing a good job of making a bigger fool of yourself than you already did. Are you sure you want to?


How lucky I am, then! I do in fact run a site with a few hundred members, so I guess I'm not a fool today. Or do I need to display my ignorance on TV once too in order to criticise Brian?

Vastet wrote:

Your claim is drastically mistaken and arrogant. His was perfectly logical. If a rock always falls down, it's logical to assume a rock will fall down. It doesn't necessarily mean it will, but it always has so far, and it's perfectly acceptable to assume it will continue to do so. 5000 years or so, and still no new argument from the theists. It's hardly likely to change in the foreseeable future.


And if a street brawler has never lost a fight, it's reasonable to assume he will never lose one? Let's at least use analogies that are appropriate for the scenario, please. We must try to be a little rational.

Vastet wrote:

And it's never occurred to you that perhaps his(and my) arrogant, abrasive, and offensive approach is the DIRECT result of millenia of arrogant, abrasive, and offensive theist stupidity?


I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were a victim, totally helpless and unable to make decisions for yourself. Sure, there's plenty of rude and obnoxious theists. Call me crazy, but I think we all have a choice. Then again, as an atheist you're probably convinced by some form of determinism, so perhaps we don't have a choice and you're unfortunate nature is completely a product of effects beyond your control.

Vastet wrote:

croath wrote:

You, of course, never slander do you, when you call many Christians con-men?

There's no slander in objective truth.


So that's the trick, is it? When you slander, make sure you call it "objective truth", and that makes it ok. Fine. The great douchebag Brian ran from a debate with William Craig because he's a snivelling coward and is scared of the theists that are much higher than him - he told me so himself in a personal letter. And that's no slander, because it's objective truth.

Vastet wrote:

I can certainly rip him apart though, so it hardly matters how well I could argue from his side.


Got any articles written by yourself, with samples of this ripping?

Vastet wrote:

Rofl. Give me one, just ONE example of Sapient claiming miracles. PLEASE. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, asshole.


Context is king:
croath wrote:

sapient wrote:

I could debate an atheist and represent William Lane Craigs dishonest positions better than Craig could.

<snip>Arrogant claims about the miracles you can weave mean nothing until demonstrated.</snip>


Or did you perhaps mistakenly think I was talking about supernatural miracles?

It's been fun talking with you, and I look forward to your next "first instinct".


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Brian did

croath wrote:
Brian did state a belief. Brian believes that "other theists will never be satisfied with the performance of any theist that debates me".

Actually, I merely said...

Sapient wrote:

I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

It was a sarcastic quip, that states an opinion. An opinion that I qualify by saying "I think" instead of "I know we'll never have a good enough sparring partner."

My justification is the evidence I've seen. Every show in the past has had an accompanying email. I have good reason to expect it to continue. Your entire argument is a strawman. You should pick battles that have something to do with the existence of God, lest you be considered a waste of time.

 

Quote:
That's Brian's belief. I was attacking Brian's justification for that belief. He thinks that past performance of his ability to debate theists, and their response, is an indication of future performance, and an indication of what future comments will be.

Very rare... you just explained your strawman argument by placing 4 more strawmen on top.

 

Sapient wrote:

Lucky for you you've got more intelligent atheists around here to shield you from testing what you say while you're gone.

That I can easily agree with. Thanks to folks like Hamby, Todangst, DeludedGod, and many many more for taking the time that I don't have and discussing specific issues with more intellect than I ever could. I'm so glad to be on board with you folks, all of us here at the RRS house agree on this.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:Vastet

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Always follow your first instincts. Especially when you're misrepresenting someones opinions, and have been solidly owned as a result of this. Unless your first instincts are to post that is.


With a response like yours, it's hard to resist posting.

I was hoping you'd return to make an even greater fool of yourself. I enjoy making idiots look like idiots.

croath wrote:
I keep coming back because this is site is a constant source of amusement.

I posted above because you're such a constant source of amusement. So please, respond to this as well.

croath wrote:
So, assuming you're not a hypocrite, your first instinct must always be to post then.

I'm not incapable of being a hypocrite. Though I haven't been such in this topic yet.

croath wrote:
Or are there different rules for you and I?

Nope. I'm sure you'd like to think there are though.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:
False. First of all, Brian gave no belief of his own at all. It was quite clear, if you took a moment to think about it.
False.

Liar.

croath wrote:
Brian did give a belief.

Liar.

croath wrote:
It was:
Sapient wrote:
I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

And again you misrepresent him.

croath wrote:
Brian thinks a particular proposition is true, which is what a belief is.

Actually Brian knows a particular proposition is true, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the proposition is true.

croath wrote:
What proposition does he think is true?

That according to the losing side of the debate, there will always be someone presented as a better debator than the loser for the losing side. Until that guy or girl also fails, in which case yet someone else will be presented as better. Would be nice to have a list, so we can see how long it takes to go full circle.

croath wrote:
This one:
Sapient wrote:
the theist community will consistently write to the show always alerting us that X person was not "good enough." It hasn't failed that every single theist we've ever had on the show has had an email follow the show from a Christian that thinks they could do better than the theist that was on, or they know someone that can do better....
I don't think we'll ever have a "good enough" sparring partner.

You really love misrepresenting his position. I have to wonder at your reading comprehension level. Perhaps grade 6? You certainly skip over subtleties of language easily enough. Much like some grade sixers I know.

croath wrote:
Brian's opinion then is that given past actions of theists, Brian will never find a theistic debate partner that won't evoke an email saying I/my hero could do better than x, debate him!

A valid position to hold in the face of experience.

croath wrote:
I am perfectly within my rights to object to his reasons for believing this is true.

You're also well within your rights to continue making a complete ass of yourself, so please do so.

croath wrote:
I think Brian's wrong

I don't care what you think.

croath wrote:
there are people he could debate that would hand his proverbial arse to him, and there would follow praises of that theist debator rather than comments of "debate someone better, he sucked!".

Only god could do that, and he's never shown himself yet to take up the challenge.

croath wrote:
Brian's arrogant to think that wouldn't happen.

No, he's experienced. Something of a difference there.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Second, he said quite clearly that according to the losing side, there's always someone better than the one who just lost. Get over it already.

This is laughable.

No, it's fact.

croath wrote:
Did you deliberately mean to hand me a concession of my argument on a silver platter?

Are you seriously stupid enough to think that's what I did? Rofl.

croath wrote:
You just admitted that the "losing side" is the one that will write in about someone better.

What's your point? Thats the very thing Brian said in the first place, and you argued against. You're now arguing against your own position? Rofl.

croath wrote:
So then you agree that Brian thinks he won't ever lose a debate with a theist?

I don't see how he could. Though I suppose it's possible he could be hung over and stoned out of his tree some day in the midst of such a debate.

croath wrote:
How then, again, was I wrong? You're claiming Brian thinks he'll never lose a debate to a theist.

As an aside to the original topic sure, but then again, I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend such a simple temporal concept.

croath wrote:
I'm over it, but it's amusing to keep discussing.

I'm glad you enjoy making a fool of yourself.

croath wrote:
Ever kept going with something you know isn't worth the time, but you do it because you enjoy it?

I'm doing it right now actually. Fortunately I'm getting paid while I waste my time with you. Can you say the same?

croath wrote:
The moment you're sick of me responding, feel free to follow your "second instinct" and don't hit reply.

The moment you start to bore me I will. At least for awhile.

croath wrote:
I'm bored while I wait for deludedgod and todangst to respond in another thread.

*Snort*

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:

But after you've failed to see a new argument come up after 10 odd years of smacking theists around the debate table(including so called theist heroes such as Craig and Behe), it's a fully justified position to have.

And in your infinite wisdom and skill as a champion of atheism, you don't repeat the same justifications for your viewpoint?

It's hard not to repeat yourself when the same argument refutes the same claims that keep getting made.
Also, though your assertion that my wisdom is infinate is appreciated, it really is not true. Though I can see how it might seem so to one as unsophisticated and wisdomless as yourself.

croath wrote:
Or do you always present a fresh new ideas and arguments?

Sometimes, when I learn something new. Religion doesn' t have that capability though, so for the most part I regurgitate the same refutation to the same claims over and over again. Which is why I certainly understand why the scientific community doesn't bother with you lunatics anymore. They prefer spending their time figuring out new things instead of being hung up on proven facts that are really quite uninteresting in comparison.

croath wrote:
I don't think your theistic opponents hold the privileged position you attribute to them.

What privilege?

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:

You haven't looked around much have you? Sure he tends to be one of the more venomous atheists(as am I), but that hardly means his arguments are invalid. And he does in fact argue quite rationally in multiple theatres. Including TV. You ever argue you beliefs on TV? If not, he's got you beat 6 ways from yesterday.

Ack! The rational part of my brain is being whittled away by your reasoning.

If only you understood the irony.

croath wrote:
Soon you'll have me down to your level...but not yet.

You mean up to my level, but whatever.

croath wrote:
=Can I assume then that since Ray and Kirk have debated on TV that they're not "beat 6 ways from yesterday"?

Not as much as you, certainly. However, the fact that they've lost every one of those debates doesn't say much for them either.

croath wrote:
Probably even equals with that paragon of intellect, Sapient, since they share his credentials of "having embarrassed self on national TV"?

They're closer than you, but just as misguided. Are you going to keep dodging around the fact that you have accomplished absolutely nothing in life by holding up others who have accomplished slightly less nothing than yourself?

croath wrote:
Or could it in fact be that being on TV does not guarantee *anything* about the intelligence or rationality of a person? A radical concept, I know...

Not really. Kirk and Ray made it after all. Though they at least got a great many people to listen to them. You have a fraction of a fraction of the success they've had.

croath wrote:
Brian did not argue rationally on the ABC Nightline debate.

Sure he did. He owned them completely in less than 20 minutes. Then even had the courtesy to stick around even though they were overcooked.

croath wrote:
If that's what you want to use of an example of his great rationality, then I think I'm safe in my original statement.

Obviously you are mistaken, yet again.

croath wrote:
Got any other examples of his superlative debate skills?

I really don't need any, thanks.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:

You think running all the projects he does is easy? Do you run a website with a few hundred members? Do you appear on TV and organize things for a group? You're doing a good job of making a bigger fool of yourself than you already did. Are you sure you want to?


How lucky I am, then! I do in fact run a site with a few hundred members, so I guess I'm not a fool today.

One out of ten people on earth have a website. You'll have to do better than that. It was merely one of a number of things I mentioned.

croath wrote:
Or do I need to display my ignorance on TV once too in order to criticise Brian?

Might help, probably would hurt though, considering your complete lack of skill and intellect in such a subject. But then you'd also have to run an organization as large and active as the RRS, which you don't. By your own lack of claiming otherwise.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Your claim is drastically mistaken and arrogant. His was perfectly logical. If a rock always falls down, it's logical to assume a rock will fall down. It doesn't necessarily mean it will, but it always has so far, and it's perfectly acceptable to assume it will continue to do so. 5000 years or so, and still no new argument from the theists. It's hardly likely to change in the foreseeable future.


And if a street brawler has never lost a fight, it's reasonable to assume he will never lose one?

That's a little different than the laws of physics, don't you think? Perhaps some day a new religion will be invented with new bullshit to disprove, but the religions around today haven't changed all that much from 2000 years ago.

croath wrote:
Let's at least use analogies that are appropriate for the scenario, please.

Yes, it would be nice if you did that.

croath wrote:
We must try to be a little rational.

Well, you must. I already am.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:

And it's never occurred to you that perhaps his(and my) arrogant, abrasive, and offensive approach is the DIRECT result of millenia of arrogant, abrasive, and offensive theist stupidity?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were a victim, totally helpless and unable to make decisions for yourself.

Just how much of a brainless moron are you going to make yourself out to be here? First you criticize an attitude, then you blame the person who has it for the reasons he has it?
You're hopeless. Though at least I'm sure you're doing a good job of making other theists cringe at your blatant stupidity.

croath wrote:
Sure, there's plenty of rude and obnoxious theists.

Most of them are rude and obnoxious, actually.

croath wrote:
Call me crazy, but I think we all have a choice.

My choice is to throw it back in their faces. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

croath wrote:
Then again, as an atheist you're probably convinced by some form of determinism, so perhaps we don't have a choice and you're unfortunate nature is completely a product of effects beyond your control.

I suggest you look up the definition of determinism. Though I suppose you don't care that you look like an idiot.

croath wrote:


Vastet wrote:

croath wrote:

You, of course, never slander do you, when you call many Christians con-men?

There's no slander in objective truth.


So that's the trick, is it?

There's no trick. Facts are facts. All you need to do is accept them.

croath wrote:
When you slander, make sure you call it "objective truth", and that makes it ok. Fine.

As long as it's objective truth, sure.

croath wrote:
The great douchebag Brian ran from a debate with William Craig because he's a snivelling coward and is scared of the theists that are much higher than him - he told me so himself in a personal letter.

At least 5 claims you'll need to prove here in order for this to be objective truth.

First, that Brian is a douchebag. Which I can prove right now that he isn't. A douchebag would be physically incapable of writing, let alone running a website. Unless perhaps you can show me a douchebag that is alive, which would probably get you a nobel prize.

Second, you'll need to prove that William the idiot Craig challenged Brian to a debate or vice versa.

Then you'll have to prove he ran from said debate, which I personally claim as laughable, since a properly prepared 12 year old could own Craig with his/her eyes closed.

I could continue, but until you prove any of these assertions there's really no need to.

croath wrote:
And that's no slander, because it's objective truth.

You'd like to think so I'm sure.

croath wrote:


Vastet wrote:

I can certainly rip him apart though, so it hardly matters how well I could argue from his side.


Got any articles written by yourself, with samples of this ripping?

I've destroyed a great many of Craigs arguments while arguing with other theists, so all you need to do is look through my posting history. Enjoy.

croath wrote:


Vastet wrote:

Rofl. Give me one, just ONE example of Sapient claiming miracles. PLEASE. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, asshole.


Context is king:
croath wrote:

sapient wrote:

I could debate an atheist and represent William Lane Craigs dishonest positions better than Craig could.

<snip>Arrogant claims about the miracles you can weave mean nothing until demonstrated.</snip>

That's not a miracle. Numb nuts.

croath wrote:
Or did you perhaps mistakenly think I was talking about supernatural miracles?

Is there another kind?

croath wrote:


It's been fun talking with you, and I look forward to your next "first instinct".

Me too. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Well, I was expecting

Well, I was expecting something better from you in your response. I guess after you slipped up so many times in your first post, you resorted to simply stating your disapproval and throwing around insults, rather than presenting arguments or objections. It's so much easier to avoid a further embarassment if you just don't make arguments, so I can't say I blame you. I'll just make a brief comment on one point, since there's no real argument or counterpoints in your post to respond to.

Vastet wrote:
croath wrote:
You just admitted that the "losing side" is the one that will write in about someone better.

What's your point? Thats the very thing Brian said in the first place, and you argued against. You're now arguing against your own position? Rofl.


Brian's claim implied that he thought he would never be on the losing side. *That* was the arrogance that I objected to, and the whole point of what I've been saying. You said as much yourself, that he couldn't lose, thus vindicating my initial statement.  If Brian had simply been saying that only when he loses a debate people write in recommending someone else, there would be no argument now.  but there would also be no point in Brian stating that he thinks he will never have a "good enough" sparring partner.

You have a fundamental lack of ability to understand your opponent's position, and that's probably why you've deceived yourself into thinking you're right when you're so clearly wrong. I recommend you work on learning to see things from another person's viewpoint - it will help you so much more in debating than ad-hominem. If you want to redo your last post, I'll understand.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Well, I was

croath wrote:
Well, I was expecting something better from you in your response.

Any time you want to step up and force me to do better by doing better yourself, your expectations will be realized. I tend to argue with the same quality the person I'm arguing with has. At least after ascertaining their capabilities. Sometimes I blindside theists with pure logic and reason, but 9 times out of 10 they just repeat themselves after that.

croath wrote:
I guess after you slipped up so many times in your first post, you resorted to simply stating your disapproval and throwing around insults, rather than presenting arguments or objections.

You threw insults around first, so I reciprocated. You made an ass out of yourself, so I pointed it out. Sorry to inform you that you've never even gained solid footing to be able to slip up. Your assertion that I haven't blasted you out of the water is evidence of this.

croath wrote:
It's so much easier to avoid a further embarassment if you just don't make arguments, so I can't say I blame you.

It's so much easier to avoid further embarassment if you just don't post, so I have no idea why you are still posting. Hopefully you will at least be happy that you're making me happy. Smiling

croath wrote:

I'll just make a brief comment on one point, since there's no real argument or counterpoints in your post to respond to.

So you are largely giving up in the face of complete and total failure. Good for you! First step to being a more rational person. Second step would be to stop responding here at all with anything other than concession of defeat, but you obviously don't have the balls to.

croath wrote:
Vastet wrote:
What's your point? Thats the very thing Brian said in the first place, and you argued against. You're now arguing against your own position? Rofl.

Brian's claim implied that he thought he would never be on the losing side. *That* was the arrogance that I objected to, and the whole point of what I've been saying.

Again you are wrong. There was no implication, you merely inferred what you wanted to.

croath wrote:
You said as much yourself, that he couldn't lose, thus vindicating my initial statement.

Nope. That was my personal opinion. I'm not a psychic, and am not about to say what Brian does or doesn't believe. Merely what I do or do not believe.

croath wrote:
  If Brian had simply been saying that only when he loses a debate people write in recommending someone else, there would be no argument now.

He did say that. You can look back and see it. But then you skipped over it's obviousness the first time, and likely will again. Tell me, do you think oranges are square too?

croath wrote:
  but there would also be no point in Brian stating that he thinks he will never have a "good enough" sparring partner.

Obviously. Which is why he didn't say that.

croath wrote:

You have a fundamental lack of ability to understand your opponent's position, and that's probably why you've deceived yourself into thinking you're right when you're so clearly wrong.

And for this I merely point you at the mirror, since you perfectly described yourself.

croath wrote:
I recommend you work on learning to see things from another person's viewpoint - it will help you so much more in debating than ad-hominem. If you want to redo your last post, I'll understand.

Again, look in the mirror. I eagerly await your next self embarassing diatribe.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.