Author Topic: Debate Challenges  (Read 30842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #145 on: February 02, 2011, 10:39:33 AM »
Mods,

UP would like to discuss #4 of the 10 questions, "Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?" with me here in a discussion room. Can we have that set up? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6636
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #146 on: February 02, 2011, 02:48:00 PM »
And Mods

You can archive or whatever (nothing happened, it's not worth much) the debate between myself and DoL. It wasn't working. Not his fault, not mine. Wrong subject.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #147 on: February 03, 2011, 04:49:06 PM »
And Mods

You can archive or whatever (nothing happened, it's not worth much) the debate between myself and DoL. It wasn't working. Not his fault, not mine. Wrong subject.

I wouldn't even say wrong subject. It was just real life got in our way for the debate we were wanting. When the time comes again, I would love to continue where we left off. I still think it is very valid.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12585
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #148 on: March 15, 2011, 01:24:57 PM »
NTS,

This post is to work out the details of the discussion.  We need to establish three things:

1. the topic.  I am not particular what we talk about but I would like it to be limited in scope.  I would rather not start off talking about, say, kalam and end up fighting about evolution.
2. rules.  Who goes first, format, expected frequency of posting, and anything else you'd like to include.
3. how long this is going to go.  It can be a limited number of posts, or some other measure, but I'd rather not leave it open ended.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12585
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #149 on: March 16, 2011, 07:53:17 AM »

Debate cancelled. 

Parthian shots and off topic crossfire removed.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline NZer

  • Novice
  • Posts: 2
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #150 on: March 19, 2011, 05:05:28 AM »
I would like to suggest (for someone else as I am not presently able to participate) the debate:
Jesus Christ (as set out in the gospels) is a historically verifiable person.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #151 on: March 19, 2011, 07:23:45 AM »
I think it would be fair if the person who wishes the debate makes his/her own post. To remove all doubt, that person should also include the proposition that they will defend.

For example, the poster might propose, "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the New Testament, actually existed as a real individual." or "That Jesus Christ, as displayed in the Bible, is fictitious and merely embodies folk tales and ideas of the time."
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12585
  • Darwins +704/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #152 on: March 20, 2011, 07:27:36 AM »

Hi NZer


I would like to suggest (for someone else as I am not presently able to participate) the debate:
Jesus Christ (as set out in the gospels) is a historically verifiable person.

Thanks for the suggestion.  The way it works is exactly the way Greybeard said it should.  If outside this thread you can talk other members into debating this topic, then good for you.  Otherwise this is for debates to be set up by participants. 

FYI, we did have a jesus debate recently here

Regards,
Screwtape
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #153 on: March 21, 2011, 03:53:38 PM »
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #154 on: March 21, 2011, 04:07:54 PM »
In a thread regarding healing of amputees, I said:

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

Anyone care to discuss?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #155 on: March 21, 2011, 04:13:28 PM »
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.

I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #156 on: March 21, 2011, 04:23:21 PM »
Challenge to pianodwarf regarding his thread on Job.

I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
Sure, although it's amusing to hear that, as i get lots of grief for limiting my participation.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #157 on: March 21, 2011, 05:43:33 PM »
You are not obligated to respond to every person, just to every point.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #158 on: March 21, 2011, 05:51:34 PM »
Quote
I may be able to respond to your posts only once every day or two due to personal circumstances (workload, stuff at home, etc).  If that's acceptable to you, then I accept.
Sure, although it's amusing to hear that, as i get lots of grief for limiting my participation.

First of all, you wouldn't get any grief for limiting your participation if you would simply say, "OK, there's ten of you and one of me.  I need to slow down for a minute and catch my breath."  We would respect that.  All of us here (including me) have participated in debates in which we were badly outnumbered.  We know how overwhelming it can be.

Second, though, and more importantly: you're asking for a formal, one-on-one debate, which is different in several important ways from a time management point of view (I have quite a bit more going on in my life than WWGHA).

If you say something that I've heard and refuted a thousand times before (which is likely; trust me, I've been doing this for decades), I can't just roll my eyes and decide to wait for someone else to deal with it, as I often do in standard threads.  I have to handle it myself.  This takes additional time, especially inasmuch as I haven't gotten around to writing up stock response to those points that I can copy and paste.

Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.

I would hope that fair warning given in advance about a particular circumstance would be treated with some respect.  If you know what's coming, you know what to expect.

Anyway.  PM screwtape when you're ready, Black Knight, and we'll have at each other.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline IAmFirst

Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #159 on: March 21, 2011, 07:08:10 PM »
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)

We ARE discussing Job and not A then B, or if not B than C again, are we?? :D

2nd of all, if all you believe in is peer-reviewed papers, you won't go very far in life...

-- Shin :D

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #160 on: March 21, 2011, 07:29:03 PM »
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)

To be fair: the point of a debate challenge is a one-on-one encounter.  He challenged me, I accepted, it should stay there.  Those wanting to debate him on the same point (or any other point, for that matter) should give their own challenges, which he can accept or decline as he chooses.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline IAmFirst

Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #161 on: March 21, 2011, 07:40:01 PM »
Oh, well. I thought it could be three-on-three as well.

I just hope it stays on Job and doesn't stray too much. I don't think that would be your fault, PD. :D

I'll post in the comments section. Please PM me when you're going to start,
as I may not have a lot of time on the net either.

Thanks, --- IAF
2nd of all, if all you believe in is peer-reviewed papers, you won't go very far in life...

-- Shin :D

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #162 on: March 22, 2011, 09:07:07 AM »
Related to that, a one-on-one debate is likely to entail significantly more research on my part in generating a response, especially since, while I'm generally familiar with the content, I've never actually read Job.
LOL. I kind of gathered that.

So how does this get started?

And is anyone going to take me on regarding god healing amputees?

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #163 on: March 22, 2011, 09:11:10 AM »
I'd like to be in on the Job debate. (Voter, I really wished you would respond to my 1st post in the debate, as it summarizes Job.)
If your positions aren't covered in my discussion with pd, start a new thread.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2099
  • Darwins +240/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #164 on: March 22, 2011, 12:02:35 PM »
And is anyone going to take me on regarding god healing amputees?

What is the position you are trying to argue?  Is this in reference to post 154 in this thread?  The miracle thing? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #165 on: March 22, 2011, 12:17:22 PM »
velkyn has accepted the challenge on Why won't god heal amputees, so please set that up as well. That's all I'll do for now. Thanks.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #166 on: March 22, 2011, 12:26:04 PM »
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #167 on: March 23, 2011, 07:13:06 AM »
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #168 on: March 23, 2011, 07:50:00 AM »
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.
I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists."  in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it.  I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable.   i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end.  I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing".  I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #169 on: March 23, 2011, 08:23:58 AM »
yep, I'll do it.  deja vu all over again.
How about:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can reasonably be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

With you obviously on the pro and me on the con. I think this is a fair summary of the site's position.
I would change that to: Current healing of amputees would be a plausible miracle which can be expected if the Gog of the Christian Bible exists."  in that we also need a mechanism that would demonstrate that the Bible god was the one doing it.  I would remove the world "reasonably" since that often poisons the well in how people define reasonable.   i would sugest that we limit ourselves to 5 posts each with one extra crystalizing post summarizing our positions at the end.  I would also ask you, when we start the debate to define what you mean by "miracle", "God" and "healing".  I would do the same, so we can start out on an even playing field.
I'm Ok with the removal of "reasonably," but I think we run into the same problem, perhaps even more so, with "plausible." Further, the web site itself stresses the importance of "unambiguous"  and "ambiguous," which is why I chose "unambiguous" in the first place. So, I propose:

Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists. 

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #170 on: March 23, 2011, 08:35:31 AM »
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Voter

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #171 on: March 23, 2011, 08:53:42 AM »
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #172 on: March 23, 2011, 09:28:14 AM »
Resolved: Current healing of amputees would be an unambiguous miracle which can be expected if the God of the Christian Bible exists.

My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debate Challenges
« Reply #173 on: March 23, 2011, 09:31:07 AM »
okay, I'm good with that.  You good with the format and providing defnitions? If so, we only have to wait for Screwtape.
I'll be deriving my definitions of those terms from the relevant article on the site. As to number of posts, I prefer not to limit it to five, even though I don't expect to need that many myself. Sometimes a simple request for clarification can save one from unnecessarily exploring multiple alternatives of meaning, but if there's a post limit, you might be hesitant to use a post merely for a clarification request.

so you won't use your own defintions?  Interesting and I am curious to see how you interpret what you think the site actually says.  Please let me know what this "relevant" article is.  How about if we don't count requests for clarification in the post number?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/