Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Feb 16, 2003 18:18:57 GMT -5
Actually Sim I think that Sleepy said in previous threads that he does go to other places to debate. I would also like to say that you have been the one starting most of the debates with Sleepy.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 16, 2003 18:22:19 GMT -5
Did I not concede that I shouldn't have started the thread? What I asked was why he was here debating with kids and teens when he is in college.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Feb 16, 2003 18:40:50 GMT -5
SleepyTemplar is very intelligent and very well-read, and he obviously has experience debating the topic. It's pretty silly to suggest the only place he debates is this board to boost his ego. While he's here he's free to participate in debates; not everyone here is a 'kid' - I know of several people older than Templar. If you don't think you're ready to debate the subject, then you probably shouldn't start any more threads attacking his position. You don't really have a right to start a debate and then complain about who participates in it...
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 16, 2003 21:50:55 GMT -5
You've never presented this alleged argument, unless you consider the sthingy bit the argument.
Funny how you claim atheism has all these holes, and yet you can't even present *ONE*. You really shouldn't say things you can't back up.
This wasn't even the focus of the debate. Secondly, on your board I presented several reasons why Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah that you never bothered to address. I am *STILL* waiting on you to acknowledge me having to correct you on what a contradiction is!
As defending a belief involves logical reasoning and empirical evidence, both of which you claim are not the crux of your belief, you have no defense. As you have stated, your belief involves faith. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or problems with your religion, you'll always in the end appeal to faith.
As the others point out, this isn't the only place I debate! Secondly, *YOU* began this debate, and being a RPG Townie, I have as much right to add my two cents as much as the next person.
Third, you are making claims that you can poke holes in my reasoning. As one major point of philosophy is to see what those of different positions can throw out at you in order to evaluate theirs and your own position to see which is better, then it is in my own interest to see whether or not you can back up your claims.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 16, 2003 21:51:10 GMT -5
Who are these fellows? I only know the more prominent Christian apologists such as Giesler, Willaim Lane Craig, and J. P. Mooreland. I should point out that I read their stuff and evaluate. I can easily point out problems in their reasoning, which is why I reject it. Do these other apologists have any published books? And do they contain arguments for Christianity? And I'm 19, not 34 as you're painting me out to be. I, too, still have a lot to learn. I haven't even *TAKEN* a philosophy of religion class *YET*. Yes, perhaps you should skip ahead three verses and try the poison test... You know, you could admit you have no case against atheism instead of lobbing an extended ad hominem at me. Until you do, the "put your money where your mouth is challenge" still stands.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 17, 2003 11:55:53 GMT -5
Quote: "You've never presented this alleged argument, unless you consider the sthingy bit the argument. Funny how you claim atheism has all these holes, and yet you can't even present *ONE*. You really shouldn't say things you can't back up."
I think you wanted so badly for me to not admit I was wrong in making this thread that you put it in your head that I wouldn't admit it. I just said that I shouldn't have made this thread. I intended to make a thread about atheists who were evolutionists / believers in the Big Bang.
Quote: "This wasn't even the focus of the debate. Secondly, on your board I presented several reasons why Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah that you never bothered to address. I am *STILL* waiting on you to acknowledge me having to correct you on what a contradiction is! As defending a belief involves logical reasoning and empirical evidence, both of which you claim are not the crux of your belief, you have no defense. As you have stated, your belief involves faith. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or problems with your religion, you'll always in the end appeal to faith."
And would that be some sort of small victory for you that you stated what a contradiction was? I knew what a contradiction was - my definition/illustration poorly described it. good is bad love is hate i am you red is blue chaos is peace
And what is the written law that states that unless there is emperical evidence then a religion must be false? There is none, I see n
Quote: "As the others point out, this isn't the only place I debate! Secondly, *YOU* began this debate, and being a RPG Townie, I have as much right to add my two cents as much as the next person. Third, you are making claims that you can poke holes in my reasoning. As one major point of philosophy is to see what those of different positions can throw out at you in order to evaluate theirs and your own position to see which is better, then it is in my own interest to see whether or not you can back up your claims. "
I wasn't asking about where ELSE you debate, and I'm not saying you don't have the right to debate here, but I am just curious as to why you are debating with middle/high schoolers. And, I'll say it again: I DID start this thread and admitted I shouldn't and I made a mistake in what it was aimed for
BTW: Could you provide a few links to other places you debate? Why? I would just like to come observe.
Quote: "Who are these fellows? I only know the more prominent Christian apologists such as Giesler, Willaim Lane Craig, and J. P. Mooreland. I should point out that I read their stuff and evaluate. I can easily point out problems in their reasoning, which is why I reject it. Do these other apologists have any published books? And do they contain arguments for Christianity?"
C.L. Roach - Published a great many books and had more knowledge of God and His Word than anyone I'd ever met or heard of. He has gone to be with the Lord.
Maze Jackson - Went to be with the Lord in 1996. He was not a writer, but like Bro. Roach he was very learned in the Bible and God.
Ed Ballew - My hero of the faith. He is in declining health, living in Tennessee - recently diagnosed with Cancer. He didn't write more than one book I am aware of.
About those you mentioned - and do they have the opportunity to counter your evaluations?
Quote: "And I'm 19, not 34 as you're painting me out to be. I, too, still have a lot to learn. I haven't even *TAKEN* a philosophy of religion class *YET*. "
You obviously have a more....um...(can't think of the right word) I guess you could say deeper voacbulary - some of with I do not know, and then a couple that I had never heard of. You wanted me to define what a contradiction is but you never clearly stated what terms such as Ad Hominem were. You also have 4 years up on me.
Quote: "Yes, perhaps you should skip ahead three verses and try the poison test... You know, you could admit you have no case against atheism instead of lobbing an extended ad hominem at me. Until you do, the "put your money where your mouth is challenge" still stands."
I don't suppose atheists can really understand a scriptures true meaning. The verse you refer to is stating that if ones faith is put in God, you could drink a poison and it will not harm you.
Let me type this in caps, so maybe you'll read it this time: I JUST SAID THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS THREAD. ONE MORE TIME: I JUST SAID THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS THREAD.
You're challenge can stand there. It will until I feel I am prepared to accept it.
On a side note: If you truly believe that the Evolution Theory has the empirical evidence you say any belief MUST have - perhaps you wouldn't mind visiting drdino.com and redeeming $250,00 for the simple presentation of this evidence.
EDIT: I just looked at the other thread and realized you believe he has some problems in his belief. Thus eliminating the odds of you accepting his challenge.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 17, 2003 13:39:39 GMT -5
I'm looking for a definition of contradiction from you, not examples (some of those don't qualify). The definition, as I pointed out on your site, is that for a proposition A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time in the same respect. As a better example, god cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. God either exists, or doesn't. Understand?
You're misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that the lack of empirical evidence makes a belief false, but that empirical evidence helps to validate a belief by determining whether claims are true or not. For example, the Greeks once thought emotions were caused by certain organs such as the heart, kidneys, and bowels. They believed this without empirically testing the idea, and only through empirical tests was such a hypothesis falsified, and that we learned the brain is what controls our emotions.
An ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which the person, rather than the argument is attacked. If you were to provide a good argument for Christianity, and I were to respond "Sim, you're a moron" rather than refute your argument, then I would be guilty of an ad hominem.
Can you give me the names of some of their books, or links to their stuff? I don't have the money to buy any books, but if the college library has them, I'll do my best to get around to reading them.
Philosophers generally do their best to respond to objections before objections are raised. As I'm still getting familar with apologists, and other philosophers such as Plantinga, I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with them. There is a nice Christian philosophy journal one of my professors recommended that I'm looking through and hopefully able to talk with some of the fellows there. Sadly, school (19 credit hours this semester), and work make for a busy schedule.
That's the exact meaning I got from it too. Is your faith in the Christian god? If so, care to try some Drain-o?
No worries. Respond at your leisure.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 17, 2003 13:57:54 GMT -5
Have you even read that page, perchance? I have before. Look at the opening line: "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*" There's strings attached to this, most which have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory! Such as: Hovind defines evolution as "The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed." This is NOT what evolution is! Evolution is THE CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCY AMONGST POPULATIONS AS THEY ADAPT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Hovind's definition has NOTHING to do with biology. Hence, he's creating a strawman of evolution, and then thinking evolution has been falsified by attacking this strawman! In addition, the three options he presents on his page constituted a false dilemma fallacy (a fallacy in which there appears to be only a limited number of options, when in actuality more exist). For example, THEISTIC EVOLUTION is another possibility. The site I linked, www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ , continues with the problems of Hovind's alleged offer. For one, people have tried this offer only to have nothing happen. In addition, who judges the evidence? A group handpicked by Hovind himself, who is able to reject any evidence for any reason. Do you honestly think someone who considers evolution a Satanic conspiracy is someone unbiased enough to evaluate this? Third, Hovind doesn't claim to have the money. He claims a "rich friend" (who may or may not exist) has it. So, without a proper definition of evolution, the offer is simply knocking a strawman of evolution that no evolutionary scientist holds.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 17, 2003 17:18:38 GMT -5
Don't have time to fully respond right now, but could you give a few of the links?
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 17, 2003 18:05:27 GMT -5
This is getting pretting f'ing stupid really fast. Both of you are never going to change your mind because plain and simple: there is no evidence to support whether God exsists or not. And even then, it doesn't matter how much evidence you have or not. People are going to believe what they want to beleive. I'm all for debates, don't get me wrong. I'm probably one of the first people to instagate an argument. However, there comes a time where the whole thing becomes meaningless because both sides keep slinging the same mud, despite any kind of valid arguments you make.
Theres a good quote from a book called Xenocide: "You're only so sure you're right, because they're so sure you're wrong"
|
|