A debate

[ShadowWolf1]

Hello sirs and mams. I have recently been challenged to provide my best topic for a Theistic God and am interested in debating with one Atheist chosen by you all. It would be productive to have a focused argument on the most compelling reason for a Theistic God than to have spread out "mini debates" over less substantial reasons. If you all are interested then reply and we'll set a date and rules and all. Good night to you gentlemen.

[Metman07]

If no one else wants it, I'd be willing. I'm certainly not the best at debating here, but I do believe that I am good enough to win a debate against most theists. So how would we do this? Would we debate in a thread in which only us two can post? Would we do this by e-mail? Let me know.

By the way, I'm just saying that I'm willing to debate. I'd gladly step aside for Rhinoq, Ocmpoma, Tenspace and some others that are much better at arguing their points than I.

[Tenspace]

It depends on the topic. We all have our specialties. Will it be Science? Philosophy, Epistemology? Logic? Morals? Evolution? Early Man? Infallacy of the Bible? The colors in Joseph's robe? How many dinosaurs could fit on the Ark? Why was Noah drunk and naked, anyway? I hate when that happens to me... and I don't remember. :)

How 'bout you lay out your topic, then we'll see who's up to it.

[snap crafter]

I vote ten, shut up met

[Tenspace]

I vote ten, shut up met
Not if it's logic or philosophy. Rhino or OC would be better.

And if he wants to argue Scientific Method, I think Ghoul's shown his adeptness on a few recent threads.

Shadow, I'm game if it's evolution. Probably Teabag for high-energy physics. 10% Blasphemy would handle general biology... anyone else out there want to list their specialties? Might help Shadow pick an adversary.

[Red Mage]

Red Mage is on call.

In all likelihood, though, I'm going to end up being a wallflower from the sidelines.

[Philboid Studge]

Hi Shadow,

Since you propose "a focused argument on the most compelling reason for a Theistic God," perhaps you have such a reason in mind and can throw the gauntlet. No doubt there will be many worthy takers, but I'd like to see a one-on-one debate for a change. Maybe the rest of us can stay out of it, perhaps set up a mirror thread to accommodate peanut-gallery commentary. Good luck!

[Ickybod]

I vote choobus! He can debate ANYTHING! Hell, he can even debate his own existence. :D

[ShadowWolf1]

Thank you sirs for your interest in a debate. If I am to pick the topic I will have to think about what it should be. I will think about it and get back to you later today or tommorrow. Good day to you sirs.

[ghoulslime]

Thank you sirs for your interest in a debate. If I am to pick the topic I will have to think about what it should be. I will think about it and get back to you later today or tommorrow. Good day to you sirs.
I think you have to pass the test before you can debate: :/


http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2136&p=4

[Choobus]

I vote ten, shut up met
Not if it's logic or philosophy. Rhino or OC would be better.

And if he wants to argue Scientific Method, I think Ghoul's shown his adeptness on a few recent threads.

Shadow, I'm game if it's evolution. Probably Teabag for high-energy physics. 10% Blasphemy would handle general biology... anyone else out there want to list their specialties? Might help Shadow pick an adversary.
Choobus has a couple of specialities, but somehow I doubt they will chosen for the great debate :mad:

[Philboid Studge]

I vote ten, shut up met
Not if it's logic or philosophy. Rhino or OC would be better.

And if he wants to argue Scientific Method, I think Ghoul's shown his adeptness on a few recent threads.

Shadow, I'm game if it's evolution. Probably Teabag for high-energy physics. 10% Blasphemy would handle general biology... anyone else out there want to list their specialties? Might help Shadow pick an adversary.
Choobus has a couple of specialities, but somehow I doubt they will chosen for the great debate :mad:
We could always launch a Dirty Sanchez vs. Cleveland Steamer thread ...

[Choobus]

What a fantastic idea. But where will we find theists willing to learn the true meaning of these important topics?

[ShadowWolf1]

Hello sirs. After discussing with other Christians I have decided the topic for the debate will be the Cosmological Argument. I'd prefer not to be more detailed than that before the debate but if you want I can. As for the rules I believe you sirs should lay them out since I am a guest here. As for the date I have church Sunday mornings, college Tuesday and Thursday nights, Bible study on Wedneday nights, and sometimes church on Sunday nights too but all my other time is free. As for my opponent I believe it should also be you alls' choice because again, I am guest here. So I am ready to begin and looking forward to this debate. Good day to you sirs.

[Jennifer]

I move that the ShadowWolf1's opponent should be the atheist hive mind.

[Choobus]

Are you referring to the anthropic cosmological argument, and if so do you agree with the distinction of strong and weak put forth by Barrow et al?

[ghoulslime]

Thank you sirs for your interest in a debate. If I am to pick the topic I will have to think about what it should be. I will think about it and get back to you later today or tommorrow. Good day to you sirs.
I think you have to pass the test before you can debate: :/


http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2136&p=4
Shadowwolf got a 90% on his test. Should he have to retest? Or do you think I should lower the testing standards to compensate for his religious handicap?

[ghoulslime]

I move that the ShadowWolf1's opponent should be the atheist hive mind.
I move as you move, for all of our minds are as one. Resistance is futile! :|

[Jennifer]

I move that the ShadowWolf1's opponent should be the atheist hive mind.
I move as you move, for all of our minds are as one. Resistance is futile! :|
You shall be assimilated.

[ghoulslime]

Hello sirs. After discussing with other Christians I have decided the topic for the debate will be the Cosmological Argument. I'd prefer not to be more detailed than that before the debate but if you want I can. As for the rules I believe you sirs should lay them out since I am a guest here. As for the date I have church Sunday mornings, college Tuesday and Thursday nights, Bible study on Wedneday nights, and sometimes church on Sunday nights too but all my other time is free. As for my opponent I believe it should also be you alls' choice because again, I am guest here. So I am ready to begin and looking forward to this debate. Good day to you sirs.
The Cosmological Argument?!! :o Are you nuts?

Microphone testing…one….two…three…
Dude, I just shredded that argument in this thread:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2136&p=1

And you want more? Did you think you would have a better chance the second time around, or what? :o

[RenaissanceMan]

This might be good for a laugh.

Argument for the Cosmological Argument: God did it!

Argument against the Cosmological Argument: That's stupid!


Case closed!

You can't debate the "Cosmological Argument" As it has no basis FOR debate. A debate requires that there actually be knowable data TO debate. At the least... data that can be shown to be reasonable.


Along the same vein... now about this debate: Can God create Iron, or can that only be made in a supernova explosion?

[Choobus]

Choobus feels that you are all being unfair.

We asked him to come up with a topic for a "serious" debate, he does, and then everyone is "are you kidding, that topic is so gay it's moving in with Ryan seacrest next week, fuck off dude" . A lot of topic that a theist likes is going to seem stupid to atheists. Why not just ream they guy with logic instead of dismissing his foolishness out of hand?

[RenaissanceMan]

Chobus, you can't 'ream the guy with logic' in a debate that allows no logic in it's argument. It's like debating whether the glass is half full, half empty, or twice as big as it should be.

[Jennifer]

all someone has to do is ask without doubt for God to open the eyes of the greatest atheist here (which you should nominate). I am sure that many will convert after that.
Well that would be RA reconciled, so go for it.

[Choobus]

Chobus, you can't 'ream the guy with logic' in a debate that allows no logic in it's argument. It's like debating whether the glass is half full, half empty, or twice as big as it should be.
there's no debate about the glass. It depends on whether you are filling it up (in which case it is half full) or drinking it down (in which case it is half empty).

I just wanted you to set him up a bit so I could swoop in for the kill you bastards

[Tenspace]

I think Shadow's referring to the Aquinas Cosmological Argument. Since this is an argument from a philosophical position, I'd defer to Ocmpoma, Rhinoq, or Ghoulslime for the debate (I'm sure there are many others as well).

Shadow, you might want to pick the flavor of the Cosmological Argument (in esse, in fieri, or contingency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument)), as well as whether you're arguing from a scientific or philosophical position.

I agree with others that if we're taking the theological position and arguing existence, that we'll never get anywhere - it's all been gone over a hundred times here. But it would be interesting to hear the philosophical or scientific bent to your argument.

[ocmpoma]

I thought Wolf meant the anthropic principle - if it's some sort of Aquinus thing, then we should let Rhinoq do the talking (possibly Snake). I'm not all that strong in strict philosophical debate as I am self-taught in the area (meaning I come up with my crackpot ideas myself, rather than let someone else come up with crackpot ideas for me).

[ghoulslime]

I think Shadow's referring to the Aquinas Cosmological Argument. Since this is an argument from a philosophical position, I'd defer to Ocmpoma, Rhinoq, or Ghoulslime for the debate (I'm sure there are many others as well).

Shadow, you might want to pick the flavor of the Cosmological Argument (in esse, in fieri, or contingency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument)), as well as whether you're arguing from a scientific or philosophical position.

I agree with others that if we're taking the theological position and arguing existence, that we'll never get anywhere - it's all been gone over a hundred times here. But it would be interesting to hear the philosophical or scientific bent to your argument.
Ghoulslime would be more than delighted to play this fine game, but the recent exchange with Shadowwolf has made me sooooooo weary. If my opponent were someone with a better grasp of logic, I might be inclined – at least somebody who understands when they have been bested.

Frankly, I find it difficult to engage in serious debate over a topic as logically flawed as that which is proposed. Also, having spent too many years of my life freeing myself from the twisted lies of Christianity, I find dealing with this subject matter, even as a matter of intellectual exercise, extremely repulsive.

Actually, I think Rhinoq has the perfect combination of intelligence, philosophical sophistication, and patience to deal with Shadowwolf and his quixotic quest to debate the atheist demons. Though, he does use a MAC; and it could affect the quality and efficacy of his writing.

For some reason, I don’t think this great debate will be the excellent sport some might anticipate. I get the distinct impression that debating Shadowwolf will be much like a foot race I had when I was in elementary school. Some chubby wimp kept challenging me to a race, until I gave in and let him have it. I beat him by a good half of the distance. When I exclaimed, “I won!”, he replied, “No, you didn’t!”, and skipped home to his mom.

Expect whoever takes up the gauntlet to thrash Shadowwolf soundly only to have Shadowwolf say, “See! I won!”

Case in point, my recent dialog with Shadowwolf:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2136&p=1

Ocmpoma, feel like beating a fat wimpy kid in a foot race?

[ocmpoma]

You were that little boy, weren't you, Ghoul?

[GodlessHeathen]

Chobus, you can't 'ream the guy with logic' in a debate that allows no logic in it's argument. It's like debating whether the glass is half full, half empty, or twice as big as it should be.
there's no debate about the glass. It depends on whether you are filling it up (in which case it is half full) or drinking it down (in which case it is half empty).
Actually, the glass isn't technically half-full or half-empty. It's completely full. It's half full of liquid, and the other half is air.

[Choobus]

Chobus, you can't 'ream the guy with logic' in a debate that allows no logic in it's argument. It's like debating whether the glass is half full, half empty, or twice as big as it should be.
there's no debate about the glass. It depends on whether you are filling it up (in which case it is half full) or drinking it down (in which case it is half empty).
Actually, the glass isn't technically half-full or half-empty. It's completely full. It's half full of liquid, and the other half is air.
If you want to get technical then it is not completely full because there is a lot of space between the molecules that make up the air.

Good day

[ShadowWolf1]

Hello sirs. The Cosmological Argument I would like to debate is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If you don't know what that one is I will be glad to fill you in. Good day to you gentlemen.

[Tenspace]

You were that little boy, weren't you, Ghoul?
Odd, I was thinking the same thing. :)

[Tenspace]

Hello sirs. The Cosmological Argument I would like to debate is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If you don't know what that one is I will be glad to fill you in. Good day to you gentlemen.
I think that's your best choice. At least the Kalam Cosmological Argument posits the the impossibility of infinity and eternity, which aligns it with scientific discoveries much more tightly than the Aquinas or Leibniz arguments.

Will you be debating from the position taken by William Lane Craig?

[RenaissanceMan]

Wow, an argument that requires an IQ of 250 to debate against because of it's interlinked complexity. William of Ockam is spinning in his grave.

[Choobus]

so quit bullshitting and get on with the fucking debate already

[ghoulslime]

You were that little boy, weren't you, Ghoul?
:mad:

[ocmpoma]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)? Looks pretty weak to me. In fact, we hashed this one out quite some time ago. I wonder if the debate will involve series and sums...

[ProveIt]

I am too doubtful, but I would love to see someone without doubt do it to see what would happen.

At this point I can not logically argue for the existance of God without doubt.
So... by the theist definition you are coming to hell with the rest of us. Welcome... don't forget your shades... I hear it's hot where we're going.:cool:

[ProveIt]

Chobus, you can't 'ream the guy with logic' in a debate that allows no logic in it's argument. It's like debating whether the glass is half full, half empty, or twice as big as it should be.
there's no debate about the glass. It depends on whether you are filling it up (in which case it is half full) or drinking it down (in which case it is half empty).

I just wanted you to set him up a bit so I could swoop in for the kill you bastards
My father always said that it didn't really matter... Someone still has to wash the glass.

[ProveIt]

so quit bullshitting and get on with the fucking debate already
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[RenaissanceMan]

It's been 3 hours already! Start already!

Ok. I'll start the debate. I'm not even going to debate the verbatim of the Kalam argument, because let's face it. I don't have the required 250 IQ to debate it's intelectual chicanery.

I'm going to point out that it's base assumption, that we know enough about how the universe actually started to even debate finite or infinite space or the definition of time at the creation of the universe is false. Therefore, any philosophical derivation using those assumptions is also false.

And look! I didn't need to write a book to do it! Go me! William of Ockam is giving me the thumb's up right now.

[ShadowWolf1]

I am ready to begin sirs. Have you chosen someone to represent the Atheist side yet? What will the rules be? When will it begin? And shall I make the thread first since I will begin the debate? Good day to you gentlemen.

[Tenspace]

I am ready to begin sirs. Have you chosen someone to represent the Atheist side yet? What will the rules be? When will it begin? And shall I make the thread first since I will begin the debate? Good day to you gentlemen.
Go ahead and present your first argument. We'll see who jumps in to respond.

Atheists... (and baconeatingatheistjews)... once someone picks up the gauntlet, step back and give them a shot. Only after they have either cut Shadow down to size, or ended up on the cutting room floor themselves, may you present your usual wit and bathroom humor. :)

[calpurnpiso]

I am ready to begin sirs. Have you chosen someone to represent the Atheist side yet? What will the rules be? When will it begin? And shall I make the thread first since I will begin the debate? Good day to you gentlemen.
Go ahead and present your first argument. We'll see who jumps in to respond.

Atheists... (and baconeatingatheistjews)... once someone picks up the gauntlet, step back and give them a shot. Only after they have either cut Shadow down to size, or ended up on the cutting room floor themselves, may you present your usual wit and bathroom humor. :)
Hmm during this debate is it going to be accepted by both parties the fact that we produce our thoughts via chemical reaction and electromanetism in our brains or would it be rather believe that we pick up those thoughts from an ID initiator's waves like a radio?..:)

[calpurnpiso]

Hmmm...how about. I think therefore god exists? Something had to create those thoughts besides the brain no? That could be a good start for theists. If we are going to start flapping our wings to reach the realm of Religious psychosis induced delusions to discuss them, we better enroll the help of entheogens to make the discussions more vivid reaching delusional heights of unsurpassed Christian "logic"....:)

[Jennifer]

Cal!

[Philboid Studge]

we better enroll the help of entheogens to make the discussions more vivid reaching delusional heights ...
Done and done!

[Philboid Studge]

Tenspace and Eva: How feasible would it be to set up 'read only' threads for debates, in which only the debaters can post but others can read? (A parallel, peanut gallery, thread could be set up for us lower hominids to whip feces at each other.)

[Jennifer]

Tenspace and Eva: How feasible would it be to set up 'read only' threads for debates, in which only the debaters can post but others can read? (A parallel, peanut gallery, thread could be set up for us lower hominids to whip feces at each other.)
Ooooh. I love it. Call it the Thunderdome!

[ghoulslime]

Hmmm...how about. I think therefore god exists? Something had to create those thoughts besides the brain no? That could be a good start for theists. If we are going to start flapping our wings to reach the realm of Religious psychosis induced delusions to discuss them, we better enroll the help of entheogens to make the discussions more vivid reaching delusional heights of unsurpassed Christian "logic"....:)
Cal! Good to see you back! I thought my brain was malfunctioning. :D

[Tenspace]

Tenspace and Eva: How feasible would it be to set up 'read only' threads for debates, in which only the debaters can post but others can read? (A parallel, peanut gallery, thread could be set up for us lower hominids to whip feces at each other.)
Looking into it.

[ProveIt]

I am ready to begin sirs. Have you chosen someone to represent the Atheist side yet? What will the rules be? When will it begin? And shall I make the thread first since I will begin the debate? Good day to you gentlemen.
No need for a new freakin thread... Isn't that the purpose of this thread, titled : DEBATE! geesh...

one, two, three -GO!

[Jennifer]

No need for a new freakin thread... Isn't that the purpose of this thread, titled : DEBATE! geesh...

one, two, three -GO!
I think he's hoping to cut down on the Theist gang banging

Ten, if you figure this out can you pass this along to me. I need it for another site. We are having some similar problems...a fall out between those loving the debate and those loving the quiet refuge.

[Tenspace]

No need for a new freakin thread... Isn't that the purpose of this thread, titled : DEBATE! geesh...

one, two, three -GO!
I think he's hoping to cut down on the Theist gang banging

Ten, if you figure this out can you pass this along to me. I need it for another site. We are having some similar problems...a fall out between those loving the debate and those loving the quiet refuge.
Yeah, Eva and I are going to Chris... see if the bb software supports it.

In the meantime, I think we can all agree that once someone jumps in, the rest will hang back.

Now, who's gonna take the bait? All this waiting is making us look bad. :)

[Jennifer]

I still want the thread to be named Thunderdome.

[ocmpoma]

We can't start until Wolfie fires the opening salvo.

[ghoulslime]

Come on Shadowwolf, come out of the shadows! We are awaiting your wisdom. Drop your big argument on the table!

[Choobus]

waiting for this debate to start is like straining to push out a truculent turd.

[ghoulslime]

waiting for this debate to start is like straining to push out a truculent turd.
Use a cork screw, man!

[Tenspace]

waiting for this debate to start is like straining to push out a truculent turd.
Use a cork screw, man!
Never thought of that. Is it a Christian Constipation Reliever?

[ghoulslime]

waiting for this debate to start is like straining to push out a truculent turd.
Use a cork screw, man!
Never thought of that. Is it a Christian Constipation Reliever?
Naw! It won't work on Christians. You have to peel Christians, because they are FULL of shit.