TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > The Coliseum > The Grandstands
Reload this Page Walton vs. axiom-tech discussion
The Grandstands The grandstands are where we in the "peanut gallery" can discuss the battle.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#16) Old
macguy macguy is offline
Veteran
 macguy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
macguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticed
April 30th, 2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:
Atheism is not a worldview
Then what should we consider atheism if it is not a worldview? By definition this means:

1) The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

So how is atheism, which sees nature as all there is be not an interpretation of how he/she sees this world?

Quote:
You can be an atheist and believe that our faculties are controlled by souls and whatnat.
A theist can also believe that ghosts exist but that is a bit off their world-view since if one acknowledges the existence of souls, they would have to deal with the theistic arguments for the soul. Very few atheists, accept such a belief but hey, it's always possible. I am not sure if he'd truly be an atheist however...since God cannot exist, nature is basically all that exists correct? They would have to explain everything naturally in order to confidently say that God does not exist. Therefore most true atheists have a naturalistic view.

Quote:
This is fallacious reasoning, it does not follow that since something was not designed, it should not make choices.
I don't recall Walton saying that we should not make choices. Rather, he asked why one would intentionally argue against purpose if it is conceded that man has no purpose anyways? What justification do you have for arguing? He also answered your further question which I think you missed.


Quote:
It’s true for something to have purpose it must have an intention and goal in mind. But why have the intention and goal of arguing about “purpose” if my opponent conceded that man was not designed, and therefore has no purpose anyway? As he said, “the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality.” Then why does he have the intention of arguing about “purpose” if it wouldn’t be any good to do so to start with? Furthermore, purpose doesn’t entail something must be designed/formed/created. In fact, God who is self-sustaining has plenty of purpose: that He be glorified. Also, no dictionary I know of has defined “purpose” the way my opponent is defining it. Something can still have purpose without it being designed/formed/created. But what would be the purpose of arguing about purpose if there is no ultimate purpose in life anyway?





The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#17) Old
macguy macguy is offline
Veteran
 macguy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
macguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticed
April 30th, 2007, 01:54 PM

Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.





The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#18) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by macguy View Post
Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.
This is the exact reason that we normally consider word limits as guidelines and not hard limits.

If a participant went WAY over the limit I think that might be something to be concerned about. Yet going over the limit by a sentence or two is completely normal and acceptable in my opinion. Even in a structured, moderated verbal debate all contestants get to finish their sentences even when the buzzer has already sounded.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
Reply With Quote
  (#19) Old
FrankWalton FrankWalton is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
FrankWalton will become famous soon enough
Post April 30th, 2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by macguy View Post
Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.
My opening is actually 1497 not counting the references and their numbers. So technically, Axiom-Tech's opening is 1622 (not 1625... my bad). Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him! Yeah, sure, at the bell we let our opponent finish their sentence. But a 122 word sentence? (and more arguing in the reference section no less?) C'mon! Does the referee let a boxer throw a last punch at his opponent when the bell rings? I want a fight. But a fair one. And it doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything about it. However, I've decided to finish this debate despite what's happening because I know I can beat my opponent.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#20) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 04:26 PM

Frank, your arguments are good. Yet you are far too concerned about extremely MINOR rule infractions. You are hurting your own cause. Furthermore you have the nerve to insult me via a email.

This is the reason we don't normally host debates between people we do not know or trust - they may turn out to be jerks.

TOL owed you ZERO, yet we agreed to host and promote your personal debate. You should be thankful and appreciative. Instead you are insulting, petty and rude.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off

Last edited by Turbo; April 30th, 2007 at 06:54 PM..
   
Reply With Quote
  (#21) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankWalton View Post
My opening is actually 1497 not counting the references and their numbers. So technically, Axiom-Tech's opening is 1622 (not 1625... my bad). Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him! Yeah, sure, at the bell we let our opponent finish their sentence. But a 122 word sentence? (and more arguing in the reference section no less?) C'mon! Does the referee let a boxer throw a last punch at his opponent when the bell rings? I want a fight. But a fair one. And it doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything about it. However, I've decided to finish this debate despite what's happening because I know I can beat my opponent.
I said.... "Even in a structured, moderated verbal debate all contestants get to finish their sentences even when the buzzer has already sounded."

Think of it this way....

Even your post I have quoted above is 126 words, yet only a few sentences long (just to give us all a feel for how little 126 words looks like). Is that really such a big deal? Furthermore... had you asked nicely for us to warn your opponent we may have done that, instead you took it upon yourself to make it a "big deal" by posting your own warning in the debate thread. And then when we explained our position you responded with harsh insults.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
Reply With Quote
  (#22) Old
FrankWalton FrankWalton is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
FrankWalton will become famous soon enough
Arrow April 30th, 2007, 05:15 PM

Please, oh, please, knight, don't tell me about being rude! I have sent you countless emails telling you about the infraction yet you did not give me one email in response. Why?? You deliberately ignored me and yet you talk about being rude? Look, I'm not going to say anything about the word count anymore seeing how it's practically useless doing so, I'm just telling you to do your job. And you're not. You even said,

Quote:
"I (and the other admins) will be moderating the debate to make sure the contestants follow the above agreed upon rules."
But you didn't do that now did you?

Yes, I did go to you first, and, yes, you don't owe me anything. But I went to you thinking that you would actually be fair. Make whatever excuse you want, pal. Either way, if I ever get into a boxing match, rest assured I won't have you as my referee. Look, you seem like a stand up guy, but your standards of fairness are, well

But whatever...



   
Reply With Quote
  (#23) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankWalton View Post
Please, oh, please, knight, don't tell me about being rude! I have sent you countless emails telling you about the infraction yet you did not give me one email in response. Why??
Why didn't I respond to your email yesterday? Because it was Sunday and I was at church.

And by the way.... since when does ONE constitute "countless"???

Quote:
You deliberately ignored me and yet you talk about being rude? Look, I'm not going to say anything about the word count anymore seeing how it's practically useless doing so, I'm just telling you to do your job. And you're not. You even said,



But you didn't do that now did you?

Yes, I did go to you first, and, yes, you don't owe me anything. But I went to you thinking that you would actually be fair. Make whatever excuse you want, pal. Either way, if I ever get into a boxing match, rest assured I won't have you as my referee. Look, you seem like a stand up guy, but your standards of fairness are, well

But whatever...
Frank... you made up the arbitrary word count for this debate not me. And when you came to us for the first time regarding this infraction you told Turbo that you would be willing to let the word infraction "slide" if we felt that was best, and Turbo determined that letting the word infraction slide was the best thing yet you weren't willing to let it "slide" were you? You didn't even have the courtesy to wait until Turbo responded back to you before you posted your own warning in the thread and began publicly criticizing our forum.

Frank, you are a petty, pathetic jerk.

Please leave TOL and do not come back. You are not welcome here.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
Reply With Quote
  (#24) Old
axiom-tech axiom-tech is offline
Rookie
 axiom-tech's Avatar

 


Reputation:
axiom-tech acts like a tree huggin' hippy
April 30th, 2007, 06:27 PM

Um.. Does this mean if I reply he can't read it?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#25) Old
axiom-tech axiom-tech is offline
Rookie
 axiom-tech's Avatar

 


Reputation:
axiom-tech acts like a tree huggin' hippy
April 30th, 2007, 06:32 PM

Well, can you guys give him a 2nd chance? I'm sorry he's a jerk, he insulted me many times via email in our first chat. I don't make a big deal about it though.

I'd give him a second chance



   
Reply With Quote
  (#26) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom-tech View Post
Well, can you guys give him a 2nd chance? I'm sorry he's a jerk, he insulted me many times via email in our first chat. I don't make a big deal about it though.

I'd give him a second chance
Frank is a liar and a fool. Frank says he sent me "countless" emails that I didn't respond to yet in truth he sent me one email while I was at church. Turbo (another TOL admin) filled in as always but that wasn't enough for Frank and apparently he felt compelled to turn his chance at fame into a train wreck. Frank hurts the gospel and damages the cause for truth.

In an email sent to me today Frank told me that I "suck".

He is not welcome on TOL.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
Reply With Quote
  (#27) Old
macguy macguy is offline
Veteran
 macguy's Avatar

 


Reputation:
macguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticedmacguy has been getting noticed
April 30th, 2007, 07:18 PM

He is kinda like the guy from Tektonics (J.P Holding), which I like even though I don't engage into satire unless it's on of 'em idiotic teen forums. The idiocy seriously gets on my nerves but most of the time I thankfully control it.

Quote:
Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him!
Certainly, as I think this is what I did with Axiom's argument on my previous post. However, you could use it against him but the quote itself stands as nothing unless one explains his/her argument. Isn't an argument supposed to be one's own words? In most cases that I've seen, debates with William Craig have, don't have quotes at all but just words although they can still use each other's arguments.

Quote:
In an email sent to me today Frank told me that I "suck".
That's all he said? Hmm...

Quote:
Because it was Sunday and I was at church.
You mean, the "Lord's Day"...Lawl cause Sunday is a pagan name where it's supposed to be the Sun's Day.

Quote:
He is not welcome on TOL.
No!! Eh and here I was enjoying the conversation...Had this feeling that something bad would turn out.





The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#28) Old
Knight Knight is online now
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by macguy View Post
That's all he said? Hmm...
No, that's not all. That was just the best part.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
Reply With Quote
  (#29) Old
axiom-tech axiom-tech is offline
Rookie
 axiom-tech's Avatar

 


Reputation:
axiom-tech acts like a tree huggin' hippy
April 30th, 2007, 07:33 PM

Ok, I want to respond to his last post, is it ok if I posted it here? Will i be banned for that?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#30) Old
Turbo Turbo is offline
Friendly Neighborhood Admin
 Turbo's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Turbo is well respected by his peers
Turbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peersTurbo is well respected by his peers
April 30th, 2007, 07:39 PM

Here is the first note I got from Frank on Sunday morning (emphasis added by me):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Walton on April 29, 2007 3:57:41 AM GMT-04:00
Hi Turbo,

I'm debating Axiom-Tech in the "one-on-one" forum, and I understand that you're one of the administrators. According to the format our opening arguments are suppose to be no more than 1500 words long. If you look at Axiom-Tech's opening, it's 1625 words long! And that's not counting the references (I don't count references). I'm willing to let this slide since his first paragraph isn't really crucial. However, he did break the rules. I hope I don't sound like a tattle tell but I was afraid something like this might happen. Though I treasure my relationship with Axiom-Tech I don't trust the guy. That's why I needed you guys to moderate the debate. But I hope you guys warn Axiom-Tech about this.

Hoping to hear from you,

Frank
I replied that afternoon:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo on April 29, 2007 4:40:39 PM GMT-04:00
That's not a really big overage; less than 10%. I think we should
let it slide. I wouldn't even bring it up in the threads, as it
would distract from the debate itself.

Turbo
He wrote back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Walton on April 29, 2007 4:47:18 PM GMT-04:00
It's too late. I already brought it to the thread:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...75&postcount=5

Rules are rules and if you continue to let him slide when breaks them then what's the use of having rules in the first place? Look, I'm letting it slide too, but couldn't you guys at least give him a warning? I can't believe you guys couldn't even do that. Furthermore, if you look in his reference section (#3), HE DID MORE ARGUING!

Incredible.

Frank
I guess by "I'm willing to let this slide," Frank meant: I am ready to go down in flames over this.



   
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.