BEL: The debate's post-game show 09-05-2003
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
taoist
New member
Thanks, Jefferson, I'm listening to it now.
...
"Spoiled brats," "bowl of jello," "foggy," theistic hangover," "too complicated for an atheist," "blithering idiots," "pinnacle of ignorance" ... it just keeps going! Jeez, Bob, is politeness too French for you, or what?
...
Yes, five attributes, Bob, lettered c, d, e, f, and g. If you didn't intend to link "wise and knowledgeable" into a single attribute, you should have been more careful with your English. I actually considered splitting them, but decided to keep your definition as close to the original as possible.
Bob's God
Interesting he chose only to address the five attributes I didn't discuss, leaving the two I did unanswered. With luck, he'll actually answer the points discussed in his actual post, but we'll see.
Oh, and taoist is pronounced "dow-ist" as anyone familiar with eastern religions should know.
You're right, Jefferson, that was his best line, unfortunately. It was all downhill from there.
...
"Spoiled brats," "bowl of jello," "foggy," theistic hangover," "too complicated for an atheist," "blithering idiots," "pinnacle of ignorance" ... it just keeps going! Jeez, Bob, is politeness too French for you, or what?
...
Yes, five attributes, Bob, lettered c, d, e, f, and g. If you didn't intend to link "wise and knowledgeable" into a single attribute, you should have been more careful with your English. I actually considered splitting them, but decided to keep your definition as close to the original as possible.
Bob's God
Interesting he chose only to address the five attributes I didn't discuss, leaving the two I did unanswered. With luck, he'll actually answer the points discussed in his actual post, but we'll see.
Oh, and taoist is pronounced "dow-ist" as anyone familiar with eastern religions should know.
You're right, Jefferson, that was his best line, unfortunately. It was all downhill from there.
Jefferson
What sort of behaviour do you find bratty.
Constantly asking the same already answered questions while claiming then unanswered.
Declaring victory in a completely unresolved debate (in which you were being soundly thrashed).
Selling the debate to your gullible religious audience.
Yep.. I would say Bob came across a lot more bratty than any atheist here !
What sort of behaviour do you find bratty.
Constantly asking the same already answered questions while claiming then unanswered.
Declaring victory in a completely unresolved debate (in which you were being soundly thrashed).
Selling the debate to your gullible religious audience.
Yep.. I would say Bob came across a lot more bratty than any atheist here !
Jefferson, clouding the issue with logic, tsk, tsk.
Pastor Enyart's real trouble here is that he strips the pseudo-intellectualism away from atheism, and exposes it for what it is, rather weak reasoning. Very artfully expounded perhaps, on occasion, still very weak reasoning. Thanks for the link Jefferson, I enjoyed listening.
taoist, with all due respect, have you listened to your side lately? Perhaps for terms like,"gullible religious audience". Why is it the atheist feels the need to insult the religionist at every turn, and yet becomes offended when a religionist responds in the same fashion? You may or may not be guilty of such, but it does seem to be a common denominatior amongst atheists.
taoist
New member
Ages
Thank you, ages.
You should be aware that I responded to Bob's challenge, and he has rebutted with sufficient further error to allow me to tightly prove his arguments irrational.
I will be publishing the results on September 27 on the web while I investigate distribution to a more focused audience. I will make a link available to Bob for a limited time. He is encouraged to publish independently though I don't believe he'll do so.
I find it ironic that you should so respectfully defend impoliteness. But you misunderstand. Bob wished to make the debate personal, rather than concentrating on the arguments as I suggested. This was the fundamental mistake which placed him at disadvantage.
In his last rebuttal, while using the same methods I described above, he stated, "Theists believe complexity is evidence of a complex Creator" a statement which may be true, but which still allowed me to apply his own statement -- from BR VII, post 1 -- that explaining complexity with greater complexity was unacceptable.
Thank you again.
In peace.
Jefferson, clouding the issue with logic, tsk, tsk.
Pastor Enyart's real trouble here is that he strips the pseudo-intellectualism away from atheism, and exposes it for what it is, rather weak reasoning. Very artfully expounded perhaps, on occasion, still very weak reasoning. Thanks for the link Jefferson, I enjoyed listening.
taoist, with all due respect, have you listened to your side lately? Perhaps for terms like,"gullible religious audience". Why is it the atheist feels the need to insult the religionist at every turn, and yet becomes offended when a religionist responds in the same fashion? You may or may not be guilty of such, but it does seem to be a common denominatior amongst atheists.
Thank you, ages.
You should be aware that I responded to Bob's challenge, and he has rebutted with sufficient further error to allow me to tightly prove his arguments irrational.
I will be publishing the results on September 27 on the web while I investigate distribution to a more focused audience. I will make a link available to Bob for a limited time. He is encouraged to publish independently though I don't believe he'll do so.
I find it ironic that you should so respectfully defend impoliteness. But you misunderstand. Bob wished to make the debate personal, rather than concentrating on the arguments as I suggested. This was the fundamental mistake which placed him at disadvantage.
In his last rebuttal, while using the same methods I described above, he stated, "Theists believe complexity is evidence of a complex Creator" a statement which may be true, but which still allowed me to apply his own statement -- from BR VII, post 1 -- that explaining complexity with greater complexity was unacceptable.
Thank you again.
In peace.
taoist would you like me to set up a night and you could debate Bob on his radio program? My guess is Bob would love to have on the show.
Flipper
New member
Sorry if Bob wasn't enamoured by it. It's not really possible to summarize any of the arguments in the space allotted, so you can only tackle small portions. My orginal response was 14 pages long, and had only just begun to handle the evolutionary side.
He may choose to dismiss counter arguments as being straw men of his position, but the reader should notice that Bob carefully (in Zakath's debate) and again in this one failed to set out what it was he was counter proposing. If I guessed wrong and misrepresented what he actually believes about the universe, it's unfortunate; with only one round there's n opportunity to explore what alternative explanation he's offering any further (an ancient universe but a young earth? a universe created with the apparent of age?.
My objective was to lay out a naturalistic framework for the enterprising reader to find out exactly how GR and cosmology tie happily together, what the evidence and theories were for an old universe that was able to organize using the same physical principles he seems to hold in esteem, as well as a model for the future of the solar system and cosmos that refuted the schtick he appeared to be trying to feed us with. The evidence was held within the links, as these arguments are not settled with rhetoric, but with evidence.
I notice that at the end of it, we were still not much the wiser as to the Enyart model of a created universe, which would make falsification a tad tricky. Obviously, he's not really happy with models of current scientific thinking, but what he actually believe happens outside the poetry of Genesis was not much in evidence.
I'm still not much the wiser as to where he and the modified standard model of physics take issue. Or how much of the Big Bang interpretation and its evidence is acceptable and where he takes issue with it.
He may choose to dismiss counter arguments as being straw men of his position, but the reader should notice that Bob carefully (in Zakath's debate) and again in this one failed to set out what it was he was counter proposing. If I guessed wrong and misrepresented what he actually believes about the universe, it's unfortunate; with only one round there's n opportunity to explore what alternative explanation he's offering any further (an ancient universe but a young earth? a universe created with the apparent of age?.
My objective was to lay out a naturalistic framework for the enterprising reader to find out exactly how GR and cosmology tie happily together, what the evidence and theories were for an old universe that was able to organize using the same physical principles he seems to hold in esteem, as well as a model for the future of the solar system and cosmos that refuted the schtick he appeared to be trying to feed us with. The evidence was held within the links, as these arguments are not settled with rhetoric, but with evidence.
I notice that at the end of it, we were still not much the wiser as to the Enyart model of a created universe, which would make falsification a tad tricky. Obviously, he's not really happy with models of current scientific thinking, but what he actually believe happens outside the poetry of Genesis was not much in evidence.
I'm still not much the wiser as to where he and the modified standard model of physics take issue. Or how much of the Big Bang interpretation and its evidence is acceptable and where he takes issue with it.
taoist
New member
Knight
Life is short, Knight, but not so short that I forget I have a sister living in the Denver area I haven't visited for a while. Sometime next spring or summer, I plan to hitch up the trailer to my scoot and bike out to Colorado for some catching up with my niece who hasn't seen "Uncle Jesse" in years. If Bob would like to invite me to be his studio guest, I'd be willing to debate him on a topic I believe would be relevant to his audience, and hopefully interesting to him as well.
Is disbelief rational?
In order to prepare remarks on a topic he hasn't debated before, he should be aware that I would base my arguments on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I do not believe the actual theorem is approachable by him within this limited amount of time for study, but there are good generalizations on the web, and an excellent Pulitzer-prize winning popularization included in Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" which I recommend to anyone interested in the theorem.
Knight, thank you once again for granting my request for an opportunity to answer Pastor Bob in our early correspondence. As ever, I bid you peace.
On the two occasions I've attempted to speak from home on a call-in show, I've found myself so frustrated by not being able to "see" the person I was addressing, I developed stage fright. Quite unusual considering the audiences I've addressed previously, from large lecture halls while teaching lower level MSCS courses, to my first professional address at a national mathematical conference which earned me an invitation to an international conference in Milan.
Life is short, Knight, but not so short that I forget I have a sister living in the Denver area I haven't visited for a while. Sometime next spring or summer, I plan to hitch up the trailer to my scoot and bike out to Colorado for some catching up with my niece who hasn't seen "Uncle Jesse" in years. If Bob would like to invite me to be his studio guest, I'd be willing to debate him on a topic I believe would be relevant to his audience, and hopefully interesting to him as well.
Is disbelief rational?
In order to prepare remarks on a topic he hasn't debated before, he should be aware that I would base my arguments on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I do not believe the actual theorem is approachable by him within this limited amount of time for study, but there are good generalizations on the web, and an excellent Pulitzer-prize winning popularization included in Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" which I recommend to anyone interested in the theorem.
Knight, thank you once again for granting my request for an opportunity to answer Pastor Bob in our early correspondence. As ever, I bid you peace.
taoist, because I reject your particular point of view doesn't mean I disrespect your person. While Bob did mention your name, my "take" on the brodcast was that he was making light of the atheist viewpoint, and not you personally. It's not really the quality of your argments thats an issue. It's the weakness of your assumption in the first place.
taoist
New member
Thanks, ages,
Umm, I called you respectful. I called Bob impolite. Bob doesn't understand the atheistic viewpoint. He doesn't know what atheist means. I posted the relevant definitions in case you're interested in reading them. Bob doesn't understand the assumptions implicit in definition. That's his real weakness.
And, with all due respect, you don't know me, and you haven't read enough of my work to judge my viewpoint. Read the post linked above at least. Then come back and tell me about my viewpoint. Or we could start a new thread somewhere else, which is probably more appropriate.
In peace.
Umm, I called you respectful. I called Bob impolite. Bob doesn't understand the atheistic viewpoint. He doesn't know what atheist means. I posted the relevant definitions in case you're interested in reading them. Bob doesn't understand the assumptions implicit in definition. That's his real weakness.
And, with all due respect, you don't know me, and you haven't read enough of my work to judge my viewpoint. Read the post linked above at least. Then come back and tell me about my viewpoint. Or we could start a new thread somewhere else, which is probably more appropriate.
In peace.
I am sure Bob would love to have you in studio.
Just keep me posted and I will set it up.
Sound good?
- Status