Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zakath
    You might be unwittingly cutting yourself off and be in for an uncomfortable landing.
    I never said how high the branch was.

    7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zakath
      I struggled through it and found it very shallow and unconvincing.
      I asked you about two books. You said you struggled through it. Did you read them both?

      7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Zakath
        That's because I'm a street brawler, not a trained fighter.

        If you're going to start talkiing about BR II, should we all start singing "Glory Days" now?
        BR II: was that the one in which he solidly wholloped you in the eyes of any discerning readers, but lost only in the blinded eyes of your fundie following?
        Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wholearmor
          Since Zakath used to be a pastor and seems to be very familiar with Bob Enyart, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Zakath knows very well the answers to his opening two questions for Bob. What a wasted post that was.
          In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.
          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wholearmor
            I asked you about two books. You said you struggled through it. Did you read them both?
            I've read them; I like them.
            Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Eireann
              In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.
              I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
              Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?

              Also, I wonder about this quote from Zakath:

              "On the other hand, if none of these supernatural entities exist, it tells us that we humans are left to our own resources, that we have to make decisions wisely, and that we cannot depend upon a "Big Brother" (or "Mother" for our Wiccan readers) in the sky to solve our problems for us.":

              What are our own resources? Since when don't we have to make decisions wisely whether there is a supernatural entity or not? Who says we have to depend on a "Big Brother" or "Mother" in the sky to solve our problems for us?

              7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

              Comment


              • Zakath, since you aren't fearfully and wonderfully made, what are you?

                7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scrimshaw
                  Just a few thoughts below....

                  Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
                  You're wrongly equating proof and evidence. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about acceptable standards of evidence. Proof may well lie outside the boundaries of empiricism, which is why so few things are actually proven (even Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics are not accepted as proven fact, they are merely accepted as undisputed). Evidence, however, does generally need to be empirical in order to be acceptable, even in cases of law. In cases of law, it almost always requires empirical evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. For instance, some states have even passed recent laws that bar a person from being able to be convicted on eyewitness testimony alone.

                  Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
                  Maybe, but we're not talking about the reasonableness of rival theories. We're talking about the acceptability of evidence that be be used as evidence of either theory. If I remember correctly (I may not, because I didn't go back to look at Zak's original post), the question posited was something like, "What evidence would you accept as sufficient evidence of God (or, if asked by a theist, of no God)." Obviously, if both sides are using the same bit of evidence for their own side, then that evidence isn't going to stack up well against the evidence of their opponent; their points will basically cancel each other out, the evidence being of no help at all. If you want to gain an edge on your opponent, your evidence has to be something your opponent cannot use.

                  Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical.
                  They aren't mythical, but they are theoretical. Black holes have not been proven to exist. They are a theory that has been proposed, and is widely believed in, to explain some otherwise heretofor inexplicable phenomena. Myths are the same thing, in their way. The only difference between "mythical" and "theoretical" is that the theoretical seeks naturalistic explanations, and the mythical seeks supernatural explanations. However, since the theoretical is more uniformly based on empericism and scientific methods, it is more generally accepted than the mythical, which requires much more of a leap of faith.

                  In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
                  No, but we can theorize about causes when the only thing we can observe is the effect. Gravity is also a much more testable theory than deism. We can test gravity again and again and again by using objects in the real, observable world, and recreate those effects every time. We can't call up demons and angels and gods, though, and test those theories which have been attributed to them in nearly such a manner. We can witness effects which we may theorize are caused by some entity or other, but only rarely can we recreate those effects, even when all the observable factors are recreated. Even if the effects can be recreated, the only thing that can really soundly be postulated is the physical or physiological processes involved; theories of divine or intelligent design behind those things are leaps of faith.

                  Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
                  You also fail to consider that very, very few of the miraculous events in the Bible were attested to by actual eyewitnesses, with the possible exception of the alleged miracles of Moses (which were written of by Moses -- tooting his own horn, anyone?). There are almost no 1st person eyewitness testimonies to the miracles of Jesus in the Bible. Scarcely a word of the New Testament was even written by anyone who had ever met Jesus, or had met him for any significant time. Paul met him on the road to Damascus, but I don't recall there being any miracles done at that time. Most of the entire New Testament was written quite a long time after the death of Christ, and some of its authors weren't even born at the time of the crucifixion. In other words, almost the entirety of testimony to biblical miracle-working is done through 3rd person "he said she said" accounts.
                  Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wholearmor
                    Zakath, since you aren't fearfully and wonderfully made, what are you?
                    Pond goo?
                    Last edited by Z Man; June 17, 2003, 09:25 PM.
                    Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zakath
                      You never could see the value in defining your terms before arguing about them, could you?
                      And now you see why his username is "Novice." He's practically a juvenile when it comes to serious, analytical discussion.
                      Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Z Man
                        Pond goo?
                        His brain, maybe.

                        7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

                        Comment


                        • Re: Cowards

                          Originally posted by Brother
                          Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen
                          Several of you have lambasted Zakath for refusing to answer a question in the course of this debate that Bob Enyart asked on the air. Let me remind you all of three very simple facts:

                          1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.

                          2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.

                          3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".
                          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wholearmor
                            His brain, maybe.
                            Well, I figured that if he doesn't believe that God created him, than he must believe in evolution. And evolution states that man started out as some kind of pond goo...

                            Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Re: Cowards

                              Originally posted by Eireann
                              Several of you have lambasted Zakath for refusing to answer a question in the course of this debate that Bob Enyart asked on the air. Let me remind you all of three very simple facts:

                              1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.

                              2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.

                              3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".
                              Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?

                              7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

                              Comment


                              • Re: Re: Re: Cowards

                                Originally posted by wholearmor
                                Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?
                                That's a topic for another debate.
                                Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X