-->
@Raltar
Martin Luther is now your god, good for you. Oh do you mean the heretics.
Yes I'm not atheist who pretends you have something worth saying and you just proved it. Well done you.
Delusion In Most Atheists?
Posts
Total:
506
-->
@Raltar
The problem with the Big "A" Atheists is that they have absolutized their belief system to the point that it overrides everything else, including logic, reason and evidence.
This is true. However, I'd like to point out that if you replace "Big "A" Atheists" with "Christians", that statement perfectly defines them as well.
-->
@Outplayz
This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.This is a debate site.... the forums included. Some people would rather debate on forums and some would rather formally debate. I would say the formal debaters are doing it so other give them brownie points and they could feel good about themselves. The forum debaters have free rain and aren't trying to impress anyone other than get their points across. I would say debating on the forums is much better and will actually finish an issue. Only people that can't handle actually debating their idea will stay away from the forums... or, just a narcissistic itch that they want to win something. The forums are far superior to the formal debate function in getting your topic to its conclusion.
A formal debate is a huge commitment. You want to know your subject well before you make an idiot of yourself.
With a formal debate, the two combatants are forced to present the best arguments they are capable of and are judged by the outcome. A good judge helps the two combatants understand the flaws of their reasoning and explains who presented the better argument and why, in their opinion. A good judge judges on the merits of the argument, not on whether they agree with the position or not. What happens on these forums is you get five or six atheists and agnostics bearing down on one Christian. Sometimes the language gets tough because each side wants to protect their worldview at all costs. The participants of these forums are largely humanist or secular in their outlook so the Christian is usually outgunned by the barrage of comments. A one-on-one debate helps narrow the focus.
In a forum thread, questions can be by-passed and the debater does not have to be committed to answering them. To win a debate you know you have to address the questions.
-->
@PGA2.0
Exactly. Finally, someone gets it.
-->
@PGA2.0
That doesn't happen on this site. You are talking like the judges on this site are professionals, they're not. I for one am no professional when i decide to vote and i don't even think about half the stuff you said. I just vote for the person that i felt had the better arguments and/or if i found there is one argument that needed to be addressed in order for the whole thing to be true... and, i won't consider any of the other arguments if this argument isn't met. And i am decently intelligent, so my vote is sorta good ... but not anywhere near professional. There are people worse than me, way worse. Plus, everyone voting is in the forums. Like i already mentioned to Brutal... a formal debate that's not this site in real life... can be good. But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con. Debating's like a sport, a hobby... It is not nearly the best way to get to the conclusions of an issue. Regular discourse with debate elements is the best... and that's what you find in the forums. Seriously how do you guys not get that? Your arguments that it's better are really making you guys seem like you're trying to make yourselves out to be more intellectual bc you formally debate. If you guys would say debating has it's own positives... like research and sources, i would agree there are elements to it that are good... but, you guys are making it out that if you don't debate formally ... you're stupid or lower than me. Give me a fucking break... it reeks of self importance.
-->
@BrutalTruth
(^8Exactly. Finally, someone gets it.
Welcome aboard!
-->
@PGA2.0
"But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con."
I just read that back and now i'm sounding like i'm trying to say formal debates aren't good. That's not what i meant and i acknowledge there are good things in formal debates. My main beef with formal debates is that i find it to be a disservice to the audience in certain cases. By debating someone that says something like "Hitler didn't kill Jews," by debating this person you are basically saying it's a debatable subject. Your giving dumb statements or topics a level of respect that they don't deserve. That's always been my main beef with formal debates. Not that they're bad, just in certain cases why debate the opposite side and give it even an ounce of respect. This has to do with debating in general. Everything else about this site i said stands.
-->
@Outplayz
That doesn't happen on this site. You are talking like the judges on this site are professionals, they're not. I for one am no professional when i decide to vote and i don't even think about half the stuff you said. I just vote for the person that i felt had the better arguments and/or if i found there is one argument that needed to be addressed in order for the whole thing to be true... and, i won't consider any of the other arguments if this argument isn't met. And i am decently intelligent, so my vote is sorta good ... but not anywhere near professional. There are people worse than me, way worse. Plus, everyone voting is in the forums. Like i already mentioned to Brutal... a formal debate that's not this site in real life... can be good. But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con.
A formal debate will hone your skills, help you to find out how to win an argument and determine if your point of view has what it takes to win the argument. Although most of the debaters are not pros the better ones have engaged in many debates and know what a good argument is. In a formal debate, I don't think I would put my argument in the hands of someone who had not experienced many. Since you say you have maybe I will consider using you in a judicial panel if you would consider it.
Debating's like a sport, a hobby... It is not nearly the best way to get to the conclusions of an issue. Regular discourse with debate elements is the best... and that's what you find in the forums. Seriously how do you guys not get that? Your arguments that it's better are really making you guys seem like you're trying to make yourselves out to be more intellectual bc you formally debate. If you guys would say debating has it's own positives... like research and sources, i would agree there are elements to it that are good... but, you guys are making it out that if you don't debate formally ... you're stupid or lower than me. Give me a fucking break... it reeks of self importance.
Debating helps you to buckle down and find out what the issue is about. You have to be intently aware of both positions and the merits of both to show your position is the more reasonable and logical. On a forum thread, people can spew out any kind of garbage and not be held accountable for it.
I don't consider it to be who is more 'intellectual' but who has the better argument and what is the truth of the subject matter under discussion. The purpose of engaging in a formal debate for me is because I see my side being misrepresented and I want the truth to be known. I do it because I believe the truth is important.
I do the same in a thread, but people cannot be held to account as easlity as in a debate for what they believe.
-->
@BrutalTruth
You didn't bother to give that any thought did you. You started out here decrying an atheist defining atheism and now you accept a godist defining atheism.
Oh dear.
-->
@PGA2.0
They are held accountable in a different way. The entire community will come down on them if they aren't being logical. In any case, you are pointing out pro's to formal debates. I never said there aren't any. I never said you don't have to know a bunch and research it. It's still debating none the less. But it is no better than the forums when you are having a conversation with someone that also knows his/her stuff, and isn't trolling. In that case, i believe it is even better than the formal debates for the main reason... you can get to a conclusion. This doesn't mean you can't with formal debates. But, more often than not, given talking to the right person, that is more achievable on the forums since you aren't bound to just 5 rounds. Following certain debate structures... sometimes you only have 2 rounds to debate your idea. That is not enough to get to the conclusion of certain topics. On top of that, the substantive people on the forums aren't just some random dummies... they are well studied on the topics they are talking about. Plus, for me personally, i'm a paralegal... i don't need extra help in learning how to debate since i do it for work every freaking day. It's refreshing coming to the forums and shooting from the hip. That doesn't mean i am just spewing nonsense and speaking from ignorance. I have researched and debated the topics i am most passionate about many times over the years. I don't need to use a formal debate to get better. All i need is to debate people on the forums and continue to grow.I do the same in a thread, but people cannot be held to account as easlity as in a debate for what they believe.
Bottom line... both have their positives and both have their negatives (i would say debating with structure, by design, has more negatives than the latter imho anyways). But in any case, to make it sound like formal debates are the only intellectual way to address your issues and/or the best way to do it is simply false.
-->
@Outplayz
"But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con."I just read that back and now i'm sounding like i'm trying to say formal debates aren't good. That's not what i meant and i acknowledge there are good things in formal debates. My main beef with formal debates is that i find it to be a disservice to the audience in certain cases. By debating someone that says something like "Hitler didn't kill Jews," by debating this person you are basically saying it's a debatable subject. Your giving dumb statements or topics a level of respect that they don't deserve. That's always been my main beef with formal debates. Not that they're bad, just in certain cases why debate the opposite side and give it even an ounce of respect. This has to do with debating in general. Everything else about this site i said stands.
I have had thousand post threads on DDO and never seen a resolution. The problem is that what drives a worldview gets in the way. The parties involved become dead to anything other than their viewpoint and they cannot be reasoned with. That is when challenging them to a formal became the only avenue to put up or shut up. They refused to do both. So I just walked away from the discussion and refused to engage the person again.
I learned something a long time ago, "Convince a person against their will they remain the same unchanged still."
I also realized that truth is the only thing that counts but people don't always like the truth. Speaking generically when I use the personal pronoun (you) if you don't have the truth you are fooling yourself. If you can't put a label on the truth you are a skeptic, bouncing around on the waves of disbelief and uncertainty and any wind of doctrine, never able to believe because of your ignorance and unbelief.
-->
@PGA2.0
There can be many reasons why they didn't. I don't know the first thing of the proper structures for debates or the rules. Why would i do something where i'd just lose bc i didn't know the rules? One of my debates i lost bc i didn't have good spelling. Like i had the time to go back and edit all of my work... i don't have that kind of time. Today and yesterday are rare days i can be on this site for a few hours. Than comes down to popularity of the person (which makes a difference in some cases) and semantics. People win off semantics... you know? That isn't winning in my book. There are a lot of things that go into those formal debates that give you a win that has nothing to do with the arguments. But again... i'm not saying they are bad... you aren't getting it or keep dismissing it. It's not better than the forums. And yeah... some topics don't have a conclusion... but you can get a lot further along than you can with the formal. My contention is that Brutal made it seem like the formal debate function is the only way to debate your ideas and/or so much better that he didn't want to waste his time answering Etrnl's arguments... it's not, and that comes off as very self important, bottom line.I have had thousand post threads on DDO and never seen a resolution. The problem is that what drives a worldview gets in the way. The parties involved become dead to anything other than their viewpoint and they cannot be reasoned with. That is when challenging them to a formal became the only avenue to put up or shut up. They refused to do both. So I just walked away from the discussion and refused to engage the person again.
-->
@Raltar
Guys, I found the troll!
Lol. We've known about him for ages. He's sort of like a pet. But feed him at your own risk, he's as stupid as they come, and has been that way for years. He's sort of a stalker too so don't let him smell you.
-->
@Outplayz
I do the same in a thread, but people cannot be held to account as easlity as in a debate for what they believe.They are held accountable in a different way. The entire community will come down on them if they aren't being logical. In any case, you are pointing out pro's to formal debates.
As I said, the majority of the community are secularly minded and have an agenda. They want to push their worldview as valid.
I never said there aren't any. I never said you don't have to know a bunch and research it. It's still debating none the less. But it is no better than the forums when you are having a conversation with someone that also knows his/her stuff, and isn't trolling. In that case, i believe it is even better than the formal debates for the main reason... you can get to a conclusion.
It seldom happens from what I've seen. The problem with a formal debate, however, is that you tend to invest a lot of time and energy in the outcome.
This doesn't mean you can't with formal debates. But, more often than not, given talking to the right person, that is more achievable on the forums since you aren't bound to just 5 rounds. Following certain debate structures... sometimes you only have 2 rounds to debate your idea. That is not enough to get to the conclusion of certain topics. On top of that, the substantive people on the forums aren't just some random dummies... they are well studied on the topics they are talking about. Plus, for me personally, i'm a paralegal... i don't need extra help in learning how to debate since i do it for work every freaking day. It's refreshing coming to the forums and shooting from the hip. That doesn't mean i am just spewing nonsense and speaking from ignorance. I have researched and debated the topics i am most passionate about many times over the years. I don't need to use a formal debate to get better. All i need is to debate people on the forums and continue to grow.
That may be the difference between us then. I believe the message of the gospel is of paramount importance, and finding out how to express that message and counter the arguments of unbelievers is something that may pay off for a person down the road (God willing). That is why I have invested over fifteen years or so on debate forums and have been a professing Christian since 1980. I have examined your worldview growing up where I read all kinds of novel ideas about life. I have found only one that makes sense. I continue to seek to find out how others make sense of the basics by pulling apart the nuts and bolts of their worldviews. When you get to core beliefs there is no sense to them.
Bottom line... both have their positives and both have their negatives (i would say debating with structure, by design, has more negatives than the latter imho anyways). But in any case, to make it sound like formal debates are the only intellectual way to address your issues and/or the best way to do it is simply false.
In my experience, there comes a point in any thread where if you push someone hard enough they will shut you down. With some people, you realize you have reached that point quickly and with others, it takes time to play out. By the motive becomes apparent over a space of time. Just by reading someone's views on a particular subject lets you understand their worldview to an extent, even if they have never stated it. Usually, they have an agenda to prove you wrong because your view interferes with what they perceive as their freedom. A formal debate by-passes all that so that the topic is the central focus.
-->
@ethang5
Sounds like solid advice. I've already got two stalkers on this site, I don't need another.
-->
@ethang5
hahahahahaha thang the coward has squeaked, how mildly amusing. Is mummy imitating an amputee god? And then he calls someone else stupid, poor thang.
-->
@Raltar
Ask thang about amputees if you want solid advice bwuahahahahahahaha
-->
@PGA2.0
If you can't put a label on the truth you are a skeptic, bouncing around on the waves of disbelief and uncertainty and any wind of doctrine, never able to believe because of your ignorance and unbelief.
You suggest a false dichotomy of inflexible certainty and rootless disbelief. i am a skeptic; I believe certainty is impossible (other than in trivial cases such as tautologes and definitions),but I don't "bounce around on any wind of doctrine"!
If I am an exception to what you asserted then perhaps its not a very good assertion about anybody - so why make it?
-->
@Raltar
Is that your best run away from post #91, ask thang for some other ones, he's been running away from me whimpering for years.
-->
@Raltar
Stalking confirmed. √
He's like on permanent warning, so if his yapping gets bothersome, just report him. Most people just ignore him. He's inconsequential.
-->
@PGA2.0
All that is great... it isn't better than forums and forums aren't better than formal. They are both equally good at what they do.
-->
@Outplayz
I note that PGA has not yet had a single formal debate on DA. He has, however, made over 500 forum posts.
-->
@Outplayz
I have had thousand post threads on DDO and never seen a resolution. The problem is that what drives a worldview gets in the way. The parties involved become dead to anything other than their viewpoint and they cannot be reasoned with. That is when challenging them to a formal became the only avenue to put up or shut up. They refused to do both. So I just walked away from the discussion and refused to engage the person again.There can be many reasons why they didn't. I don't know the first thing of the proper structures for debates or the rules. Why would i do something where i'd just lose bc i didn't know the rules? One of my debates i lost bc i didn't have good spelling. Like i had the time to go back and edit all of my work... i don't have that kind of time.
I use Grammarly. It helps me look better than I am. There is a free version but I used the one that costs so I can check my work against plagiarism and a number of other flaws the free version does not offer.
Today and yesterday are rare days i can be on this site for a few hours. Than comes down to popularity of the person (which makes a difference in some cases) and semantics.
Popularity is the one that bothers me, along with siding with your own worldview. But I don't expect that from the best debaters for the reason that they would not like that done to them. They realize how important it is to judge as fairly as possible. Having said that, I believe no one is neutral. Sometimes our bias plays out in ways we do not even know.
People win off semantics... you know? That isn't winning in my book. There are a lot of things that go into those formal debates that give you a win that has nothing to do with the arguments. But again... i'm not saying they are bad... you aren't getting it or keep dismissing it. It's not better than the forums. And yeah... some topics don't have a conclusion... but you can get a lot further along than you can with the formal. My contention is that Brutal made it seem like the formal debate function is the only way to debate your ideas and/or so much better that he didn't want to waste his time answering Etrnl's arguments... it's not, and that comes off as very self important, bottom line.
His tone comes off sharp, and he believes what he believes is true, but he hasn't been tested on this forum much yet. It will be interesting to examine and question some of his beliefs for cracks.
-->
@keithprosser
If you can't put a label on the truth you are a skeptic, bouncing around on the waves of disbelief and uncertainty and any wind of doctrine, never able to believe because of your ignorance and unbelief.You suggest a false dichotomy of inflexible certainty and rootless disbelief. i am a skeptic;
I will have to get into it more when I'm not so tired then.
Here is something that captures my thinking somewhat on the subject:
"As one thinker put it-- Dallas Willard, a Christian philosopher at U.S.C.-- "If we want to be intellectually honest skeptics, we must be as skeptical about our skepticism as we are about our knowledge." We should take the burden of proof to defend our skepticism instead of simply asserting our skepticism. Anyone can assert skepticism. Whether they can make sense out of their skepticism is a different thing.
I believe certainty is impossible (other than in trivial cases such as tautologes and definitions),but I don't "bounce around on any wind of doctrine"!
Are you certain of that belief? What you did was create a self-refuting or self-contradictory statement.
If I am an exception to what you asserted then perhaps its not a very good assertion about anybody - so why make it?
Do you know what the truth is? Please tell me.
-->
@keithprosser
I only debate what I am passionate about.I note that PGA has not yet had a single formal debate on DA. He has, however, made over 500 forum posts.
-->
@PGA2.0
My mistake - the leader board shows you with 0 debates; I guess it doesn't include ongoing debates.
So I expect you will go from 0:500 to 1:500 when you lose!
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe certainty is impossible (other than in trivial cases such as tautologes and definitions),but I don't "bounce around on any wind of doctrine"!Are you certain of that belief? What you did was create a self-refuting or self-contradictory statement.
Are the only options faux-certainty or 'bouncing around'? is it as black and white as that?
As a card carrying sceptic I do not claim certain knowlegde of any fact, but there is a spectrum of shades of certainty and uncertainty.
-->
@ethang5
But feed him at your own risk, he's as stupid as they come, and has been that way for years. He's sort of a stalker too so don't let him smell you.
How Is it that you get away with continually calling people "stupid" (post 103 above) and I have had two warnings about using the word. Are you also a mod under a different name?
-->
@Stephen
Just think critically for a moment.
Who did I call stupid?
See? This is where reading comprehension comes in. I did not call anyone stupid.
Now to you. You get angry, call people clowns, type in all caps, and needlessly repeat posts. It undercuts your argument. You look like a mentally unstable person.
You're too emotional. All we have to do is make you angry and you go ahead and kill your own argument for us. If you trust your arguments are right, then there is no need for insults or all bold/caps shouting. Calm down.
-->
@ethang5
Who did I call stupid?
Who did I call stupid?Guys, I found the troll!Lol. We've known about him for ages. He's sort of like a pet. But feed him at your own risk, he's as stupid as they come, and has been that way for years. He's sort of a stalker too so don't let him smell you.
So unaware thang, you deserve all the ridicule you invite.
See? This is where reading comprehension comes in. I did not call anyone stupid.
See this is where honesty comes in you have none.
Now to you. You get angry, call people clowns, type in all caps, and needlessly repeat posts. It undercuts your argument. You look like a mentally unstable person.
This from the angriest little wannabe on this forum, hilarious.
You're too emotional. All we have to do is make you angry and you go ahead and kill your own argument for us. If you trust your arguments are right, then there is no need for insults or all bold/caps shouting. Calm down.
Who is WE you funny little loner?