No swimming with dolphins. BAD! Very BAD!
No swimming with dolphins. BAD! Very BAD!
A refreshingly scatological post.
Hi guys. I have very limited experience debating against a creationist on a public forum.
If I promise to be civil and professional (as well as open-minded and skeptical at the same time), may I challenge him or her to a back-and-forth between two reasonable people on this thread?
Do I have everyone’s blessing? If not, I’ll shut up.
My goodness. I’ll have to remember these words and phrases at our next sales meeting.
@Kevin_Levites You are very welcome to participate. But please understand that a fair (even Semmelweis_Reflex deserves a fair day in court and should not have to face scores of opponents) and controlled debate would limit the participants. Since you were the second (Cog was first) to throw your hat in the ring, you are one of the debaters.
But unfortunately, our little theist friend has gone AWOL since I set up this challenge.
I’m “almost” had several debates about the Bible with theists. The stipulation I always demand is they will only be allowed to cite from a single translation of the Bible (like NIV or King James, etc). Wisely, none of them has ever agreed to this stipulation.
Thank you. I have a hectic schedule, but I will check this thread on a regular basis for his return.
I for one would love to see that, but if you’re expecting him to be reasonable I think you’re likely to be disappointed.
Uhhhh… Why? BOR-innnnng… (Besides, you would be the only one in that debate doing that.)
I’m confused… TWO reasonable people??? Well, YOU would be one, obviously. But who would be the second one?
Thank you, but I am open-minded . . . so maybe I can glean something worthwhile by sifting through intellectual garbage. I’m not so proud to think that I have a monopoly on truth, so maybe we’ll find out that there are, maybe, flaws in my thinking.
After all, how do I have anything to lose? I would rather know if I’m wrong about something.
Why would you ever let anyone quote from the bible? Have you ever seen two theists debate soteriology They sit there and pull bible quotes out of their asses, neither of them refuting the bible quotes of the other as they argue different interpretations and meanings based on different supporting verses, it’s a fucking quagmire of bullshit? If you are going to limit anything it should be limited to ONE BOOK of the bible. The bible is an ‘anthology.’ A collection of books. A collection of books, written by different authors, then added to and taken away from, for over 2000 years. Arguing one bible is like writing a five-page essay on the cosmos. Both of you could talk for 100 years and never meet up on anything.
The bible is a book of stories. There are no eye witnesses. Most of the authors are unknown. There are no original books of anything. If we had an original book, we wouldn’t know it. The bible says anything you want it to say. The fact that there are over 3000 different Christian faiths attests to that. Why would you ever let anyone argue from a bible? The bible is the claim, not the evidence. And using the whole bible is just silly.
Sorry ; This comment went to the wrong person (Correction) Knowing you as I do, I don’t doubt that you could hold uyour own with all the bullshit… I’m still going to ask…
Why would you ever let anyone quote from the bible? Have you ever seen two theists debate soteriology They sit there and pull bible quotes out of their asses, neither of them refuting the bible quotes of the other as they argue different interpretations and meanings based on different supporting verses, it’s a fucking quagmire of bullshit? If you are going to limit anything it should be limited to ONE BOOK of the bible. The bible is an ‘anthology.’ (Now that I know who I am speaking to, this is obviously superfluous; however, I left it in for readers that may not be as well versed.) A collection of books. A collection of books, written by different authors, then added to and taken away from, for over 2000 years. Arguing one bible is like writing a five-page essay on the cosmos. Both of you could talk for 100 years and never meet up on anything.
The bible is a book of stories. There are no eye witnesses. Most of the authors are unknown. There are no original books of anything. If we had an original book, we wouldn’t know it. The bible says anything you want it to say. The fact that there are over 3000 different Christian faiths attests to that. Why would you ever let anyone argue from a bible? The bible is the claim, not the evidence. And using the whole bible is just silly. (IMO obviously)
I have been pondering my decision to hold a debate on this thread, and the lack of response by Semmelweis_Reflex.
We (the Admins) were concerned by his actions, of spreading medical disinformation, attacks, and general antagonism. We felt there was a need to contain him. I could have taken the cheap and easy way out, a ban. But I do try to be fair and balanced, and he had not (yet) reached the threshold for such a sanction.
So I informed everyone and directed Semmelweis that a debate would be conducted in this thread, and he could not post anywhere else. I also granted him permission to say anything he desired, with the caveat of no threats. This was my way of containment.
As for Semmelweis, I expected him to come in here with guns blazing. He had the opportunity to prove his point, even redeem himself. But that never happened, and the reasons why are only his to answer.
Well I’m honestly curious what a Christian will do in a debate when they can’t appeal to “translation problems” to evade the extremely clear commandments of their holy book.
Yo, Kev! Speaking only for myself, the great thing about “debating” with ANY theist (primarily Christians) is that you really don’t have to know much of anything about Evolution, the Big Bang, Genetics, or anything else like that. What I have personally found most effective is to simply use their own “holy text” (primarily the bible) against them. As far as I’m concerned, the Christian god concept is easily countered with the bible’s own words/stories/lessons. All the science stuff is merely secondary reinforcement. For what it’s worth, here’s my general game plan. (Naturally, it can vary somewhat depending on the conversation/circumstances.)…
First and foremost, determine the individual’s personal beliefs in regards to God. Very important. Ask specific questions. Be clear and precise. AND HOLD THEM TO THEIR ANSWERS.
Be polite. Be relaxed. Present a sincere/genuine eagerness to know what/why they believe.
Upon establishing their personal beliefs, always be the one asking questions. You want to learn from them. (Hint: You already know the answers, by the way.)
Once they commit to agreeing to a particular trait about their god, point out a specific example from THEIR OWN BIBLE that completely contradicts their belief. Then (here is the important part.) ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.
ALWAYS remain pleasant, polite, relaxed. Very, very importantk.
Basically, set the trap. Dangle the bait. Spring the trap. Just a little interrogation “trick” I refined over twenty years of investigating crimes and interviewing street thugs, suspects, victims, and witnesses. Sure, having a good background in and knowledge of various science subjects is useful and good to know in general. However, it really isn’t necessary to defeat most religious god beliefs.
Very true. When I debate creationists I try to point out that evolution is nothing to do with atheism. I keep pressing that point. It is important to separate the two.
If they persist I shamelessly plagiarize ‘Calli’, that tends to sit them down on their coccyx somewhat abruptly…
Then I ask for convincing contemporary corroboration of their jesus figure according to the gospels, or god figure if they balk at the jesus figure ( for fear of blasphemy).
I use UTA archeology for my primary source of OT debunking. It’s accurate, it is Isreali and their professors are great writers.
I also use an ex member’s research here ( Arrakish for those that remember the banned) on the history, sources and references of the OT. Signs of panic/anger/ blind denial in the bible believer frequently occur at this point.
If they quote secondary sources of jesus ( Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny eta al) as primary sources I will destroy their references ( hint: there are NO primary contemporary sources for the jesus figure). None of the secondary sources are either unntainted or do not say what the believer has heard, been told. or wishes that they say. I have studied that period for nigh on 35 years now. I know my shit…
I respect the way Tin Man can ridicule and debate the idiocy of the believer and retain their good humour. I love the way Cog just destroys them like a cruise missile, stealthed and primed to follow the target.
Whitefire is a joy to watch debating the mentally challenged (they all are) “believer”. Sometimes her palpable fury is enough to toast my afternoon crumpet.
David and Shelodon, on the surface are poles apart in their approach, but on closer examination, their insistence on cold hard logic, fact based replies and measured delivery destroys most opposition and sends them scurrying to their schools/professors/congregations licking their streaming wounds, crying foul, and of course “claiming victory”.
The effectivenmess of the debaters on this forum is awesome. Every post I read with ineterest, Mr D and Mr M are enetertaining and direct, GoMl hilarious at times, brutal at others. Your skills and knowledge are why I rarely have to post at all nowadays.
Too many cooks making a sensational broth is what I say.
LOL>>>>> S U R P R I S E <<<<<<<<<< He didn’t have a point!
Ahhh, No brining in ancien interpretations, greek bla bla ba , What Hebrew really says is bla bla bla… Just strictly the words that are in the text ‘AS THEY ARE.’ Is that the point? That sounds interesting.
@Kevin_Levites One more weapon in one’s arsenal is knowledge of fallacies. It becomes part of one’s knowledge base. This one thing I learned in this forum (and continue to learn) is being able to recognize fallacies can close off their major avenue of debate.
p.s. Thank you Sheldon for using this method rigorously and teaching me a lot about fallacies.