Debate Hall Current Events Thread -- Use this for all discussion on current events!

[Dre89]

Tell me, what role does a fetus have other than developing into a mature human? It's clearly its natural goal. I can't believe we're actually debating this.

 

[ballin4life]

What role does sperm have besides fertilizing an egg and developing into a human?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Uh, ballin, not to rain on your parade or anything, but as far as I can tell, Dre agrees with you. He said it himself a few pages back; he's completely celibate. And it seemed to imply through his posting that he held "seed spilled on the ground" as murder.

(at the very latest at this point, it's time to realize that debating Dre on morality is akin to debating a creationist on scientific theories–a pointless waste of time because he's so ridiculously far in the past regarding the issues that you're likely to talk past each other.)

 

[ballin4life]

If that is the case then female menstruation and even sex itself are killing humans (not all the sperm make it you know). I mean, I can even say that every person who refuses to procreate with someone else is killing humans (since I'm sure Dre would say that each person's "role" is to procreate, right?)

Note that I'm also questioning the very idea that things have "roles" in this sense. Not every sperm fertilizes an egg, not every embryo becomes a fetus, not every fetus survives birth, and not every baby becomes a mature human.

 

[Reaver197]

Wet dreams are acts of mass murder. Sweet. Same with premature ejaculators, the homicidal *****.

Bukkake fests are just absolute genocidal nightmares. Damn it, Japan!

I also wonder what is thought of people who are sterile or get vasectomies/tubectomies?

 

[Dre89]

I don't think it's killing anything unless you're terminating a conceived fetus, because only then is it a unified organism with growth.

 

[Aesir]

Kind of redundant to put conceived fetus, as you can't have a fetus that wasn't conceived.

 

[Dre89]

That's kind of a strange post to make when you haven't posted for awhile.

That of all things is what brought you back to post.

 

[Reaver197]

I am sure that you are all aware of the situation with Japan. If you at all feel like you can and want to help out in some way, here's a link so that you can donate to the Red Cross of Japan.

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah the situation is fairly bleak atm. I'm mostly concerned with the nuclear plant situation(s) but all in all Japan's in really bad shape. It makes you wonder just how prepared the US will be when a 9.0 happens along the San Andreas.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah the situation is fairly bleak atm. I'm mostly concerned with the nuclear plant situation(s) but all in all Japan's in really bad shape. It makes you wonder just how prepared the US will be when a 9.0 happens along the San Andreas.

they are along over due for an earthquake, and unfortunately the longer the stress builds up the more damage it's going to cause. I'm pretty sure a 9.0 would probably devastate the whole country though.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

TBH I'm really scared about two things: the radioactive fallout (some predictions claim that it will for the most part end up traveling across the atlantic towards california) and Yellowstone. Assuming we're in for a period of geological activity... well, Yellowstone has been long overdue.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

cali has been long long overdue for an earthquake

 

[Sucumbio]

I've been trying to convince one of my co-workers that this has nothing to do with the end-times, but basically it's falling on deaf ears, as they've convinced themselves this is the start of the 2012 stuff. We'll just have to see what happens, but each day that goes by it gets worse. Sanjay Gupta for CNN reported from Tokyo and had a monitor measuring radioactivity which was spiked well beyond normal, and that's a fair distance from the explosion.

 

[ballin4life]

Mayans: Trolling thousands of years into the future

 

[Dre89]

It annoys me when people claim the end of the world, as if huge disasters have only occurred during their lifetime.

Everyone probably thought it was the end of the world when the Black Plague hit, and that wiped out a quarter of Europe.

 

[Savon]

Am I the only person who thinks that debates out the existence of god will ultimately always end in a stalemate?

 

[ballin4life]

Well, if your position is that it will be a stalemate, then in that case you always win

 

[Dre89]

Am I the only person who thinks that debates out the existence of god will ultimately always end in a stalemate?

I don't understand why people say this. What debates don't? How often in a debate does one party concede to another? And since when is that topic specific?

If anything, God debates have lower stalemate rates, seeing as conversions happen quite often.

 

[Aesir]

I don't understand why people say this. What debates don't? How often in a debate does one party concede to another? And since when is that topic specific?

If anything, God debates have lower stalemate rates, seeing as conversions happen quite often.

A debating victory based on who concedes first is kind of silly, as I can just say "nope you're wrong." to everything you say.

Which ironically happens more often in debates about religion and politics.

 

[Dre89]

I don't consider victories to be determined by who concedes first, there can obviously still be a victory when no one concedes at all. Concession is merely the only time there is unanimous agreement on who one.

But again, I don't see how God debates are any different to any other debate in that regard.

 

[Theftz22]

http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

Craig will be debating Krauss on the 30th at 7 PM EST, there will be a live stream. I've never seen Krauss do a debate of this kind before so it should be interesting. The topic of the debate is such that the burden of proof is entirely on Craig so he might not steamroll over his opponent like usual.

 

[Aesir]

I don't consider victories to be determined by who concedes first, there can obviously still be a victory when no one concedes at all. Concession is merely the only time there is unanimous agreement on who one.

But again, I don't see how God debates are any different to any other debate in that regard.

Clearly you haven't debated the topic very long. Religion and Politics usually become emotional arguments, people tend to take their beliefs very seriously and when someone argues against them they'll lash out.

Depending on the person at least, but generally speaking people will lash out at others.

 

[Dre89]

Clearly you haven't debated the topic very long. Religion and Politics usually become emotional arguments, people tend to take their beliefs very seriously and when someone argues against them they'll lash out.

Depending on the person at least, but generally speaking people will lash out at others.

Yes, but that doesn't make it more of a stalemate than any other topic. People not being able to keep their emotions in check does not invalidate it as a topic.

Underdoggs- I'm tipping Krauss to get destroyed. Not because I'm a theist, but because traditionally in God debates scientists get slaughtered because it's not their field of expertise. I think they should leave it to athiest philosophers of religion personally. The fact that Krauss thinks science can come up with a scientifc explanation of the origin of the universe without a first cause, which requires no metaphysics explanation 9which is the problem) suggests to me he doesn't know what he's doing here.

Also, he's one of those types to make snide remarks about relgiion, and usually those ones ar ethe ones who aren't educated on religion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, theists are typically better at using elementary bull****onium, as they are carefully trained in its usage. I've watched a few too many debates like that to not be jaded about the whole idea.

 

[Reaver197]

I really can't watch debates. The format and time restrictions make it very difficult to give any good, long explanation that are often necessary for such topics like religion. Instead, it often turns into who can give the best sound-byte.

I prefer reading debates, since you can get into all the necessary details and sources that are required for such an expansive topic.

 

[Aesir]

Yes, but that doesn't make it more of a stalemate than any other topic. People not being able to keep their emotions in check does not invalidate it as a topic.

I didn't say it invalidated it, I just said it comes with the territory

 

[rvkevin]

Here's my prediction for the debate. Craig will start out with his usual five points and maybe the ontological argument to throw Krauss something unfamiliar. Krauss will point out the flaws in the first two, most likely misunderstand the third (even though he has led a symposium on the origins of morality). Craig will harp on the fact that Krauss didn't tackle all five and then claim victory. At the end of the day, Craig will have left unanswered an argument from ignorance, an argument from history that he has conceded elsewhere is inconsistent with historical method, and an argument that he concedes is not an argument.

Despite this, people will claim he won since unanswered points in debates are true since "if a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true." (By the way, this makes Hovind the indisputable best debater of religion by this standard) Oh, and don't forget that there will be people who think Craig won, regardless of what is said, because Krauss stutters and that obviously means that he is having trouble coming up with a response, which obviously means that his position has been refuted.

Krauss would have been better served if the debate had a more specific question such as "Does modern cosmology point to a God?" He knows how to refute the design inference from being apart of the Dover trial and his knowledge of cosmology should be adequate to refute Kalam. That being said, I'm more interested in how Harris is going to respond to Craig, especially to the moral argument, considering his efforts to launch the science of morality.

Edit: It seems like my wish is to be fulfilled, the topic for the Harris debate is "Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?"

 

[Theftz22]

I think Craig will go with his typical five, and as kevin says, the ontological because Krauss won't be able to debate that well. Krauss won't touch the "personal experience" argument because it's mostly just a way for Craig to end all his turns on an emotional note and no one wants to touch that **** with a 10-foot pole. Krauss will go after the Kalam with his quantum explanation of "out of nothing", Craig will say the quantum vacuum is not nothing, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, etc. Krauss won't get into metaphysics. I don't know how Krauss will respond to fine-tuning, he's done the Dover on intelligent design, but I don't know of anything he's done on fine-tuning. I've also never seen him talk about morality. I highly doubt he's versed at all in new testament history, I doubt he'll be able to respond to that.

Krauss has said that philosophy is useless and that's ultimately why I think he'll get wrecked.

 

[Aesir]

So basically a likable person vs someone who isn't very likable. Sounds like politics.

 

[Theftz22]

A find both of them to be likable people actually.

 

[Dre89]

You guys are right that Craig find safety in numbers inm terms of arguments, and will wrongly point to the fact that the opposition didn't address all of them, but he still does actually refute a lot of what his opposition says. He has a reputation as a scientist-killer.

What pisses me off about Craig is that he expects the opposition to address his arguments in their opening 20 minutes, when they're only supposed to present their own case there, and address his arguments in the rubettal.

But what pisses me off even more than that are the thiests who treat him like the sole authority on God/religion, when he's wrong on so many things. For example, in God debates, he cites the historicity of the resurrection as an argument for, yet in historicity debates, he states that the existence of God greatly increases the probability of resurrection case. Not only is this circular, as both are functioning as arguments for the other in different contexts, but in the latter he is using a non-historical argument to claim that there is historical evidence for the ressurrection. The fact he needs to call on God suggests the historical evidence is not that strong.

There's a million other things I think Craig does wrong, like lean on contemporary science as evidence, or his dirty tactics, but there's no point getting into it here. Still tipping him to win because historically anyone who only has expertise in science gets slaughtered in a God debate.

 

[Theftz22]

At the end of the day, Craig will have left unanswered an argument from ignorance, an argument from history that he has conceded elsewhere is inconsistent with historical method

Wait, which argument is the one from ignorance? You said Krauss will address the first two (kalam and fine tuning), you mentioned he will misunderstand the third (moral), and he will be left with the resurrection argument and personal experience argument. So the argument from ignorance is...the ontological??

Also, legitimately curious here, where did Craig concede his historical Jesus argument?

There's a million other things I think Craig does wrong, like lean on contemporary science as evidence

You really think leaning on contemporary science is a weakness? Then what the hell are you doing talking about the singularity and fine tuning with me?

 

[rvkevin]

Wait, which argument is the one from ignorance? You said Krauss will address the first two (kalam and fine tuning), you mentioned he will misunderstand the third (moral), and he will be left with the resurrection argument and personal experience argument. So the argument from ignorance is...the ontological??

The argument from ignorance takes the form of "If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true." If Krauss misunderstands the Moral Argument and does not address the Moral Argument, then it will be as strong as it originally was. In all of his debates, he never actually provides any sort of reason for the second premise to be true. So when he says "we still have good reasons to believe in God, because of the moral argument" he is essentially saying that since his opponent didn't prove him wrong, he is then right.

Also, legitimately curious here, where did Craig concede his historical Jesus argument?

In his debate with Bart Ehrman, he conceded that you wouldn't be able to reach his conclusion using historical method, but then pleaded that because we're not historians, we don't have to follow their method. He didn't really concede the argument, he just conceded that if you want to do history like a historian, then you can't reach his desired conclusion.

 

[ballin4life]

I think I could beat just about anyone in one of these debates (well, at least according to my own opinion) ... I don't see why it would be hard either.

1) Ontological - perfect island/perfectness is subjective/existence doesn't make you more perfect

2) Fine Tuning - can't use probability without knowing the sample space

3) Cosmological - infinite is possible, also this argument doesn't show the existence of God - just the existence of something that really bears little resemblance to God.

4) Historicity of Jesus - Bayes Theorem makes those events unlikely even in the face of evidence

5) Objective Morality - God doesn't make it so

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death- That was more just stating your opinions than actual arguments.

Rv- He didn't concede that there wasn't sufficient historical evidence, his point was that if we followed Ehrman's logic, we wouldn't know anything about history because we only have the texts and not the actual events.

Dogs- Contemporary science is unstable ground because it is ever changing. Even theists like Swinburne have admitted this.

 

[ballin4life]

It's just an outline of what I would say.

All the burden of proof is on the opponent so it should be easy

 

[rvkevin]

"This isn't a debate about what professional historians are permitted to do. That would be a debate about methodology, about the rules of professional conduct...Even if the historian is professionally blocked by some methodological restraint from inferring the resurrection of Jesus, you and I aren't so blocked. We're not so constrained, nor would I say that the historian is so constrained in his off hours."-Craig from that debate

So, in order to make his desired inference, he concedes that you can't follow historical methodology. I didn't say that he conceded that there was no historical evidence, so your point has little relevance to what I said. Although, I think it would be dubious to say that you have evidence for your claim, yet a professional would dismiss that claim outright. And I have no idea where "we wouldn't know anything about history" relates at all with what Ehrman said. Anyway, that's not why I referred to the debate, I simply said that his argument from history is one that professional historians would not agree with, and he seems to acknowledge that.

 

[Dre89]

But that quote was in response to Ehrman saying that as historians they can't make that inference. Craig later states that if we followed this logic the historian's would not allow us to conclude anything.

 

[ballin4life]

Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof