The Debate Hall Social Thread

[blazedaces]

The question is, who's going to judge it? Dre thinks everyone's biased, so any verdict we give he may not accept.

This is true...

How about you, delorted? I suggest you because you not only have been a judge before but don't you agree with Dre on a lot of topics? If I'm wrong about this please let me know...

I'm just thinking that Dre's issue is that because people don't agree with him they are biased against him without giving him a chance, but if there were someone who did agree with Dre, he would be less inclined to be biased against Dre (in Dre's eyes).

Yes, no, maybe so?

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

I don't mind someone judging me who disagrees with me. I prefer that, it's more of a challenge, and I know any praise I get (if I get any) is genuine.

I don't just think people are bias merely because they disagree with me.

I believe that certain people are bias here because I have reason to believe that these particular people wouldn't accept any argument that opposes theirs to be good.

The perfect example was in the homosexuality thread. People were saying my arguments were not only wrong, but objectively bad, so I asked them to tell me anti-homosexuality arguments they would accept as good, yet no one gave me one.

If you can't give an argument for the opposing side that you would consider good, then it's evident you'll consider any opposing argument bad merely because it opposes yours, not because it's a poor argument.

One debater (can't remember who) at least had the dignity to say that he couldn't think of an anti-homsoexuality argument he'd accept, and admitted he was bias. I respect that alot.

But yeah anyway, I'm in the mood to jump into a 1 v 1 debate, it'd have to be something philosophical, but even then my scope is pretty limited.

One topic I may suggest is an animal rights one. I'd take the humanist side, that humans are superior to animals. That's just a suggestion though, I'd like to hear what you guys recommend.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You realize I'm a catholic too right? We could pick a topic where we both disagree with everybody with relative ease.



That said, inability to find an argument that a person believes is good on a topic doesn't amount to simply dismissing it, it can also mean easily that the person was never presented with one, or possibly that the side is actually an absolute truth.


To tell whether or not it's biased, see if they can do an effective devil's advocate.

 

[Aesir]

CK gave you the natural rights argument, which is pretty straight forward.

 

[KrazyGlue]

One debater (can't remember who) at least had the dignity to say that he couldn't think of an anti-homsoexuality argument he'd accept, and admitted he was bias. I respect that alot.

Me

Although that's biased by your definition, not mine.

You realize I'm a catholic too right? We could pick a topic where we both disagree with everybody with relative ease.

I don't think Dre is catholic, actually...

That said, inability to find an argument that a person believes is good on a topic doesn't amount to simply dismissing it, it can also mean easily that the person was never presented with one, or possibly that the side is actually an absolute truth.

Agreed. Dre, if I argue that purple fairies control the weather via a factory sitting on the clouds, would you really have to provide me with an argument you'd consider "good" to prove you're not biased?

 

[Crimson King]

Just read HP lovecraft and you'll probably want to blow your head off.

Atleast that's what people tell me.

*taps location*

How's that, pal?

 

[Aesir]

I'm confused.

 

[Deleted member]

This is true...

How about you, delorted? I suggest you because you not only have been a judge before but don't you agree with Dre on a lot of topics? If I'm wrong about this please let me know...

I'm just thinking that Dre's issue is that because people don't agree with him they are biased against him without giving him a chance, but if there were someone who did agree with Dre, he would be less inclined to be biased against Dre (in Dre's eyes).

Yes, no, maybe so?

-blazed

I suppose I'd judge. I'm not sure if I agree with Dre. on anything, actually. I believe in a god... does Dre. believe in a god? I think he does, so maybe I'm wrong. What were you referring to in particular?

R'lyeh is an underwater city where Cthulhu lies.

 

[blazedaces]

I suppose I'd judge. I'm not sure if I agree with Dre. on anything, actually. I believe in a god... does Dre. believe in a god? I think he does, so maybe I'm wrong. What were you referring to in particular?

My apologies then, I guess I'm wrong about the agreement on issues... I thought you agreed on his stance on homosexuality and objective morality...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I'm not a Catholic. Can I ask why I in particular was recommended for this debate?

 

[Aesir]

I probably won't ever debate on god, because I really have a Connecticut mentality on it.

Like I'm an Atheist-agnostic. But at the end of the day I'm just apathetic toward the question in general because I find it pointless to begin with, you're never going to prove it one way or another and I find it detracts attention away from real issues.

 

[Lore]

No! No! No!

Do NOT start with that book. Start with Sophie's World, which is a fantastic novel that will teach you volumes about philosophy (Ancient Greeks -> Modern) while giving you a great plot with a fascinating twist. Readreadreadreadread this book.

Author Jostein Gaarder. Probably my most cherished book of all time (and I love the **** out of Harry Potter)

Actually, my sig is from the book. I'll post it.

Cool, I'll check it out the next time I go to the library.

Just read HP lovecraft and you'll probably want to blow your head off.

Atleast that's what people tell me.

Lovecraft was great; I read a collection of his stories this year.

Yeah I'm not a Catholic. Can I ask why I in particular was recommended for this debate?

Probably because you have different views than the majority of the DH.

I probably won't ever debate on god, because I really have a Connecticut mentality on it.

I won't debate God because all religions start with, "God exists," and since most religions consider themselves to be the absolute truth, there's no room for argument.

Most debates on the subject just end with circular arguments too.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yeah I'm not a Catholic. Can I ask why I in particular was recommended for this debate?

I seem to remember you explicitly stating you were and referring to "catholic evolution".


1. Because I wanted to pick you.

2. Because you were getting frustrated at being ganged up on, so I wanted to give you a chance to do a more individualized discussion.

3. My views are more similar to yours then anyone else's in the debate hall, that would allow us to pick a finer topic (preferably one that the judge isn't familiar with so bias is limited).

4. I pushed for your inclusion in the debate hall, so I feel somewhat responsible for giving you a chance to develop a reputation representative of your actual skills.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not a practising Catholic anymore, but I know a bit about it from when I used to be.

 

[Deleted member]

My apologies then, I guess I'm wrong about the agreement on issues... I thought you agreed on his stance on homosexuality and objective morality...

-blazed

Morality is subjective and sex for everyone. In fact, here's a quick list:

Gods: I believe there's a higher power.

Guns: Ban the **** out of them.

Health Care: Universal or bust.

Gay Marriage: Sure.

 

[Dre89]

I won't debate God because all religions start with, "God exists," and since most religions consider themselves to be the absolute truth, there's no room for argument.

Most debates on the subject just end with circular arguments too.

Can I ask which Catholic philosophers you read to give you this idea?

 

[Lore]

Can I ask which Catholic philosophers you read to give you this idea?

I haven't read any. I was talking about arguments with the average christian, muslim, etc.

 

[Dre89]

But that's a huge straw-man, Catholic philosophy assumes the existence of God is not self-evident but necessary, and explains why God exists and so on. Don't confuse philosophy of religion with theology.

That's like me saying athiesm is weak because Joe Schmoe the atheist off the street told me athiests believe God doesn't exist simply because they don't like religion and forced control.

You have to understand that Catholicism is distinct from other religions in that it has philosophy behind it (plus other things like science and history), it began developing a rational argument in the 11th or 12th century, and in fact the theology made claims that were philosophically plausible at time before philosophical plausability was a necessary criteria to meet.

Take for example the Trinity. The Church from the beginning has always emphasised it was one God, three persons, not three Gods (tritheism). This came at a time where claiming three Gods wouldn't have made much of a difference, but would have made a huge difference when philosophy in western civilisation emerged in the medieval period with the discovery of Aristotle's works, for tritheism is logically implausible. That's just one example of many.

The body of academics for other religions largely conssit of biblical scholars and theologians, they don't have an ocean of philosophical material like the Church does.

I can understand why you'd be cautious to enter a God debate, because many people are like that, but in a debate hall, anyone who is willing to participate in a God debate is expected to have previous knowledge from the academic debate, and would have reasons for their position beyond being brought up to have said position.

Adumbrodeus I'm eager to have this 1 on 1 if you're still up for it, suggest a topic and I'll get back to you on whether I'm fit to debate on it or not.

 

[Lore]

That's pretty intersting stuff, Dre. I'll definitely read up on Catholic philosophy as soon as I can.

I'm just used to all the Baptists here in south Georgia. >_<

 

[Evil Eye]

That was interesting stuff about Catholicism being one step ahead of many other religions philosophically, Dre, but I can't help but prod you for examples of the Catholic church using science in their argumentation or proofs.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That was interesting stuff about Catholicism being one step ahead of many other religions philosophically, Dre, but I can't help but prod you for examples of the Catholic church using science in their argumentation or proofs.

... You mean I didn't hammer it in around here enough?


Oh poo.




Dre, ok, cool.


Haven't picked a topic,but would be glad for the other debators to give some input.

 

[Dre89]

That's pretty intersting stuff, Dre. I'll definitely read up on Catholic philosophy as soon as I can.

I'm just used to all the Baptists here in south Georgia. >_<

No offence to any Protestants here, but Protestantism is completely different animal to Catholicism, and there is no justification for its belief at all.

Protestantism is purely an individual's interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation after the Bible was made.

Take the Church of England for example. It was made by King Henry the Eighth simply because he wanted to be able to divorce his wife.

The distinction between Catholicism is that Protestantism is based entirely on an individual's interpretation of Scripture, whereas Catholicism is based on both Tradition and Scripture.

I think what many people don't undertsand was that the Church wasn't made after the Bible, it was the Church who made the Bible. In fact, the only reason why there is a Bible was because at the time it was the most efficient method for the Tradition to preserve the message.

In negelecting Tradition, which is what Protestants and secualr rationalists do, you're ignoring the context the Bible was written in, and why it was created. Protestants are essentially putting their own caption under a photo the Catholics took.

Now the Protestant can argue all he likes that it was actually their Church that was the original one, but that's rubbish. Protestant's themselves have traced Catholicism back to the Early Church. Look up Peter Kreeft, he's an example of that.

Plus Protestants omit something like 12 books from their Bibles, which is to their detriment. Take for example the Baptist Church. They claim that baptism is only meant for adults, because in the Bible only adults are baptised. Yet in the book of James (probably one they omit) entire families get baptised.

Again, no offence to any Protestants.

That was interesting stuff about Catholicism being one step ahead of many other religions philosophically, Dre, but I can't help but prod you for examples of the Catholic church using science in their argumentation or proofs.

I just read that in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm, so I'm not too sure what it was referring to specifically, but it could possibly be-

1. The fact the Evolution Theory correlates to the Creation Story (the Catholic interpretation, not the Portestant fundamentalist one).
2. The fact that certain historical events have been verified by scientific data (for example they apparently found evidence of a flood occuring at the time and place of the Noah's Ark story).
3. Things like the Bleeding Eucharist being allegedly scientifically proven.
4. Developments in atsrophysics telling us that the world was intricately designed for life, the fine-tuning argument, plus science refuting certain other athiestic theories etc.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Protestantism was also started because of corruption in the Catholic church, such as priests accepting money to grant salvation to the spender.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I know endulgences were prominent in medieval times, but alot of people seem to think that Church corruption somehow means that Catholicism isn't true, which would have nothing to do with whether it's true or not.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Agreed. I didn't say Catholicism was not true.

 

[Lore]

That's really interesting, Dre. I really need to read some Catholic philosophy.

I've already known that Catholicism is waaaaay different than Protestantism because, somehow, every girl that I've ever dated has been Catholic.

How does Evolution correlate to the Creation story?

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure what the 'official' stance on evolution is, I think the Church doesn't have one.

However, a theory I was told off is called Creationist Evolution. It basically disagrees with macroevolution, that the word began from amina acids etc., but that God created the world, and periodically created creatures at certain times and then allowed them to adapt their environment.

Now what separates this from other bogus theological ides that try to reconcile with moderon science is the Creation Story. In Catholicism, the CS isn't taken literally, lookat the correlation here.

Creation Story
Non living matter- 'sea monsters'- birds- mammals- humans

Evolution Theory
Non living matter- fish- reptiles- brids- mammals- humans (as a later development of mammals).

The correlation is pretty interesting considering that the scientific knowledge we have today wasn't around at that time.

 

[Lore]

Creation Story
Non living matter- 'sea monsters'- birds- mammals- humans

Evolution Theory
Non living matter- fish- reptiles- brids- mammals- humans (as a later development of mammals).

The correlation is pretty interesting considering that the scientific knowledge we have today wasn't around at that time.

I would say the "days = god time and not our time" argument, but I remember someone saying that the original hebrew word stated it as one exact day (or something like that).

Of course, I don't really see a point in debating about creation; how can that really apply to today?

Still, very interesting stuff, Dre. I definitely need to look up Catholic philosophy, like I've said before, lol.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The official stance is that evolution is theologically unknown, but it is scientific fact, and does not oppose the faith.


Basically, it happens, but Catholics aren't required to believe it as a point of faith.



My personal view has always been that the inspirations that resulted in genesis were factually correct (for all the authors) but their lack of concepts and vocabulary to describe it resulted in the creation stories in Genesis.

 

[Lore]

My personal view has always been that the inspirations that resulted in genesis were factually correct (for all the authors) but their lack of concepts and vocabulary to describe it resulted in the creation stories in Genesis.

Huh. I always thought of that as true when applied to Revelations, but I've never considered applying it to Genesis.

That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks for saying that.

 

[Dre89]

I think Revelations isn't supposed to be taken literally though, as in beasts with three heads don't exist etc.

But you should probably check with Adumbrodeus, he probably knows more about the Church than I do.

 

[Lore]

I think Revelations isn't supposed to be taken literally though, as in beasts with three heads don't exist etc.

I personally thought that the "3 headed beast", "eagle bringing the woman to the desert", etc descriptions were there because of a small vocabulary and lack of knowledge about modern technology.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure to be honest.

All I know is that in Catholicism the Bible is not to be taken completely literally.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The deal on Revelations in general is, "Revelations is too complicated, so we're not sure yet, so we take both as open possibilities".


Generally it's taken as more figurative then literal, but it is the end of the world, which is supposed to be supernatural, so I wouldn't be surprised if tons of unusual things come out of the woodworks.


But it's a lot more useful figuratively.

 

[Dre89]

As with the Creation Story, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover something that correlates to Revelations, and then we'll finally understand it completely.

 

[Lore]

I'm not sure to be honest.

All I know is that in Catholicism the Bible is not to be taken completely literally.

Really? I've always thought of Catholicism as much, much more conservative than Baptists when it came to interpretations of the bible.

Of course, I live in southern Georgia, right in the middle of crazy-town.

Generally it's taken as more figurative then literal, but it is the end of the world, which is supposed to be supernatural, so I wouldn't be surprised if tons of unusual things come out of the woodworks.

Hahaha, good point.

Edit:

As with the Creation Story, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover something that correlates to Revelations, and then we'll finally understand it completely.

Another good point.

 

[Deleted member]

No offence to any Protestants here, but Protestantism is completely different animal to Catholicism, and there is no justification for its belief at all.

Well, there's no justification for any religious belief. Let's be plain here.

I'd also like to mention that debates on God require zero academic knowledge whatsoever. That's because the entire subject is completely devoid of facts and truths. It makes it a personal and subjective debate. The only knowledge that may be useful are common arguments and tautologies and whatnot, but hey. If no one knows anything, than everything's still valid to me.

 

[AltF4]

I would agree with you Del except for one point: That religious belief often collides with science. And a lack of scientific knowledge in these areas leads to poor conclusions.

There are entire groups of Muslims who legitimately believe the Earth is flat because there is a passing mention in one of the holy books about the "corners" of the Earth -> Therefore the Earth can't be a sphere if it has corners.

While in principle no academic knowledge is necessary, religious discussions seem so often to devolve into talking about theoretical physics.

 

[Deleted member]

I dig you. I just don't categorize religious debates as "God" debates. Call me crazy, but they're different to me.

 

[Dre89]

Del which God arguments have you read?

And Alt you seem to be talking about theology not philosophy.