The Jedi Council

[Dre89]

+1 to Seikend.

 

[asianaussie]

+1 to Seikend

He likes his stigmas.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Meh, he's only been in the PG for a day and has never blown me away. His logic seems solid, but I'd like to see a bit more (maybe a couple more days) first. Preferably some ventures into other topics.

104 has quietly been getting better / more polite. Thoughts?

 

[Dre89]

104 has always been intelligent enough, and DHers have been more rude than him.

Sei has shown he/she is logical, and PMd me, displaying a really sensible head on his/her shoulders. I'm tipping Sei to eventually be one of the top debaters.

We're just going to be delaying what we already know.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Investing time on Seikend before I give my decision (for the same reasons that KG stated previously). Even though I normally avoid such threads on purpose, because they tend to get personal, messy, and subjective. Hahaha premenstrual syndrome. Completely unintended acronym, I swear!

KG, could you give me some examples of how 1048 has improved? It seems like most of his posts still give off this, "What are you talking about? Of course I'm right, because I just am" type of vibe. And even though I do agree that Nicholas's comparison of hardened criminals to homosexual couples was awful,ly hilarious, that still doesn't change the nature of what constitutes a straw man. Unfortunately, he feels that his unicorns are a tier above hardened criminals. It is pretty funny though to watch someone using similar tactics and having their belief be the subject of a straw man. In that context, I imagine that from such a perspective, such a straw man can also be construed as an ad hominem...

But I digress, I'm having one of those "horrible person moments" that I should honestly keep to myself. For now.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Has ballin4life applied? We accepted him a long time ago and EE said he would let him in if he applied, but he seems to be stuck in the PG.

 

[Sucumbio]

He's in, now.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

A Pimp Named Slickback

+1​

As with all things, Center Stage process would be desired. But I feel that this individual is informed (distinguishes definitions in an analytical manner i.e. definition of scientific theory), is able to abstract basic fallacies (refutation of Big Bang does not validate transcendental existence), and has appropriate mannerisms to deal with long-term arguments in a constructive manner (hasn't regressed towards the employment of ad-hominems or assumptions on character in the DH Well, not so much the case. But it seems to all be in good form and not particularly scalding in nature).

 

[Reaver197]

From what I could find and quickly read up on, he seems good. +1

 

[Dre89]

Yeah he seems good, +1.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Can you guys link me to some of his better posts?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

postcount +1

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Can you guys link me to some of his better posts?

A. Thread: Intelligent Design Taught In Schools

You ever hear the saying about monkeys, typewriters, and all the works of Shakespeare?

yeah me neither.

in other news:
The Big Bang theory is not a FACT. It is simply the prevailing theory and the best model we have at the current time. I'm appalled that such an upstanding member such as yourself would believe that the Big Bang is 100% confirmed. There is a very high possibility of other models and theories arising in the future once more information and research is obtained.

You also seem to be under the misconception that everything in our universe is properly ordered and like a "painting" as you imply in your last analogy. How do you know this? You are simply looking through the perspective of an inhabitant who has never seen outside of it. Your view of this universe is akin to an American who has never been outside his state saying that the US is the perfect country.

Not so. Not so at all.

B. Thread: Evidence Behind the New Testament

Why are you guys arguing over such trivial things like definitions?

Definitions can vary greatly and can be used to serve almost any purpose.
from Princeton.edu: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

from Dictionary.com: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Notice how the first definition includes "supernatural power," by which Strong Atheism would not be included. However, the 2nd definition DOES include Strong Atheism.

See why this argument is futile? It just depends on which dictionary you're using.

In retrospect, nothing necessarily astounding and it should also be noted that s/he is a recent addition to the PG, but overall seems like a solid pick and someone with variety (didn't include the substance thread because it seems to be fairly demure of debate and more representative of a blog.) I can understand a stall vote for Center Stage, but I think that this candidate is above status quo.

 

[Sucumbio]

he'd like a 1v1 in CS, though I cannot right now, kinda busy, but anyone else feel free to.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, perhaps a CS debate would be good. Neither of those posts really stood out to me, though he seems to have solid logic.

 

[Evil Eye]

Well, that's four. I'll wait on the undecided people to drop anything (even just a +0), but as it stands, he's in.

 

[Dre89]

-1 To Pimp.

He's pretty much another Freeman, but with a better debating sturtcure.

Just read his post I half answered in the ID thread and you'll see what I mean. He has no knowledge of any philosophy of religion or theology, and he's one of thses "religion is all about faith" and he pretty much just made up a God argument he thinks people use, showing no knowledge of the God arguments at all. He's just got no knowledge of the topic he's talking about.

 

[ballin4life]

Freeman was a good poster in my opinion and I don't remember him ever stating "religion is all about faith" as an argument.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dre, Freeman and APNS are dramatically different types of debaters. The only similarity that stands out is the notion that they both tried to argue against you. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Reaver197]

I like how you get fixated upon one particular argument, Dre, and not their overall ability.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, Freeman and APNS are dramatically different types of debaters. The only similarity that stands out is the notion that they both tried to argue against you. Unless I'm missing something.

I've debated plenty of atheists and never had an issue with them as a debater.

But Pimp clearly had no idea of any philosophy of religion, and had no idea what theism argues. He was just making stuff up about theism.

I was fine with him in the debate until he displayed his complete igorance of theism. Anyone who attributes all belief in God faith alone clearly isn't familiar with philosophy of religion.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if someone decided to switch philosophy of religion with religious philosophy in a conversation. Even the use of the word "theism" itself contains technical boundaries if we choose to reference Cudworth's work in the 1600s. The difficulty with philosophy is that many terms are used in a colloquial context and not necessarily in the technical philosophical framework that you are currently studying. From a definitive vantage point, theism according to Merriam Webster is defined as follows:

"Belief in the existence of one -od viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world."

Now let's look at what APNS wrote:

Theists believe in -od because of one thing: faith. That is what it is called and that is what it is, faith. You have faith that -od exists and unlike logical conclusions, faith cannot be challenged because by definition faith is something that does not require logic. This faith replaces the logic that is nonexistent because steps 2 and 3 which I mentioned above.

There really is no indication that APNS's statements clashed with the technical definition of theism. Granted, it is a generalization to everyone who considers themselves a "theist". Yet APNS took an interesting approach by stating that the foundational constructs of the religion itself wasn't established by the logical assertions of Augustus, Aquinas, or Aristotle, but the belief in the death and the resurrection of the chosen Messiah, a situation that required many tiers of faith for the Gentiles and the Jews who didn't bear witness to the events that transpired.

 

[Dre89]

Well PoR can also be athiest, such as the argument from evil, which isn't in religious philosophy.

PoR could also be deist, which is irreligious.

Saying belief in God is purely about faith displays ignorance of the big 3 arguments for God, which should be the first things you learn before going into a God debate.

If he gets let in anyway, I won't be too annoyed, because aside from this I think he's a good debater.

 

[Sucumbio]

* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.

* The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.

* The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

I'm seeing some familiar terminology in these short definitions. So, from this I guess because of number 3, the ontological argument, religion cannot be 100% faith-based? I know this isn't the "right" thread for this discussion, but... this is a repeat issue with you Dre. and your decision on PG'rs admittence, so I think if you are going to weigh-in on people's membership ability you should assure us that you're doing it out of an honest deliberation, and not just a disagreement of ideas. Though I tend to agree that research is important, I would hesitate to write someone off simply because they make a claim that you find disagreeable. For instance it's possible that APNS doesn't agree with the Ontological Argument for God, in which case, he'd be correct in saying that "religion is based purely on faith, and not logic." Right? If not please elaborate so I can better understand your objection.

 

[Dre89]

No it's not that I disagreed with him. I respect plenty of people I disagree with.

I didn't have an issue with him in our debate until he showed he had no knowledge of the topic and made factually incorrect claims about theism.

If a theist did the same with regards to atheism, I'd react the same way.

I don't -1 them because I have something against them, I do it because they go into topics they know nothing about.

Would I have been let into the DH if I went into an evolution thread asking why gorillas still exist if evolution were true?

 

[Sucumbio]

For instance it's possible that APNS doesn't agree with the Ontological Argument for God, in which case, he'd be correct in saying that "religion is based purely on faith, and not logic." Right? If not please elaborate so I can better understand your objection.

What about that part?

 

[Dre89]

Plenty of theists disagree with the ontological argument. In fact, when it was first formulated by St. Anselm, it was accepted by virtually no one.

Most theists don't believe in God because of the ontological argument. Besides, believing in something because of faulty logic does not mean you hold belief in it because of faith, it just means your reasoning is bad. That'd be like saying every atheist who believes there is no God because the believe in infinite regress believes there is no God because of faith, which is absurd.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

-1 for Dre. This type of discussion doesn't belong here if it does not directly pertain to PG candidates and it seems like it won't reach a conclusion in the foreseeable future. Dre seems affirmed in his choice, therefore the current count is +3 after accounting for the deduction.

 

[ballin4life]

What's wrong with infinite regress?

 

[Dre89]

It was related to the PGer though...

I got asked a question, and answered it, are you going to -1 the person who asked the question too?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

No. Let me clarify, the context was more along the lines of, "-1 for APNS from Dre." Treating you like a PG member would be derogatory and was not my intention, even though I have had a tendency to be condescending when I am stressed and frustrated. In regards to direct pertinence, I noticed that the argumentation was departing from APNS and led to discussion that would focus on faith, theism, and philosophy of religion. This is only a small fragment of the discussion contributed by APNS and does not necessarily paint a holistic picture of his participation in the Proving Ground. A so called, "Missing the forest for the trees" or "Missing DH approval for Dre approval." You have contributed your repeal of APNS and your justification for your repeal. I wouldn't mind a continued refutation from Succumbio, ballin4life, and whoever else may want to speak if they contributed/remained neutral/detracted a vote for APNS. Simply refuting your assertion brings focus to you, not APNS. Hence my request.

 

[Dre89]

I'm curious, if a PGer came along and debated excellently in multiple threads, then we found out that he was a flat Earth fundie who believed the Bible could prove itself true, I wonder if they'd get let in.

 

[Reaver197]

Sure, it'd be a fun person to debate with at the very least (and probably beat up on).

Though, finding a flat Earth fundie that could write coherently, much less argue well about other topics, sounds like an immense challenge in of itself, lol.

Either way, accepting people into the DH should not be based on the degree on which they agree with your beliefs (especially the religious ones). If anything, you should be more eager to let them in to disabuse them of any potential misconceptions, though the amount at which you guys tend to post in the PG seems to mitigate much point of a DH in the first place.

 

[Dre89]

How many times do I have to explain this, it's not because I disagree with Pimp's views.

I've advocated atheists before, and I respect plenty of atheists here. My issue with Pimp was that he displayed complete ignorance if the topic at hand, the exact same problem I had with Freeman.

I didn't even have a problem with Pimp in that debate until he started showing he knew nothing about theism. Other than that I think he's a good enough debater.

If a theist displayed ignorance of a topic, I'd -1 them too.

 

[Reaver197]

You have an issue with the statement that "religion is all about faith", but never can effectively demonstrate that it is not.

It seems like a difference of opinion to me, rather than knowledge of facts.

As for the philosophy of theology or religion, and god arguments, probably the best way for him to learn about it would be from debating about it. I mean, everyone here is ignorant about most fields of topics. Should we just not allow them in because they stray into unknown areas?

I think if someone demonstrates that they could be an effective debater, listener, and thinker when presented with the correct knowledge, we should let them in, and not impugn them because we happen to think they don't know enough about a particular thing.

The only sort of people I would not let in aren't debaters who just don't know what they're talking about, but debaters who never accept the fact that maybe they don't know enough or dismisses any attempts to learn more about what they're discussing, neither of which pimp strikes me as.

 

[Dre89]

With the faith issue, the enormous body of philosophy and theology behind God makes it evident it's based on reason. You should be aware of that body before going into a debate on God.

It's not as if he initially said he knew too little, he spoke as if he knew theism. Poor research and ignorance if a field is bad debating.

But I'm not too fussed if he gets in because he's debated well in other topics.

 

[jaswa]

You have an issue with the statement that "religion is all about faith", but never can effectively demonstrate that it is not.

Like Dre has said - a large portion of theism rests on reason through philosophy and theology. I think you guys are making the common misconception that faith = "lolol I don't know anything but God's cool so he's right, durrrrp." The Bible depicts faith as having a trust/reliance/dependence on Jesus, ie. having faith in someone.

I know this isn't on topic for this thread, but just felt the need to clear this up.

 

[Evil Eye]

+1 to Pimp. +4/-1 iirc.

I think he needs another to get in? I forget how we're doing this, heh.

 

[Sucumbio]

With the faith issue, the enormous body of philosophy and theology behind God makes it evident it's based on reason horse dung.

Fixed for you.

+1 To APNS

(yeah, EE I think the more DH members we get the more +'s and -'s we're having to tally, lol originally or at least the first few +/- votes went up to 3 but now it seems it should be 4 or even 5 but I think for this particular poster he's got enough support.)

 

[Reaver197]

Like Dre has said - a large portion of theism rests on reason through philosophy and theology. I think you guys are making the common misconception that faith = "lolol I don't know anything but God's cool so he's right, durrrrp." The Bible depicts faith as having a trust/reliance/dependence on Jesus, ie. having faith in someone.

I know this isn't on topic for this thread, but just felt the need to clear this up.

Philosophy and theology based on tenants that I see, and probably others, as being made in faith, and not through a rational and empirical understanding of the world.