The Jedi Council

[Dre89]

Theology assumes faith initially, but seeks prove a rational understanding of that faith.

Philosophy does not assume faith at all. Philosophy is supposed to be the reason why you have faith, because you have concluded it is reasonable, without assuming anything first.

You'd be crazy to say that the cosmological argument is faith based. The fine tuning argument stems from observation.

Then you have to explain all the non religious believers such as myself.

It looks like "belief in God is all about faith" is the assumption without the justification.

Sucumbio, I expected more maturity from a mod, especially considering your age. You have now set the precedent to insult whatever you dislike, unless you can't handle it when people give it back in return.

 

[Evil Eye]

Can you guys make a **** thread if you're going to debate this? I mean, seriously. Seriously.

Seriously.

That's not to anyone in particular by the way. But... seriously. The day I have to start giving out spam infractions in the DH will be the day I roll over and die.

 

[Reaver197]

Sorry, I tried to make a thread that would contain all this (again, as it would be only the most recent in that series), but it seems to defy containment.

Anyway, "philosophy" is not meant to be all philosophy, but the specific...field(?) being utilized for your arguments. The idea of things being "fine-tuned" assumes they could be set differently, or do not vary at all, assumptions that have no observations to assert that sort of interpretation. The proposition that there could be a way to fine tune them, and that the only way to be "fine-tuned" is by a deity seems ultimately to be an argument that assumes its conclusion before it can prove it.

"Religious", as I've generally taken it, meant belonging to a particular, organized sect, with its set beliefs and ceremonies. It falls perfectly within my ability to imagine there being people who believe in gods with faith-based reasoning, yet don't subscribe to a particular organized sect, or regularly attend congregations about it.

It's just been proven that humans have an innate bias to detecting agency and patterns where there really is none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

http://skepticblog.org/2010/03/22/hyperactive-agency-detection/

Therefore, it seems to me that it would be prudent to be extra careful of asserting claims of deities or other agents constructing or setting things in motion, especially areas that have little to no reliable observations to lead to any particular conclusion. Chances are when we do assert such agents, we are playing to a (misleading) unconscious bias.

If you feel compelled to keep replying, if I may, I would request you just quote me here, and then reply to me in the religion thread I started, or a new thread, or the Social thread. Whichever you feel more appropriate, but just hopefully in some way that prevents this debate from occurring in several threads at once.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Have we sent a Debate Hall invite to APNS? Because I would like to spend time looking over Mike / Seikend as potential candidates.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sorry about my inactivity, I sold my soul to mafia (and my font color >_>)

And thoughts on mike, senklied, and ganonsburg (as well as anyone else I missed)?

Also, APNS has been banned, not much we can do now.

 

[Evil Eye]

Aye, and he hadn't sent me his join request. It's just a six-pointer, though, so unless he posted porn somewhere he should be back at some point.

 

[Reaver197]

So, dante fox wants in. I briefly read through some of his stuff, and he seems legit. However, I'm super tired, so maybe I missed some stuff that should be noted.

Thoughts?

 

[Dre89]

He seems good enough. +1.

 

[Reaver197]

+1 Dante Fox, +1 Ganonsburg

 

[asianaussie]

+1 Ganonsburg

this is cheeseball341 btw

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Dantefox seems good. +1

-1 Ganonsburg though. He just exudes an aura of not knowing what he's talking about.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm an Arizen fan (I think), +1 to him, tentative based on the things I read from him in the future. So far I've only read his stuff in the 9/11 thread, and he seems to be logical and rational, and can put forth his ideas nicely.

 

[Evil Eye]

+1 to Dantefox and that's 4. Gonna see if he has a join request pending, otherwise, he's gotta send me one and whatnot. No thoughts on the others at this time.

 

[Sucumbio]

First post of 2011. Who's looking good?

Gwjumpman, perhaps?

 

[Dre89]

I think Nic should be let in by now.

I think any objection will probably result from bias against his position.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I changed my mind.

+1 Nicholas

 

[Sucumbio]

-1 to Nic (so far, anyway). He needs to link the sources he's deriving his points from. If he did that, methinks he'd actually change his mind, lol because much of what he has been saying is inaccurate, or at the very least imprecise to a fault, and it's not only hurting his argument, but demonstrating he isn't formulaic enough.

e.g. This is a statement about how something is. -source

 

[Dre89]

But it seems like you're saying you won't let him in unless he changes his views.

He seems to have enough knowledge of the topics he talks about, and he's humble enough not to participate in ones which aren't his strengths. Even in the gay adoption one, he said that he believed it was wrong because of the Bible, but then conceded that he would need to prove the Bible true, and that would derail the thread, so he said he wouldn't argue his case. You don't find that ocmmon sense in all debaters.

It seems like you're placing higher demands on him than other debaters because you disagree with him, which you have to admit was exactly what happened to me when I was first a PGer.

Edit- +1 to Grandeza. He seems rational and open-minded enough. I know I'm going to hear the whole "I'd like to see more of him first", but if you can see in one or two posts that a person is rational and open-minded, I don't see why you need to see more of him, it's not like we demand that they're super debaters who are going to change the world with their ideas in years to come.

 

[Sucumbio]

no, Dre... I'm actually trying to enforce something that got overlooked for your own admission. I'm getting tired of this idea that all you need to do is write in complete sentences to be in the DH. Sources are key. He sent me a VM stating 90% of his information comes from The Case for Christ. I applauded his effort, but it's not enough. We need online sources that can be linked and followed so that we can see for ourselves the validity of the information presented. I don't actually care about his particular position. What my issue is revolves around the idea that if you say something, and it seems fishy, back it up with a source, so that you can at least stand by your position. You have to be able to show why you're saying what you're saying. It can't just be "because that's how I feel." Sources can be debunked, for example, so saying something that's based on a poor source will result in a loss of the argument, or a change in the position.

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, certain arguments, (mostly philosophical ones) don't need a source, unless you're referncing statistics, or quoting etc.

Secondly, it must be a massive coincidence that you all of a sudden you start enforcing this rule on the Bible-based thiest, and that you never enforced this standard on anyone else.

It seems unfair that you expect him to cite numerous sources, as if he were writing an essay, then we have athiests in the DH who still thought the Christian God was a guy in the clouds with a beard, and say things like "there are no rational arguments for religion" without backing the claim up at all.

If anything, the thiests in this forum have cited more sources and displayed a greater education of the (relevant) issue, yet you're palcing higher demands on them.

We might as well eject 80% of DHers if we're going to start using this rule. And what happened to DHers voting? You're overturning that too?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

does he really expect us to read The Case for Christ?

He constantly references it in a fashion that expects us to know exactly what's in it.

I think he's DH material but he really needs to stop this.

Referencing the book is all fine but you need to restate what the book says, not just say "oh read The Case for Christ it'll answer you."

 

[jaswa]

does he really expect us to read The Case for Christ?

He constantly references it in a fashion that expects us to know exactly what's in it.

I think he's DH material but he really needs to stop this.

Referencing the book is all fine but you need to restate what the book says, not just say "oh read The Case for Christ it'll answer you."

He's quoted relevant parts of the book numerous times in his arguments.

 

[Dre89]

It doesn't matter how many books he quotes.

Every post he makes contributes an argument, at least he doesn't do pointless condescending one liners like some of the others.

You can have a progressive debate with him, he's rational enough, so that's enough for admission.

 

[asianaussie]

He's gotten a lot better than when he first posted in the PG, I'll say that much for him. He used to throw out unfounded statements all the time, and from what I've read of him recently, he's definitely stopped doing that.

Neutral on him, I don't know enough to judge.

 

[Dre89]

From your analysis it seems like you know enough to judge.

By the way do you actually debate? I only ever see you in the non debate threads.

I mean it's cool if you don't, just curious that's all.

 

[ballin4life]

He's quoted relevant parts of the book numerous times in his arguments.

And takes that book as the gospel truth even when wikipedia contradicts it ...

He definitely used to be a lot more mean spirited though haha. He toned down on calling people idiots and stuff now.

Are any of you guys even debating him? It seemed like I was the only person in that thread, and considering the massive posts we were making I doubt that many people read them all without responding.

I don't care who is in the debate hall because I am against the whole system, but I'll abstain from voting so I don't mess up your voting system.

Although the discrimination thread has taught me that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution shouldn't be in the Debate Hall




(jk).

 

[Reaver197]

If they want in, I feel they should be in. If they aren't up to snuff, they'll get their arguments torn apart. But, I suppose from how the current system is set up, that's what should be happening in the PG?

Unless, the whole Debate Hall thing is more of a social status symbol or something, which it seems like it may be turning into, intentionally or not.

That's the thing that confuses me, what exactly is supposed to happen in the PG these days? I thought it was originally supposed to be that PGers debated PGers, and then from that they'd be picked up into going into the DH proper. But, these days, it seems DHers post there to debate with each other or other PGers.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

(jk).

Why?
10obviousjoke

 

[Dre89]

DHers debate in the PG because more people participate, which makes a difference in such a small community, and not to exclude keen debaters.

The thing is, the community is so small it doesn't really matter if we bend the rules a bit.

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah, I know. Which is why I find it silly that we even bother having the rules or the distinction in the first place then.

Hrmm hrmm.

 

[Dre89]

I always found it silly that DHers were given authority on who should accepted. It's not as if we're qualified debaters who are superior to PGers.

 

[Reaver197]

Nope. The process that I got in through was simply you sent a request to allowed to post in the debate hall, with a small paragraph thing, and it was pretty much just to make sure you were eager and literate to some amount. It just depended on one mod or admin getting through all the requests, which was the issue I think. It took some time before it would go through.

With this method at least, things are a little more immediate. But, still, it seems overkill for a board that has issues with activity in the first place.

 

[Dre89]

There's no point complaining though because barely anything gets done around here because the mods aren't that active.

 

[asianaussie]

By the way do you actually debate? I only ever see you in the non debate threads.

I mean it's cool if you don't, just curious that's all.

lol I drift in and out of threads, rarely posting since I feel that anything I post in the interesting threads will have been covered before or would be misinformed. If you don't play you can't lose

I'll debate if I need to, but at the moment I have a fair few offline committments to tend to.

This is also why the 64 backroom is doing jack-all.

 

[Dre89]

+1 to Underdogs.

 

[asianaussie]

Tentative +1 to Underdogs, since I am essentially uneducated on the topic of religious and the various beliefs surrounding it.

In that one huge post he made, he provided relevant and fairly relatable examples, considered possible rebuttals generally took them apart using the rebuttal's assumptions, did not binge on his own assumptions and was aware of his argument's limitations, and used clear, fluent language that did its best to make the reader aware of exactly what he was referring to. I didn't see too many sources, but you can't win them all. The most impressive thing was that I read through it without feeling bored or lost even once. The same could not be said of the following replies, though in fairness they were splintered (which simply doesn't work well when the quoted parts are big paragraphs).

 

[Sucumbio]

Well to be fair, Dre. I'm going solely off his CS debate.

No, I think we should have everything in the Bible. You see, if purgatory was taught by Jesus and the early disciples, wouldn't they have included that in the biologies of Jesus's life that they wrote? Seems like a really important topic to me.

This is the kind of thing I'm referring to. Statements like this are too ambiguous! If he'd at least cited how he arrived at the conclusion that "Jesus taught Purgatory" then I'd be less apt to wonder. Because as it turns out, Purgatory (with a capital P) wasn't officially indoctrinated until well after his death.

Theologians and other Christians then developed the doctrine regarding purgatory over the centuries, leading to the definition of the formal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter (as distinct from the legendary descriptions) at the Second Council of Lyon (1274), the Council of Florence (1438–1445), and the Council of Trent (1545–63). -source

You may think I'm nitpicking, but I want to make clear my intention, which is to encourage our active DH members to choose carefully their words, and to be prepared to demonstrate the sources from which their conclusions are drawn. Also there's nothing terribly philosophical about your debate topic in CS, so that excuse won't fly. If it was, it wouldn't be appropriate to use as a measure for membership.

And to address the other issue, no we've not abandoned the voting system. I do however notice fewer participants actually voting, and I am guilty of this as well, I've been ******** busy this last week. But by all means the more votes the better. Nic stands at a +1, at this moment, so a couple more cumulative votes in his favor, and we can admit him.

No comment on the new guy, will have to read up on him.

 

[ballin4life]

Uh Sucumbio, I'm pretty sure he disagrees with the idea of purgatory and is saying that we shouldn't follow it because it isn't in the bible, it was developed years later, like your source says.

Although some parts of that statement are lol in light of the Bible thread.

 

[Sucumbio]

True! Nic's point would have been far more poignant if he'd made the citation as I did. It's not hard, or too much to ask for in our prospects. It's just good form, and important in helping maintain some sort of solidity to our debates. I just want folks to get in the habit of recognizing which statements should be cited and which should not. Throwing random citations around isn't good form either, of course. I know we're not writing research papers, but there shouldn't be that much contention for using them, or at the least knowing when it's appropriate.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think it's time we gave Cheap Peach the go ahead. +1