Well Mondo, to a point you were right about the debates

Well Mondo, to a point you were right about the debates

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

April 10th, 2012, 11:48 pm #1

The debate ran along well oiled tracks with the same old canards of always being dredged up and repeated. The actors knew the answers... I'm not so sure about the Cardinal, I almost felt sorry for him, and he made some astonishing claims while trying to avoid Dawkins barbs.

He screwed the science (claiming neanderthals were part of our direct ancestry) and when corrected made "who cares" noises. While Dawkins was obviously fussy about getting the facts right, Pell was inclined to be fuzzy and "I'd rather believe Jesus than you" in his benign attitude.

Its the things that dont go according to script that really provide the interest. The cardinal quoted on page 97 (or whatever) of darwins autobiography, that he was a theist at heart, which Dawkins was very upset about, but not having the autobiography on him, dawkins more or less had to concede the point, even though he knew that Darwin remained an evolutionist (and thereby probably not believing in gods creation) to the end.

The Cardinal also made that silly gaff that I have already published. He also went on to talk about Adam and Eve as only some allegory, which Dawkins retorted implied that there could be no original sin either.... hmmmm good point.

I'm slightly surprised at forum posters saying they arent interested in debates, or disagreements, why else would you post ideas if not to discuss them?


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 11th, 2012, 12:41 am #2


<em>I'm slightly surprised at forum posters saying they arent interested in debates, or disagreements, why else would you post ideas if not to discuss them?
</em>

The problem is that people mix-up the modes of communication ... as Vince has pointed out as well, people seem no longer interested in proper conversation/discussion/debate, or, have forgotten/never learned how to. 

If there is discussion, then there is bound to be disagreement because if there is no disagreement, then there is nothing to discuss. Disagreement 'forces' the claiming party to back up their (mere) claims with (sheer) substance. Handy no?

 

If people communicate, on forums as in 3d life, then they usually do so in four modes:

converse, discuss, debate, speculate-->philosophize, and each of those are distinguishable due to (their) specific characteristics.....

Conversation is about chit chat -- exchanging pleasantries; small talk; kaffeeklatsch and so on and so forth, 'home and gardening' stuff. :^)

Discussion is about agreement/disagreement (of opinions); yes or no -- mere (dis)agreement (of opinions) however, doesn't render anything less or more true/false. (Dis)agreement might tell us something about the one doing the (dis)agreeing, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the thing in (dis)agreement with. Believing 'your' opinion is right is mere confidence, believing 'your' opinion is fact is sheer arrogance. Discussion then, is a means of exchanging ideas; ideally a means to establish a consensus - not a mode to establish truth-value.

Debate is about addressing right or wrong; true or false (in relation to alleged/proposed fact/truth) -- we argue for or against by offering arguments (reason) of which its values are measured by a set of rules known as reasoning and logic -respectively the method and the tool to scrutinize the method- to determine whether the arguments (reasons) offered are (un)sound and/or (in)valid. If something is true/fact(ual), then it can be shown so (proven so) due to its axiomatic nature. If something cannot be shown true/fact(ual) (to be axiomatic), then we simply do not know it to be so and remains undetermined.


A problem arises if we mix up the latter two modes; when statement of opinion is deemed statement of fact and vice versa: when we say "I (dis)agree" while we mean "that is (not) true or when we say "that is (not) true" while we mean "I (dis)agree".


What matters in debate is whether the reasoning is sound; justifying the premises, and whether the argument form is valid; proper inference.

An argument that is deductive, valid and sound is an argument that ends up with a true conclusion, and there is nothing you, me, anyone, can do about it no matter how disturbing, how counter-intuitive, how emotionally unsatisfying the conclusion (is deemed).
Speculation is about conjecture; hypothesizing, philosophising at best -- anything goes (parallel/lateral thinking/reasoning) as long as proper inference is being applied because without it, speculation becomes 'fried air' since hypothesizing is meant to propose possibilities/probabilities in relation to a given (the subject matter).



And erm ... feelings do not think, thoughts do not feel, and the human brain can only comprehend three categories to put information in.




 

Note: If a deductive argument that is valid and sound does not end up with a true conclusion, then the problem does not lie with the argument.



http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

April 11th, 2012, 2:32 am #3

The debate ran along well oiled tracks with the same old canards of always being dredged up and repeated. The actors knew the answers... I'm not so sure about the Cardinal, I almost felt sorry for him, and he made some astonishing claims while trying to avoid Dawkins barbs.

He screwed the science (claiming neanderthals were part of our direct ancestry) and when corrected made "who cares" noises. While Dawkins was obviously fussy about getting the facts right, Pell was inclined to be fuzzy and "I'd rather believe Jesus than you" in his benign attitude.

Its the things that dont go according to script that really provide the interest. The cardinal quoted on page 97 (or whatever) of darwins autobiography, that he was a theist at heart, which Dawkins was very upset about, but not having the autobiography on him, dawkins more or less had to concede the point, even though he knew that Darwin remained an evolutionist (and thereby probably not believing in gods creation) to the end.

The Cardinal also made that silly gaff that I have already published. He also went on to talk about Adam and Eve as only some allegory, which Dawkins retorted implied that there could be no original sin either.... hmmmm good point.

I'm slightly surprised at forum posters saying they arent interested in debates, or disagreements, why else would you post ideas if not to discuss them?


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
I don't mean to be flippant or dismissive. I simply find that there really isn't much sincere interest in debating anymore. And I define debating as exploring all sides and perspectives using constructs of logic and reason with the intent of learning and understanding. Most "debates" I've seen are nothing of the sort, and instead are arguments (not logical arguments, but personal arguments) of "my position/view is right and all others are wrong".

It seems to me that part of the problem revolves around language and terminology. One of the prime tenets of a sound debate, or logical proposition, is to clearly define and agree on terminology. If that is truly the case, it seems to me that "debates" have been rendered pointless until people can once again agree on terms and language.

The real "kicker" is that biology, math, physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, et. al. have so many nuanced concepts with so many details that it's proving to be impossible for everyone to understand them all, let alone agree on the terms and language. And the seemingly strictest fundamentalists don't have the ability to understand much of it in any degree of detail; yet they advocate their religion, and their politics, and their opinions in ignorance.

Given that context, what is the point of debating? It's tee'd up to be not much more than "you're ignorant and stupid" with "no, you're ignorant and stupid" as the response.

Last edited by ever-a-newbie on April 11th, 2012, 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

April 11th, 2012, 2:48 am #4

The debate ran along well oiled tracks with the same old canards of always being dredged up and repeated. The actors knew the answers... I'm not so sure about the Cardinal, I almost felt sorry for him, and he made some astonishing claims while trying to avoid Dawkins barbs.

He screwed the science (claiming neanderthals were part of our direct ancestry) and when corrected made "who cares" noises. While Dawkins was obviously fussy about getting the facts right, Pell was inclined to be fuzzy and "I'd rather believe Jesus than you" in his benign attitude.

Its the things that dont go according to script that really provide the interest. The cardinal quoted on page 97 (or whatever) of darwins autobiography, that he was a theist at heart, which Dawkins was very upset about, but not having the autobiography on him, dawkins more or less had to concede the point, even though he knew that Darwin remained an evolutionist (and thereby probably not believing in gods creation) to the end.

The Cardinal also made that silly gaff that I have already published. He also went on to talk about Adam and Eve as only some allegory, which Dawkins retorted implied that there could be no original sin either.... hmmmm good point.

I'm slightly surprised at forum posters saying they arent interested in debates, or disagreements, why else would you post ideas if not to discuss them?


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Debate?

I see very few, if any posters that follow the rules of debate. So while one may be interested in a real debate, I see very little if any in action.

Discussion is cool. But when it becomes repetitive and pointless, well, it's repetitive and pointless.




Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

April 11th, 2012, 5:42 am #5

The debate ran along well oiled tracks with the same old canards of always being dredged up and repeated. The actors knew the answers... I'm not so sure about the Cardinal, I almost felt sorry for him, and he made some astonishing claims while trying to avoid Dawkins barbs.

He screwed the science (claiming neanderthals were part of our direct ancestry) and when corrected made "who cares" noises. While Dawkins was obviously fussy about getting the facts right, Pell was inclined to be fuzzy and "I'd rather believe Jesus than you" in his benign attitude.

Its the things that dont go according to script that really provide the interest. The cardinal quoted on page 97 (or whatever) of darwins autobiography, that he was a theist at heart, which Dawkins was very upset about, but not having the autobiography on him, dawkins more or less had to concede the point, even though he knew that Darwin remained an evolutionist (and thereby probably not believing in gods creation) to the end.

The Cardinal also made that silly gaff that I have already published. He also went on to talk about Adam and Eve as only some allegory, which Dawkins retorted implied that there could be no original sin either.... hmmmm good point.

I'm slightly surprised at forum posters saying they arent interested in debates, or disagreements, why else would you post ideas if not to discuss them?


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Ya a Satanist Anichrist against a friend of Jesus.

Does it really make you feel good to pick on people
that really don't know THE WORD OF GOD?

Your stupid Arthur.
Pick on me .... I don't want but it will be done!

Quote
Share

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

April 11th, 2012, 7:30 am #6

Dont you think you should be concentrating on not letting your wife kill you?

or the dog....


Who knows the word of god anyway? All I know is what Christians have made up over the last 2000 years.

It took them 500 years to dream up the erection of christ.

I mean the re-erection.


OK resurrection.

Who got the witnessing right do you think?

someone who was there or someone born 500 years later?

How about someone born 2000 years later?

None of us has any idea what happened there, but those who were, forgot to mention the re-erection.


or didnt see it.

Does it really matter anyway?

In amongst the rubbish, he said some cool things.

You could almost make an interesting story about it.
Last edited by ArtieDent on April 11th, 2012, 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

April 11th, 2012, 7:42 am #7

Debate?

I see very few, if any posters that follow the rules of debate. So while one may be interested in a real debate, I see very little if any in action.

Discussion is cool. But when it becomes repetitive and pointless, well, it's repetitive and pointless.



 

One of the major problems, perhaps even thé problem, with discussions/debates is that most of us pick up a subject at any point and assume anyone involved is sufficiently knowledgable about the subject at hand and therefore commit the classic mistake to presume all participants know and mean the same thing when addressing the subject.

This means people, quite unwittingly, decide, in their minds, for self and others, what is known and meant - and before you know it the semantics debate occurs instead of addressing the subject.

Consensus first then: determine what is actually known and meant; do all participants mean the same? Is everybody 'on the same page'? Then, go from there.

In any serious discussion/debate -as in professional work-meetings for instance- a consensus is established first, usually the central point, then, the rest follows.


When a discussion/debate starts or is already on the way without a proper consensus and one tries to establish one, one will find accusations galore: stalling, refusing to answer questions, having no arguments, being foolish, nitpicking and so on and so forth, the list is endless, and the discussion/debate, which already turned semantics, now turns ad hominem fest.

People who engage in this, concede, without realizing, their obliviousness in respect to the importance of a workable consensus - and the discussion/debate, ironically meant to establish a consensus, will fail.

 

_______________________________
We all are fallible in whatever area(s)
i.e., no one is an expert in anything
except, of course, for ardent believers
politicians and James Bond.



rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

CD: short for inevitability
Last edited by JVH on April 11th, 2012, 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

April 11th, 2012, 8:01 am #8

I don't mean to be flippant or dismissive. I simply find that there really isn't much sincere interest in debating anymore. And I define debating as exploring all sides and perspectives using constructs of logic and reason with the intent of learning and understanding. Most "debates" I've seen are nothing of the sort, and instead are arguments (not logical arguments, but personal arguments) of "my position/view is right and all others are wrong".

It seems to me that part of the problem revolves around language and terminology. One of the prime tenets of a sound debate, or logical proposition, is to clearly define and agree on terminology. If that is truly the case, it seems to me that "debates" have been rendered pointless until people can once again agree on terms and language.

The real "kicker" is that biology, math, physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, et. al. have so many nuanced concepts with so many details that it's proving to be impossible for everyone to understand them all, let alone agree on the terms and language. And the seemingly strictest fundamentalists don't have the ability to understand much of it in any degree of detail; yet they advocate their religion, and their politics, and their opinions in ignorance.

Given that context, what is the point of debating? It's tee'd up to be not much more than "you're ignorant and stupid" with "no, you're ignorant and stupid" as the response.
which then was the federal election.

20,000 views voted.

Yes, Dawkins accused the cardinal of using special language to mean something else to normal

and yes, the cardinal talked about religious truths not being connected with scientific truths

and yes, the Cardinal wasnt much interested in the science nuences that mattered to the scientist.

I guess they were talking apples and oranges, but it was entertaining and at the end




over 3/4 of that 20,000 voted that the world WOULD be better of without religion.

That's something.


____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

April 11th, 2012, 7:54 pm #9


Numbers are just numbers.

How many people watched to hear their own views supported? Not watching to learn and understand but simply to find comfort and re-enforcement of their own view. Which side hardly matters.

How many people watched to find ways to argue their view? Simply to regurgitate the words of someone else because they don't have their own, or their own arguments have gone stale. Again; which side any person is on doesn't really matter.

And how many people watched just to be entertained by the circus-like production that it is? Again, no real sincere attempt to learn anything. But rather just watch for the absurdities in the points being made, and how they're being made. Again, the side doesn't matter.


Remove all those folks from the numbers as they fail to qualify as "sincerely interested" in a debate, and how many folks are remaining?

All questions that we can't answer with any precision, but worth contemplating and discussion people's perceptions. My observation is that the number remaining is extremely small - like approaching zero. Which, imho, renders debates as rather pointless.
Quote
Like
Share

Tim
Tim

April 12th, 2012, 4:48 am #10

Dont you think you should be concentrating on not letting your wife kill you?

or the dog....


Who knows the word of god anyway? All I know is what Christians have made up over the last 2000 years.

It took them 500 years to dream up the erection of christ.

I mean the re-erection.


OK resurrection.

Who got the witnessing right do you think?

someone who was there or someone born 500 years later?

How about someone born 2000 years later?

None of us has any idea what happened there, but those who were, forgot to mention the re-erection.


or didnt see it.

Does it really matter anyway?

In amongst the rubbish, he said some cool things.

You could almost make an interesting story about it.
It took them 500 years to dream up the erection of christ.
I mean the re-erection.
OK resurrection.
-----------------------

Hay you got that one right Art.
Easter bunnies and eggs are because the Babylonian Catholics tried to incorporate the resurrection of Christ into the Babylonian spring festival of fertility, Baal worship.

Judges2:13
13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

Tracing the history is very easy if you try.

High 5!

Quote
Share