Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[novice]

Originally posted by Zakath
Ah, so you prefer to define your opponent's terms for him, rather than let him do so?

I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense.

 

[marc]

Truth as a process

Truth as a process

The truth will set us free but the truth is a process, not a cudgel.
Truth like hope and the immigrant are often unwelcome, calling to conversion, changed lifestyles and new paradigms.
In an essay "Full Power in the Gospel of John" (Novum Testamentum 2003), Rainer Metzer insists that full power is gift of the Father to the Son that all believers should share. I'll be translating this article from German for a world where Pilate and Bush, fear and preemptive wars refuse the authority of truth.

 

[spackle]

It seems like Zakath is trying to lure Bob into proving the existance of the Judeo/Christian God when all Bob really has to do is discuss whether any God being of any religion exists. Bob doesn't need to get to specific in this debate, but Zakath wants him to, because specifics are harder to defend. It's like the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, where Lewis doesn't even mention Jesus, or the God of the Jews.

This is a foundational debate. Complexity will make it difficult for Bob. Zakath won't be able to prove anything, but if he can make it complex he will make it impossible for Bob to prove anything either.

 

[DEVO]

Zakath.... yet more evidence of man's devolution.


Oh.. this is gonna be good!

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by novice
I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense.

:chuckle:

Zakath, you could easily embrace God now and all this could be for not. What do you say?

 

[ibowatjesusfeet]

Well, Zakath did what any good atheist would do: he put the burden of proof on the believer. However, that's all he did. I think he should have said something about his position, but it didn't seem like he did.

 

[Chris Chrusher]

I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.

 

[Hilston]

What kind of atheist?

What kind of atheist?

I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm new here, and I wonder what Zakath's worldview is, beyond his criticism of the Christian worldview.

 

[ibowatjesusfeet]

I'm pretty sure that he completely denies Gods existance. If he claimed that there wasn't enough info to prove God, he would be in a better position because then the burden of proof is on the believer. He seemed to take the latter position (though it could have just been because he went first) in his first post.

 

[Shane]

Zakath

Zakath

David Eddings is an amazing author. Zakath, you have great taste. I enjoyed your first post and am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

 

[Emmaus Road]

I aammm not sure as some of you are...I think Zakath hit the right note.

Define God.
What evidence.

I do disagree with him however, on the area of philosohy....it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.

Historically, most heavy hitting philosophers did believe in God.

 

[Heathen]

Oh what enjoyment this topic should bring for both sides.

An atheist (or is that... a theist...I get confused) by denying that God exists, proclaims the very same to be in existence by acknowledging his absence. ( How can one deny something that doesn't exist unless he first realize that it is present to be denied?):doh:

Since I am new to this forum, and admittedly somewhat inexperienced at philosophical debates, I hope to learn as well as observe. Having spent some time reading throughout this website, I must thank its creator for this opportunity to share.

I eagerly await the TKO. Happy sparring to both participants.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Emmaus Road
it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.

Not really. I haven't really studied Descartes' or Aristotle's methods, but I did study Kant, and he set out to prove the existence of God by trying to disprove God, hoping that by failing to disprove God he would in fact prove God. The only thing he accomplished, though, was failing to prove the negative (as was his intent). Unfortunately, failing to disprove a negative does not prove a positive, which is something Kant didn't quite get. In the end, he only managed to prove that he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, but he was no closer to being able to prove he does.

 

[Eireann]

Re: What kind of atheist?

Re: What kind of atheist?

Originally posted by Hilston
I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim

Of the two you presented, only one is an atheist position. The latter is an agnostic position, not atheist.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Chris Chrusher
I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.

Funny thing is, if you exchange the word "atheist" for the word "religionist" throughout this post, it will be equally applicable.

 

[RogerB]

Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense.

It's been stated more than once that I'm an atheist. Bob knows this, most of the readers, perhaps excluding yourself, know this...

atheist - noun
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

What more statement of my position do you need?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.

Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will...

 

[RogerB]

Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will...

The only people who will "see" your point are those too blind to really see. :kookoo: :zakath: