The Center Stage

[Sucumbio]

You're talking as if I only made that one thread, I've participated in several, even ones where scientific or political knowledge aren't required, yet I still don't get admitted after several months.

Actually this is precisely the ... difficulty some have with your debating ability. Check this:

"I don't argue against big bang, I would need scientific knowledge for that, I argue you need God for it. Whether you need God for big bang or not is not a scientific issue, it's a metaphysical one, and science has no proofs for any metaphysical issues, hence why atheism requires philosophical thought, not that of the scientific kind."

YOUR words, friend. So of course my point will make it sound like I'm only addressing your one thread, because since that first thread of yours that's one of the only things you've talked about. I think I recall saying if I saw you type "self-necessary" one more time you'd be done. I was kidding of course, but in all fairness I was serious about your redundancy. And as Mewter has also said and I said ages ago, the ability to express yourself in multiple ways so as to better bring your point across is at the heart of good debate.

With regards to my original thread, even if I was wrong, the way the DHers went about it is what I'm complaining about. DHers are just supposed to promote activity, instead 5 of them ganged up on me telling me I was wrong.

Fair enough. In all honesty, Dre. I could attribute some of that to the sheer lack of activity. CK's essay contest really did bring out some folks from the woodwork, it was the first real activity this place had seen in a while, and it was well met. You went back and forth with several posters, and you held your own through a lot of it. It wasn't and shouldn't have been the end to your career as a SWF DH hopeful. But you have to remember there are some strong empirically-minded posters here who just won't be having any of that pseudo-science or pseudo-philosophy, especially if you headline it with "this can't be wrong, btw because Aristotle said it."

They also said my lack of scientific knowledge hindered me, yet most of the argument was against atheism, which is metaphysical not scientific. So the fact they constantly attacked me on that shows a bias towards people of differing belief.

Egad. ... I will not be drawn into a semantic discourse of what Atheism is or isn't. I will simply say that Science is to Atheists as Faith is to Believers. Take from that what you will, but you should see with this simile that to argue -against- Atheists is to argue -against- science. And to successfully do that, you have to KNOW science or risk being ignored as an ingrate.

The fact that CK told me that the cosmological argument, which is one of the most prominent metaphysical arguments, is laughable at best shows a heavy bias, and the fact I was told not to argue against their beliefs furthers that.

Argument from experience, though. The suggestion was for your own good, and as you saw yourself, not an unfounded suggestion.

Secondly, you make out that my argument had so many holes in it it was indefendable. Of course there would be holes in it, just like any other undergraduate argument, but two of my three sections (the two main sections at that) were against atheism, not bb/evo, and I used some of the greatest western philosophers in history. So to say that there were so many holes that it was indefendable would be to disrespect those philosophers and philosophy in general. Yes my argument would have holes, but there's no way that the greatest philosophers would have holes so big they are indefendable, otherwise they wouldn't have the reputation they do.

More of the same! This is your weakness... this is what you need to work on, big time. I was not suggesting the great thinkers of Ancient Greece were wrong. Or right. I was saying that your argument as it was presented was difficult to uphold. I could rewrite your position, but there's no point. But now that I think of it, I guess there IS a point, insomuch as it would exist as an example of how to defend a seemingly weak position. But mind you I would not have taken your approach. I would still use science as a backing to why God exists. To do otherwise is to deny science's empirical value, which is foolhardy.

Thirdly, your third paragraph pretty much just admitted that the bar is raised considerably higher for me simply because my beliefs or arguments are different to the DHers, that in itself is not fair and definitely a bias.

Really?

"You can argue the Earth is flat for all I care, but when you do it, you make sure your argument is so solid, and ready for the attacks, that you're prepared for anything that's thrown at you."

The meat of my 3rd paragraph. Not sure how this illustrates DH bias...

The thing is, there isn't anything I can really do, I've already participated in other debates over a period of months, and if referencing the greatest philosophers isn't good enough, then nothing philosophical will be. The only way I could get in is if I changed my arguments to match theirs and argued from scientific and political backgrounds, all so it suits the DHers.

Again this isn't necessarily true. Yes the DH has lots of political ranting, but it's not unheard of for philosophy to take its place. The only problem I see with your debating, Dre. is that if you ONLY back your points up with things that are not concrete then you're not really debating, your philosophizing and that's... well, there's no point after a while. It's like theory crafting in Brawl. It's important to use as a means to establish a starting point, but eventually you have to put the meat helmet down and pick up the controller and test the stuff out, or you're just wasting time.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't know if you guys are allowed to read the DH social thread, but in case you are not and it hasn't been posted yet at the moment the consensus is to try removing the PG altogether for the moment being (at least give something like that a try).

Dre, I apologize that you feel this way and I understand your grievances. Mewter above me said it in a joking manner, but it is impossible for any one person or any group to not be biased to some degree. I agree with you to some extent, but I also feel you might be exaggerating a bit since you might be bitter about not getting into the DH. If it helps, more than one person has mentioned letting you in just to get some activity.

Maybe we're biased, but I know that YOU KNOW we are not horrible people. We don't mean for you or anyone to suffer. Hopefully forum support will respond to Sucumbio's message to them and things can be resolved soon. If they don't we will keep trying.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah the DH is read only for non-DH members but it's open to all SWF members (and even guests).

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I suggest any and all PGers read the discussion regarding the reshaping of the DH in the DH Social thread. We'd like to hear your thoughts as well.

 

[Sieguest]

I suggest any and all PGers read the discussion regarding the reshaping of the DH in the DH Social thread. We'd like to hear your thoughts as well.

I read some stuff about the scrapping of the archives.
I personally don't mind the archives. I've gone through every so often and I've learned some stuff through there. Even though I do see how they are just "there" and not too much more than reading material.

As to the scrapping of the PG. I'm still on the fence about it. The PG seems like a good idea in theory. Probationary entrance into the DH also sounds like a good idea too. Just not completely sure.

 

[Dre89]

Actually this is precisely the ... difficulty some have with your debating ability. Check this:

"I don't argue against big bang, I would need scientific knowledge for that, I argue you need God for it. Whether you need God for big bang or not is not a scientific issue, it's a metaphysical one, and science has no proofs for any metaphysical issues, hence why atheism requires philosophical thought, not that of the scientific kind."

YOUR words, friend. So of course my point will make it sound like I'm only addressing your one thread, because since that first thread of yours that's one of the only things you've talked about. I think I recall saying if I saw you type "self-necessary" one more time you'd be done. I was kidding of course, but in all fairness I was serious about your redundancy. And as Mewter has also said and I said ages ago, the ability to express yourself in multiple ways so as to better bring your point across is at the heart of good debate.

Even if my lack of diversity in expression is an issue, you can't say that that alone warrants my lack of admission after several months, or that it was even the reason why I didn't get admitted. It's pretty clear it's because I used philosophy, a field most people here aren't familiar with, to argue something they disagreed with.

Fair enough. In all honesty, Dre. I could attribute some of that to the sheer lack of activity. CK's essay contest really did bring out some folks from the woodwork, it was the first real activity this place had seen in a while, and it was well met. You went back and forth with several posters, and you held your own through a lot of it. It wasn't and shouldn't have been the end to your career as a SWF DH hopeful. But you have to remember there are some strong empirically-minded posters here who just won't be having any of that pseudo-science or pseudo-philosophy, especially if you headline it with "this can't be wrong, btw because Aristotle said it."

I'm not saying I can't be wrong because Arsitotle said it, but the idea that my arguments are obviusly flawed to a large extent is ludacris because they were formulated by some of the greatest minds in hisory. The fact that I've even showed knowledge of a field beyond the level of the average eprson should be enough to warrant my admission, considering people with similar levels of knowledge in their fields have been admitted.

Egad. ... I will not be drawn into a semantic discourse of what Atheism is or isn't. I will simply say that Science is to Atheists as Faith is to Believers. Take from that what you will, but you should see with this simile that to argue -against- Atheists is to argue -against- science. And to successfully do that, you have to KNOW science or risk being ignored as an ingrate.

Science proves nothing about God. All science does is shows how the world operated from its conception, not how it was conceived.

Argument from experience, though. The suggestion was for your own good, and as you saw yourself, not an unfounded suggestion.

Argument from personal bias. It still shows they are not tolerant of arguments which they are opposed to, considering that the cosmological argument is highly respected.

Even if hypothetically my position was so deeply flawed, the fact I put alot of knowledge behind it and put up a fight should be enough to warrant admission, because it's not supposed to be the position you take, but how well you defend it.

More of the same! This is your weakness... this is what you need to work on, big time. I was not suggesting the great thinkers of Ancient Greece were wrong. Or right. I was saying that your argument as it was presented was difficult to uphold. I could rewrite your position, but there's no point. But now that I think of it, I guess there IS a point, insomuch as it would exist as an example of how to defend a seemingly weak position. But mind you I would not have taken your approach. I would still use science as a backing to why God exists. To do otherwise is to deny science's empirical value, which is foolhardy.

Science only deals with natural entities, so I don't see how that would help with God, which is a divine entity, beyond natural constituion. Besides, I used scientific observation in my arguments anyway.


[/QUOTE]Really?

"You can argue the Earth is flat for all I care, but when you do it, you make sure your argument is so solid, and ready for the attacks, that you're prepared for anything that's thrown at you."

The meat of my 3rd paragraph. Not sure how this illustrates DH bias...[/QUOTE]

You're/ the DHers are assuming that my position is objectively weaker, therefore, as a result of this personal disposition of the DHers, my argument has to be a million times stronger than other people's, simply because of the DHer's personal convictions.


[/QUOTE]Again this isn't necessarily true. Yes the DH has lots of political ranting, but it's not unheard of for philosophy to take its place. The only problem I see with your debating, Dre. is that if you ONLY back your points up with things that are not concrete then you're not really debating, your philosophizing and that's... well, there's no point after a while. It's like theory crafting in Brawl. It's important to use as a means to establish a starting point, but eventually you have to put the meat helmet down and pick up the controller and test the stuff out, or you're just wasting time. [/QUOTE]

Assuming that science concretely backs up atheism is foolish and shows a lack of knowledge in the field. By your logic then, we shouldn't argue about God, because niether atheistic or theistic philosophy has empirical evidence to stand upon.

That position is self-defeating, because science itself came from philosophy, meaning that the application of pure logic is indeed worthwhile, contrary to your opinion.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I read some stuff about the scrapping of the archives.
I personally don't mind the archives. I've gone through every so often and I've learned some stuff through there. Even though I do see how they are just "there" and not too much more than reading material.

As to the scrapping of the PG. I'm still on the fence about it. The PG seems like a good idea in theory. Probationary entrance into the DH also sounds like a good idea too. Just not completely sure.

I agree that, in theory, it is a good idea. But it only works if we have enough participation in the PG and DH, which we do not have. We need to stimulate activity as much as we can, and elimination of the PG seems like to best solution to me.

 

[Mewter]

Ignore this post.

 

[Dre89]

There isn't enough people for two forums, there isn't even enough for one.

Secondly, I don't know what it was like before I came here, but now there is virtually no difference between the level of debating in the DH and the PG.

The level of debating here is undergraduate at best, so it doesn't warrant a selection process in which DHers assume they are in a position to judge others, particularly the idea of people taking weeks and even months to get in.

 

[SuperBowser]

As things currently stand, I don't think the PG is doing its job. It's simply acting as an obstruction (this wouldn't be a problem if the DH was active). You can do a good amount of debating on the rest of Smashboards or just go to another forum so there is little incentive for people to bother in PG. Especially when DH is dead anyway.

 

[blazedaces]

There isn't enough people for two forums, there isn't even enough for one.

Secondly, I don't know what it was like before I came here, but now there is virtually no difference between the level of debating in the DH and the PG.

The level of debating here is undergraduate at best, so it doesn't warrant a selection process in which DHers assume they are in a position to judge others, particularly the idea of people taking weeks and even months to get in.

Dre... I don't get it. What... do you want?!

We have told you time and time again, a number of people have said it in both the PG and the DH that if it were up to us you and most others would be in... but because none of us have the power to make this change it doesn't matter.

I wish I could snap my fingers and place you all in the DH, get rid of the archives, make significant changes, etc... but I can't. And neither can anyone else reading this. Who are you preaching to at this point? \

Please stop complaining... Insulting everyone's debating skills is not making us move any faster. Just have some patience...

-blazed

 

[BSP]

I think the PG is a hinderance. Since the activity usually is short of exciting, there's really no incentive for PGers to make posts and such. In addition to that, it's kind of frustrating not knowing exactly how much or how well you need to debate before you get let into the room. For example, I took a long break from in this posting because I just lost interest. I didn't know when I would get in, or if I was even being paid attention by the people who actually let you into the DH. With this PG, you're just posting blind until you eventually get in, and I think this room makes people lose interest before they actually get in.

Should we offer suggestions? IMO, anyone who wants to get in the DH should get access into the main room, but they're monitored while they're in there. If they don't post, or just spam, just strip them of the posting right. If they can debate well enough- and well enough needs to be defined- they should be able to stay in. It's simple, keeps activity up, and lets people jump straight into the action, without losing interest in the PG.

If suggestions aren't allowed, then just ignore this.

And someone should PM the moderators of this thing. If the PG is supposed to work, I think we need more activity, and people paying close attention to the posters.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I've made a social group in which DHers will be discussing potential reform ideas in-depth. PGers may join as well, provided that discussion is kept civil. Just apply and I'll let you in.

 

[Dre89]

I think the PG is a hinderance. Since the activity usually is short of exciting, there's really no incentive for PGers to make posts and such. In addition to that, it's kind of frustrating not knowing exactly how much or how well you need to debate before you get let into the room. For example, I took a long break from in this posting because I just lost interest. I didn't know when I would get in, or if I was even being paid attention by the people who actually let you into the DH. With this PG, you're just posting blind until you eventually get in, and I think this room makes people lose interest before they actually get in.

I agree with this completely.

Dre... I don't get it. What... do you want?!

We have told you time and time again, a number of people have said it in both the PG and the DH that if it were up to us you and most others would be in... but because none of us have the power to make this change it doesn't matter.

I wish I could snap my fingers and place you all in the DH, get rid of the archives, make significant changes, etc... but I can't. And neither can anyone else reading this. Who are you preaching to at this point? \

Please stop complaining... Insulting everyone's debating skills is not making us move any faster. Just have some patience...

-blazed

Everyone else complains that the PG is a hindrance, then as soon as I make a complaint I get told off again...

I'm just saying that the level of debating isn't high enough to warrant a strict admission process.

Even if the DH/PG was highly active, the exaggerated admission process would only serve to segregate elitists (not saying anyone here is) from other competent debaters, which isn't healthy and wouldn't send a good image.

So I wasn't insulting the level of debating, nor do I assume that I am above it, the whole point of why I come to debate here specifically is that the level is low enough (being mostly young undergraduates) for me to participate in.

What I propose is that we just turn the new social gorup into a new DH itself, It'll save alot of time. People can apply and if they are competent debaters they are retained, but if they're immature they're ejected.

The reason why I suggest this is that the debating in the PG/DH is no better than debating in other threads in this site. People won't want to come here because of the overly strict admission process, to compete at a level that they could do elsewhere on the site.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What I propose is that we just turn the new social gorup into a new DH itself, It'll save alot of time. People can apply and if they are competent debaters they are retained, but if they're immature they're ejected.

The problem I have with that is this, it has a much lower profile, it doesn't attract as much attention from the outside world, but it could work.

The reason why I suggest this is that the debating in the PG/DH is no better than debating in other threads in this site. People won't want to come here because of the overly strict admission process, to compete at a level that they could do elsewhere on the site.

Well, we've got to deal with that, make the whole thing a whole lot more lax. All we really need to do, is keep the idiots out, and keep the competent and semi-competent people in. So, the plan is ditch the proving grounds (maybe, there's a bit of dispute about that), unlock the archives and get the mods a whole lot more active in their approval of new people.

 

[blazedaces]

Everyone else complains that the PG is a hindrance, then as soon as I make a complaint I get told off again...

I'm just saying that the level of debating isn't high enough to warrant a strict admission process.

Sorry, it still just sounds like an insult to me on the debate skills of the DH members...it doesn't even sound like you're complaining about the PG... but whatever. I don't care enough to argue with you about it.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

I think the difference between me and the others is that they believe th PG is unecessary because of the lack of activity, whereas I think it's unecessary regardless of the level of activity.

Also Blazed you have to understand alot of my complaints aren't directed at the current DHers specifically. Alot of the more biased and condescending ones seem to have left from when I first started here.

I actually think the current crop of DHers are good, they're proactive and open-minded, which wasn't always the case when I was here.

 

[blazedaces]

I think the difference between me and the others is that they believe th PG is unecessary because of the lack of activity, whereas I think it's unecessary regardless of the level of activity.

Also Blazed you have to understand alot of my complaints aren't directed at the current DHers specifically. Alot of the more biased and condescending ones seem to have left from when I first started here.

I actually think the current crop of DHers are good, they're proactive and open-minded, which wasn't always the case when I was here.

Actually, even though I never voiced it because I don't care... I never thought the PG was a good idea... that is... I didn't care until the debate hall became void of all activity and I missed what used to be there.

In fact, my post was the first one in the social thread to say I think we should abolish the PG and the debate hall archives.

Even if not many know, I was here before CK came, when the debate hall was a simple forum everyone could post in. I'll admit, I understand why CK tried the PG out, at the time there was consistent activity, threads were hundreds of pages long riddled with the same arguments over and over, ever new guy posted in every thread and said the SAME thing OVER and OVER and we repeated simple arguments until they left. Often these people were copying and pasting arguments from other sites without any knowledge of the subject matter.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

which ones were bias and condescending?

 

[Dre89]

You were one of the main ones.

"When does anything he say ever make sense?". I've said far less provocative things and been criticised for it here. I mean you even said it in a thread I had just posted in too, it's not even as if you were discussing me in another thread.

One of the more biased things I encountered was when CK and someone else told me not to argue against what you guys believed, because I would be wrong. I was surprised because I thought a DH was supposed to be open-minded, yet they didn't promote arguments against their beliefs.

Instead of DHers trying to promote discussion in PG threads, I'd get about 5 of them ganging up on telling me I was wrong.

CK even said the cosmological argument "was laughable at best" when it's one of the most prominent meaphysical arguments. That shows a massive personal bias.

I've said it a hundred times before, but I didn't like how I was constantly condescended for not having scientific knowledge when I was debating a metaphysical issue...

I only ever argued against atheism, which is metaphysical, not BB/evo, which are scientific. All of my arguments are compatible with creationist evolution anyway.

Look at all the DHers, they either agree with what you guys think, or at least argue from science and politics, fields that you guys are experienced in and respect. I don't really know of any DHers, who used fields other than science and politics and disagreed with you.

It's not as if my level of debating is so much drastically lower that I shouldn't be let in. I use established philosophers in nearly all of my arguments, so it's not as if their arguments have so many holes in them that they are indefensible, otherwise they wouldn't be famous.

Even if I'm not an amazing debater, I come prepared for all the big threads I participate in (God, abortion etc.). That isn't the case for some other DHers. I get DHers coming into philosophy debates thinking that science alone justifies athiesm. A certain debator told me not to stop using thought experiments in the abortion thread, when the best bioethical arguments come from thought experiments. One debator, I won't mention his name, came into a God debate assuming that God had size, shape, speed etc. as if He was a physical creature. Now I'm not attakcing him personally, but the bias is evident if people can make elementary mistakes like that and be in the DH, yet I put several philosophers into my arguments yet I don't get admitted.

I mean seriously, it defeats the point of having an overly strict amdission process (consideirng that the debating level here isn't better than anywhere else on the site) if you're still going to allow people into the DH when they make such elementary mistakes. And you guys wonder why I complain so much.

Yes I may not be good at explaining things in different ways, but that surely doesn't warrant rejection from the DH, I've seen DHers do far worse things.

The current DHers admit to the heavy bias so I don't really have anything to complain about anymore, except for the fact that I'm still not in there, and perhaps the fact they put the DH Reform Thread in the DH instea dof the PG lol.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

One debator, I won't mention his name, came into a God debate assuming that God had size, shape, speed etc. as if He was a physical creature. Now I'm not attakcing him personally, but the bias is evident if people can make elementary mistakes like that and be in the DH, yet I put several philosophers into my arguments yet I don't get admitted.

Hey, I heard that! I had reasonable grounds to assume that your god had a shape, size, speed, mass, etc. If you subscribe to Christianity, which I assume you do, you believe he appeared with these attributes, as Jesus, is that a fair assumption?

 

[blazedaces]

Dre, I happen to take quite a few classes in philosophy (currently taking Epistomology) and am reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at the moment.

I want this debate hall issue sorted out, but after that I was intending to create a thread more focused on philosophy alone, explaining in the OP that this was not a scientific debate, though evidence from major philosophers would be accepted as backing up your argument like in a normal debate...

I really wanted to start one ever since I've been in this class.

I love discussing philosophy because despite what people think it is rather important, but it's unlike science because there isn't always one absolutely "right" answer. And even if there is it's not often as simple as looking up that 2+2=4.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

I didn't want to mention your name Because i didn't want to embarrass you or make a personal attack on you. If I mentioned your name, it would have sounded like I woould have been implying that you shouldn't be in the DH, which would be wrong.

Firstly, it was an error to assume we were talking about Christianity in the first place.

Secondly, yes Jesus was physical, but God Himself isn't. God isn't just a big version of Jesus in the clouds or something like that.

God is simply 'being', or 'existence' itself. He doesn't have shape or perimetres because He doesn't exist in time or space, He is changless and eternal (the two go hand in hand).

The idea is that God 'is act', meaning there is nothing that God is yet to do, because that is potential not act, and assuming that God would make a movement from potential to act is reducing Him to a changing, finite being.

This is where you're misunderstanding with the Spaghetti Monster came from. I hate that argument, because the SM is metaphysically implausible, just like all polythiestic Gods. God is actually logic in that it is metaphysically sound. The SM and God meet two different criterias, they're not in the same boat like athiests seem to think.

So to think the Christian God is physical is wrong. You're argument was that God is an unecessary complexity, only Jesus, the manifestation of God into a human being, is a complexity, God Himself is simple.

Just to clarify.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, I happen to take quite a few classes in philosophy (currently taking Epistomology) and am reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at the moment.

I want this debate hall issue sorted out, but after that I was intending to create a thread more focused on philosophy alone, explaining in the OP that this was not a scientific debate, though evidence from major philosophers would be accepted as backing up your argument like in a normal debate...

I really wanted to start one ever since I've been in this class.

I love discussing philosophy because despite what people think it is rather important, but it's unlike science because there isn't always one absolutely "right" answer. And even if there is it's not often as simple as looking up that 2+2=4.

-blazed

I did Epistemology too this semester. Personally, it's not really my cup of tea, but I recommend you read Thomas Reid, he speaks on testimony. If you've read any of my recent threads (particularly the abortion one) you'll see some of my thoughts are extracted from his work.

I consider philosophy and science equal, in that they trumph each other in certain aspects. Science can conclude 'facts' through empirical methodology, but there are just things that we will never though through it, such as paths to wisodm, God, morality etc..

Science came from philosophy in the first place, which I always mention when scientists bag philosophy.

I disagree that science deduces truth. The thing is, science is a progression, the science of today will be considered wrong 800 years from now, just like the science of 800 years ago is considered wrong now.

That's the beauty of philosophy, thought from Ancient Greece is still highly influential in the field. I feel that the legacy of philosophy is timeless, whereas the contribution of a scientist perhaps is acknowledged as far as it is deemed correct, then it is cast aside for developments in the field.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I didn't want to mention your name Because i didn't want to embarrass you or make a personal attack on you. If I mentioned your name, it would have sounded like I woould have been implying that you shouldn't be in the DH, which would be wrong.

Well, I understand, but I knew who you were talking about. ME.

Firstly, it was an error to assume we were talking about Christianity in the first place.

I actually disagree, you are a Catholic (if I'm right), and it seemed as if you were arguing in favour of your faith.

Secondly, yes Jesus was physical, but God Himself isn't. God isn't just a big version of Jesus in the clouds or something like that.

My point, he had those attributes at least once, as Jesus is supposed to be god. And, let's leave it at that.

 

[Dre89]

Well, I understand, but I knew who you were talking about. ME.

Yeah sorry I was hoping you wouldn't see it. But surely you can understand my frustration when I put plenty of knowledge (for undegraduate level) behind my arguments and not be admitted after months, and they see someone make a mistake like that and be in the DH. It's not a personal attack on you, just a reference to the inconsistency of the DH.

I actually disagree, you are a Catholic (if I'm right), and it seemed as if you were arguing in favour of your faith.

I'm not religious. Catholics defend their faith by providing evidence that what they put their faith in truly is divine revelation. I defend my belief in God by suggesting that the nature of the world necessitates an infinite deity.

That's why I'm a diest or agnostic theist, I only believe in God because I believe atheism is impossible.

My point, he had those attributes at least once, as Jesus is supposed to be god. And, let's leave it at that.

But that complexity is theological, not metaphysical. The deist or theist doesn't need the theology to believe in God, the theology can come belief in God has been philosophically justified as a necessity to the existence of the universe.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah sorry I was hoping you wouldn't see it. But surely you can understand my frustration when I put plenty of knowledge (for undegraduate level) behind my arguments and not be admitted after months, and they see someone make a mistake like that and be in the DH. It's not a personal attack on you, just a reference to the inconsistency of the DH.

It's fine. I'm not perfect.

I'm not religious. Catholics defend their faith by providing evidence that what they put their faith in truly is divine revelation. I defend my belief in God by suggesting that the nature of the world necessitates an infinite deity.

Yeah, I guess, but I would have thought that you believe that Jesus was god.

That's why I'm a diest or agnostic theist, I only believe in God because I believe atheism is impossible.

I see.

 

[Sucumbio]

Open Challenge

Let us get the gears cranking a bit in the Center Stage. The spotlight's on you!

Challenge: Pose a question, theory, hypothesis, argument, etc. and defend a position. You will debate me, and any other DH members who wish to join in. If you are successful (read: not necessarily that you "win" more that you demonstrate how you haven't lost) you will be considered strongly for DH membership, fit and ready to post.

Requirements: You must have at least one active topic in the PG that you created. You must have participated in at least 3 other topics in the PG, and your participation in all threads should contain well organized expressions of your ideas, and are coherently constructed.

See this thread for a good example of a debate topic. In this example the argument is presented from both sides, and then one side is clearly chosen and supported. This would be the recommended format, but its up to you how you wish to approach the subject. Just be sure it's obvious what your position is, and defend it!

 

[KrazyGlue]

Although, I'd like to emphasize that "not losing" doesn't necessarily mean fighting to the death over your point, stalling, and using any other technique you can to ignore flaws in your position. If you mess up, it's better to admit it than to continue arguing an obviously false point. Debaters appreciate when you use proper etiquette.

 

[Sucumbio]

(side bar)

It almost sound like you are calling me a liar on my claim. Please tell me that I'm just reading that wrong.

Yeah, you misinterpreted, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just wondering why you're bothering to make this comparison. It's one thing to say Dre.'s debate style is lacking for *insert reason here* and to even go so far as to say it's potentially disruptive, etc., but its another thing entirely to accuse him of something insidious, and unless this is just because of my cursory overview of one of those 2 posters you referenced, that's what I'm gathering you're saying. What was THEIR deal? Maybe if you were to go into more detail about them it'd make more sense? Were they bigots? Racists? Right-wing nut-jobs? I just want to make sure its a fair assessment of Dre., whatever it is you come up with.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Yeah, you misinterpreted, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just wondering why you're bothering to make this comparison. It's one thing to say Dre.'s debate style is lacking for *insert reason here* and to even go so far as to say it's potentially disruptive, etc., but its another thing entirely to accuse him of something insidious, and unless this is just because of my cursory overview of one of those 2 posters you referenced, that's what I'm gathering you're saying. What was THEIR deal? Maybe if you were to go into more detail about them it'd make more sense? Were they bigots? Racists? Right-wing nut-jobs? I just want to make sure its a fair assessment of Dre., whatever it is you come up with.

Okay, let me explain.

In some ways, I feel that I got into the DH by basically out debating everything Hooblah tried to throw @ me. Hooblah2u2 is essentially a Christian apologetic, who truly believes that the Bible contains no contradictions (stop me before I hurl :&).

I can easily say that his debate style was disruptive because he never believed that his style was wrong and that people where ganging up on him. Hmm, that sound familar...

Shade613 was essentially a right wing nut job (how'd you guess? =P) he was room banned for his take on homosexuality.

So, I will be showing some of the parallels in the arguments with the three.

Still working on it, so bear with me. It's a lot of research.

 

[Sucumbio]

thanks for the clarification. haha yeah, well I saw Shade613's G.O.P. group and was like, oh god. But I didn't read any of the posts... until now. And ... ha! He's brain dead. Or spamming? I can't tell! His arguments are atrocious, and it seems as if he can't ... well, read. Reading Comprehension, I can has it? He admits he's not old enough to take care of himself, but he thinks "socialism" will be the end of the republic. Yeah, I can see why his membership here would be rejected, it's one thing to have far-right views, but he'd be impossible to actually debate.

 

[Dre89]

Okay, let me explain.

In some ways, I feel that I got into the DH by basically out debating everything Hooblah tried to throw @ me. Hooblah2u2 is essentially a Christian apologetic, who truly believes that the Bible contains no contradictions (stop me before I hurl :&).

So you're comparing me to a Christian when I don't even believe in religion.

Secondly, the Bible doesn't have contradictions.

Before you reference Dueteronomy 13: 6-16, where God tells people to kill their relatives if they try to seduce them to other Gods, yes I know about all that.

In fact, any learned Christian knows about that stuff. Those issues fall under Old Law vs. New Law Theory. I personally don't find the theory convincing, and anyone is within their right to criticise it but saying the Bible is contradictory is incorrect because the theology has answers for those accusations.

You seem to feel as if you know enough about the Church to criticise it. Before this ends up in a Church debate, can you tell me what Catholic scholarship you've read? Philosophers, theologians, historians etc.

I do hope you're not one of those people who just bash the Church without reading any scholarship on it, because usually those people have criticisms that the Church answered hundreds of years ago.

I can easily say that his debate style was disruptive because he never believed that his style was wrong and that people where ganging up on him. Hmm, that sound familar...

Do you believe your style is wrong? So because I disagree with people's counters to my arguments I'm narrow-minded? How am I any different to anyone else here?

Referencing great thinkers is disurptive?

Having detailed premises is disruptive?

I guarantee I could have had the exact same debating style, but agree with all your positions and you wouldn't be criticising me at all.

Shade613 was essentially a right wing nut job (how'd you guess? =P) he was room banned for his take on homosexuality.

So in a debate hall people get kicked out for taking a position that conflicts with the norm. I don't understand what the point of having a debate hall is then.

So, I will be showing some of the parallels in the arguments with the three.

Still working on it, so bear with me. It's a lot of research.

I find it ironic that the nucleus for the pro-homosexuality argument is about people's right to freedom, yet I'm apparently not allowed to have a position that conflicts with modern society's.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

^ Wow, that's lotta fail in assumptions.

I'll just let my post do the talking, because showing these comparisons will serve best for all in the PG and the DH.

Still working on it.

 

[Aesir]

You're allowed to have the opinion, no one said you're not allowed to have an opposing opinion. Stop being a baby.

 

[Dre89]

The guy was banned for his take on homosexuality, so no I'm guessing you're not allowed to have the opinion.

Look Blazed it's kinda sad that you would go to that much effort to get rid of me, but if I'm really causing a problem I'll just leave and save you the trouble.

I'm not being a baby, it's just that I came here to learn, and if me being here is 'disrupting' everyone's learning and the productivity of the debate hall in general then it's no good me being here.

Anyway I had a good time here, thanks to everyone who partticipated in debates with me.

Have fun all agreeing with each other lol.

 

[SuperBowser]

The guy was banned for his take on homosexuality, so no I'm guessing you're not allowed to have the opinion.

He was banned for being homophobic.

 

[blazedaces]

The guy was banned for his take on homosexuality, so no I'm guessing you're not allowed to have the opinion.

Look Blazed it's kinda sad that you would go to that much effort to get rid of me, but if I'm really causing a problem I'll just leave and save you the trouble.

... WHAT?!

... wait... I just have to say that again... WHAT?!

I sent you those pm's with the explanation that Sucumbio's feedback could have been better and that some people were just being jerks... but you shouldn't worry about those kinds of comments. I was hoping consoling you a bit would ensure that you would stay...

Where in the world did it seem like I was trying to get rid of you? Seriously, quote which part... I just reread the PMs... I have no idea what in the world led you to believe that...

You know what, here's plainly the point:

People like me really like your arguments and wish there were more people like you in the debate hall. You fuel debates and activity, and you are actually knowledgeable in areas that I believe the DH is lacking. I still think you really overreact to people's comments and could relax a bit more. The DH need not be taken so seriously or be revered in such a manner.

If you leave, then good luck to you elsewhere,

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Sorry I meant great kazoo, I get the names confused. Good thing I checked it one last time. Anyway have fun debating guys, thanks for the experience. I'm sorry all the disruption I aparently caused, things should return to normal now.

 

[Sucumbio]

I sent you those pm's with the explanation that Sucumbio's feedback could have been better

I tried the normal approach, ages ago, and repeatedly for months. I got frustrated because he seemed to be taking my advice (and everyone else's) with a grain of salt.

Sorry I meant great kazoo, I get the names confused. Good thing I checked it one last time. Anyway have fun debating guys, thanks for the experience. I'm sorry all the disruption I aparently caused, things should return to normal now.

I apologize to you also Dre. if you think I was unfair or rude or both. I was just hoping something would stick, ya know? That something might... trigger a response in you to see things in a different way, and to apply that insight to your debates accordingly. I didn't mean for you to bail on the DH though, that was never my intention, but if you really don't want to post here anymore, I fully understand.