Conquer Club

"We had the sky up there all speckled with stars and we used to just lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss whethere they was made or whether they only just happened" Mark Twain

Michael Binkley "Made" Oliver Wendel Jones "Just happened"
from Bloom County by Berkley Breathed

Okay folks we have ground ourselves into a bloody war of attrition (both theist and atheist) and are not doing anything but annoying each other and anyone who happens to wander into our threads.

Flashleg 8 had a good idea in "A challenge to Theists". He challenged us to meet him on one subject, cite our sources, and be mindful of fallacies. Great! I'm up for that it's what I like. The problem was the choice of topic "Prove there is a God". Well, um, no I can't anymore than you can prove their isn't one. Flashleg and I had had that discussion and I didn't see getting back into it. Especially when we had reached the inevitable truce on that subject (See the quote above).

I say its time for a few champions to take the fight one-on-one. Here is how I propose that we do it. Anyone who has a specific subject to debate start a thread labelled "1 on 1" and your topic (Evolution has proven your God doesn't exist).

Open a poll with three options (Your name)'s right, Your oposition's right, you're tied. This will be the only way others will get to provide input aside from pming you information to use.

The first person to take up the gauntlet will be your opponent. There will only be four posts. You begin by stating your position. Your opponent then states their position. You rebut his position & he rebuts yours. (Remember you chose the topic so he gets the last post). If you agree to continue, start another thread with another poll labelled (user name 1 v. user name 2 round two). Keep going as long as you want but follow this format so we can actually see whose argument is the most compelling, and stop the insipid circular arguments that happen when there is no controlling idea to a work.

CrazyAnglican wrote:I say its time for a few champions to take the fight one-on-one. Here is how I propose that we do it. Anyone who has a specific subject to debate start a thread labelled "1 on 1" and your topic (Evolution has proven your God doesn't exist).

Well, personally, being no practised debater myself, I'll just cheer on whichever atheist can be bothered to start a topic. But, damn, if an atheist actually starts one on the (presumably) example topic you have chosen above, I'll be cheering on the "against" side. Not even Richard Dawkins has ever said that evolution disproves the existence of the Christian God (afaik).

Sounds great, but be fair. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for an atheist that is logically trouncing a Christian. I think most of us are competitive enough to see this as a game and respect the rules.

CrazyAnglican wrote:(Evolution has proven your God doesn't exist).

No...evolution proves that animals change over time, and if there is anything religious based it proves that the guy who wrote Genesis wasn't ahead of his time.

Sorry, wasn't actually making an argument there. It was just an example. So are you up for a debate in that style?

CrazyAnglican wrote:Sorry, wasn't actually making an argument there.

I realised that, but I'm personally just astounded that you'd actually think anyone here actually thinks "Evolution has proven your God doesn't exist", that's all - or at least, to the extent that it'd be a good idea to put it as an example topic. I mean, I'd be amazed if anyone here did, myself.

I believe in a new regilion, I'm going to post it soon.

I'll take part in sucha debate. Right now it;s off to bed.

FIrcoalism is the only way to go. BEcause it's actually true.[/code]

unriggable wrote:I'll take part in sucha debate. Right now it;s off to bed.

Okay have a good one I plan to start one in a day or so. If you like the topic jump in.

i kind of disagree with this premise....i think the point of any discourse is to get a number of different voices in on the debate. I mean its unlikely of course that anyone is going to come up with a definitive answer, but to eliminate voices from the debate seems to be counterproductive i think. I mean why turn it into a contest between two people with what will eventually amount to a winner or loser. It would be probably impossible for anyone to prove or disprove any likely topic that comes up and to declare winners and losers (which usually occurs in a debate style setting seems a little off to me). Im all for discourse, but it seems a bit off to try and say this side is a winner or a loser, thats all.

got tonkaed wrote:i kind of disagree with this premise....i think the point of any discourse is to get a number of different voices in on the debate. I mean its unlikely of course that anyone is going to come up with a definitive answer, but to eliminate voices from the debate seems to be counterproductive i think. I mean why turn it into a contest between two people with what will eventually amount to a winner or loser. It would be probably impossible for anyone to prove or disprove any likely topic that comes up and to declare winners and losers (which usually occurs in a debate style setting seems a little off to me). Im all for discourse, but it seems a bit off to try and say this side is a winner or a loser, thats all.

That's a good point. It's really only that I like the depth that you can get in a debate with one other person. When it becomes a free for all there are many differing viewpoints and it becomes impossible to give everyone's view due consideration.

Basically, this is a game website, and debate for me is a game. I like the strategy of it and the back and forth banter.

The poll part was just an idea to give feedback on how well we did. There is no way to keep people from voting along the lines of their bias. So it wouldn't really be a reliable indicator of a winner or loser. It could be dropped if there is any objection to it.

We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin n goin to heaven in-a jesus name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)

So you better:
Get up, stand up! (in the morning! git it up!)
Stand up for your rights! (stand up for our rights!)

-Bob Marley

longboreder wrote:Almighty God is a living man.

Close but I'm not fully a man. I'm part Pikachu. ANd other things. TBNL

Nah. Hadn't you heard? Its in the Atheistic commandments to rip apart Christianity.

Sounds a good idea CrazyAnglican. I can appreciate a good debate and I think you can objectively choose a winner based on points laid out and counter arguments presented regardless of your own personal opinion on the subject. In much the same way a good debater can argue a viewpoint that they are personally opposed to, this is a skill highly useful to a student of Marxist dialectics.

Guiscard wrote:Nah. Hadn't you heard? Its in the Atheistic commandments to rip apart Christianity.

Yeah, So here is your chance. You don't mean to tell me that you rely on having a bunch of friends back you up now, do you?

flashleg8 wrote:Sounds a good idea CrazyAnglican. I can appreciate a good debate and I think you can objectively choose a winner based on points laid out and counter arguments presented regardless of your own personal opinion on the subject. In much the same way a good debater can argue a viewpoint that they are personally opposed to, this is a skill highly useful to a student of Marxist dialectics.

I kind of hoped you would take this one. I like debating with you. Are we using the nobeliefs.com list of fallacies you recommended? It seems pretty complete.

I think and argument about "whose 'faiths' are greater, an athiests or cristians". The athiest can make the argument that the fact that an athiest will go to hell if he is wrong makes him go out on more of a limb. Would be an intesting debate all the same.

juggernaut17 wrote:I think and argument about "whose 'faiths' are greater, an athiests or cristians". The athiest can make the argument that the fact that an athiest will go to hell if he is wrong makes him go out on more of a limb. Would be an intesting debate all the same.

A variant of Pascal's wager. It's poppycock.

Stopper wrote: A variant of Pascal's wager. It's poppycock.

That's great, are you willing to start that thread? "Blaise Paschal's wager is poppycock". I'm not sure I'd take you up on it. I think it was a tongue-n-cheek argument, anyway. But someone may.

This whole plan is far to civilized.
This is bad for the Atheists. Because most people in the other religion threads end up acting like the damn missing link. Which of course proves evolution...

Kugelblitz22 wrote:This whole plan is far to civilized.
This is bad for the Atheists. Because most people in the other religion threads end up acting like the damn missing link. Which of course proves evolution...

I don't dispute evolution. I just don't think that it's relevant to my religious beliefs. If you'd like to open that as a 1-on-1, I think someone would take you up on it. Personally I think that bird is done.


I think that it could be good for atheists as well. You are showing that your convictions are as relevant and well thought out as a Christian's. How can that be bad?

So, if this is going to truly work, it's all up to the art of debate...not necessarily what one believes, right?

What I would really like to see is luns101, jay a2j, or nunz try and argue something from an atheist side against someone like guiscard or backglass try and argue the case for the Christian side. Now THAT would be an interesting debate!

Probably won't happen but it would still be cool to watch.