For the theists, who among the non-theist camp here do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks your beliefs or defends his own non-belief most capably?
And for the non-theists, who do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks non-belief or defends theism most capably?
And theists who debate among themselves should feel free to answer the same question.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI give my vote as a toss up between rwingett and bbarr. By far, bbarr has the soundest arguements, but rwingett has a special knack for pushing a theists buttons.
For the theists, who among the non-theist camp here do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks your beliefs or defends his own non-belief most capably?
And for the non-theists, who do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks non-belief or defends theism most ...[text shortened]...
And theists who debate among themselves should feel free to answer the same question.
Dr. S
To both you gents, I tip my hat. We have had some great discussions.
Originally posted by OmnislashThank you, thank you. But I'd like to point out that Bbarr has had professional training in this area, whereas I am entirely self trained. Oh sure, anybody can use ten cent words like "ontological" or "categorical imperative" if you've gone to some fancy pants ivory tower school. But to make a semi-logical argument without really being quite sure what those things mean, now that takes some real debatin' talent. 😉
I give my vote as a toss up between rwingett and bbarr. By far, bbarr has the soundest arguements, but rwingett has a special knack for pushing a theists buttons.
To both you gents, I tip my hat. We have had some great discussions.
The three theists who exasperate me the most (does that count?) would be KellyJay, Ivanhoe, and Pcaspian. You don't post often enough to crack the top three, I'm afraid. Off the top of my head, the two theists whom I have the most respect for would be Kirk and TheSkipper. But I don't think any of the theists are exactly clamoring for my endorsement.
Um, about the only person who ever entered into debate with me was a fellow theist! I think... I still don't understand nemesio's point of view fully.
Can bbarr have my negative vote? Sorry, but he drives me completely crazy by missing the point more often than not. I much prefer rwingett, from what I've read.
Originally posted by orfeo
Um, about the only person who ever entered into debate with me was a fellow theist! I think... I still don't understand nemesio's point of view fully.
Can bbarr have my negative vote? Sorry, but he drives me completely crazy by missing the point more often than not. I much prefer rwingett, from what I've read.
There are debaters who invest a lot of energy and time in trying hard NOT to understand what people are saying ...... it is an art in itself 😛
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPersonally - bbarr and nemesio (yes, I know, he's probably a theist - but it's probably a Catholic - non-Catholic thing).
For the theists, who among the non-theist camp here do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks your beliefs or defends his own non-belief most capably?
And for the non-theists, who do you find to be the most worthy debating opponent? That is, who would you say attacks non-belief or defends theism most ...[text shortened]...
And theists who debate among themselves should feel free to answer the same question.
Dr. S
Originally posted by rwingettActually I am honored to have your endorsement. I kind of see Bennett in a different camp than you though you both serve a vital purpose in pushing the theists to not check their brains at the door. I see Bennett as open to the numinous where you are sort of an ashes to ashes, dust to dust kind of guy.
Thank you, thank you. But I'd like to point out that Bbarr has had professional training in this area, whereas I am entirely self trained. Oh sure, anybody can use ten cent words like "ontological" or "categorical imperative" if you've gone to some fancy pants ivory tower school. But to make a semi-logical argument without really being quite sure what ...[text shortened]... TheSkipper. But I don't think any of the theists are exactly clamoring for my endorsement.
All of the theists are completely hopeless at debating.
They either fail to grasp your point, or simply quote the bible back at you without realise how question begging this approach is.
This total incompetence is not at all surprising though: How can one expect people who have swallowed spoon fed nonsense all their lives to be capable of critical evaluation or independent though?
Originally posted by howardgeeGee, how independent was THAT thought? Don't actually answer the question in a considered way, just tar everyone you can with a piece of invective.
All of the theists are completely hopeless at debating.
They either fail to grasp your point, or simply quote the bible back at you without realise how question begging this approach is.
This total incompetence is not at all surprising though: How can one expect people who have swallowed spoon fed nonsense all their lives to be capable of critical evaluation or independent though?
Originally posted by howardgeeUh....that wasn't supposed to help me feel better about myself was it?
All of the theists are completely hopeless at debating.
They either fail to grasp your point, or simply quote the bible back at you without realise how question begging this approach is.
This total incompetence is not at all surprising though: How can one expect people who have swallowed spoon fed nonsense all their lives to be capable of critical evaluation or independent though?
Originally posted by orfeo
... a fellow theist! I think... I still don't understand nemesio's point of view fully.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
nemesio (yes, I know, he's probably a theist - but it's probably a Catholic - non-Catholic thing).
As I've said before, most theists think I am an atheist and most atheists
think I am a theist.
I try very carefully to phrase the things I posit not as 'endorsement' or
as representative of my own beliefs, but to clarify those who seem
to be comfortable posing their own beliefs.
I have stated something explicitly, though, such as that I am not a
literalist and that I do not think that an allegorical understanding of
the Bible is an inferior position to a literal one.
Nemesio