The Empty Chair

Theoligical apologetics is more pursuasive to layfolk and fellow theists than scientific arguments because the former appeals to emotive arguments, faulty reasoning, deception, and every other p!ss poor debating tactic available them. As formal televised or filmed debates are more an act of showmanship than of correctness, the crowds love them for it. The `top theist debators' are brimming to the teeth with charisma and sophistries and naff all else; and as such Richard Dawkins is correct not to waste his time debating with them.

Organised religion and fundamentalism needs to be tackled by education and ridicule, not by trying to tackle theists with the wrong intellectual tools in a formal debate. As I've I've said before, many of them will never accept a logical argument w.r.t their faith so long as they have have a hole in their arse and so why bother!?

Originally posted by Agerg
Theoligical apologetics is more pursuasive to layfolk and fellow theists than scientific arguments because the former appeals to emotive arguments, faulty reasoning, deception, and every other p!ss poor debating tactic available them. As formal televised or filmed debates are more an act of showmanship than of correctness, the crowds love them for it. The `top ...[text shortened]... argument w.r.t their faith so long as they have have a hole in their arse and so why bother!?

Theologians believe in God and feel accountable to Him too much to
use deception, like the atheists clearly do. The atheist have every
reason to use faulty reasoning and deception to win their arguments,
since they do not fear God and are motivated by pride in their own
intellect too much to admit they are wrong. Richard Dawkins is afraid
to show up to debate because he fears he will wind up looking like a
fool and a liar and to lose the debate would be too much humility to
experience for such a prideful man.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Theologians believe in God and feel accountable to Him too much to
use deception, like the atheists clearly do. The atheist have every
reason to use faulty reasoning and deception to win their arguments,
since they do not fear God and are motivated by pride in their own
intellect too much to admit they are wrong. Richard Dawkins is afraid
to show up t ...[text shortened]... a liar and to lose the debate would be too much humility to
experience for such a prideful man.

Public debates have sod all to do with integrity and everything to do with showmanship. Moreover (having read the link proper knob provided), why the hell should he pander to their requirement for credibility!?

Since when did any creationist ever resist the urge to pull some nonsense from out of their arse for the sake of obfuscation or misdirection (if nothing else) in the face of a damning attack on their beliefs, or just play the damned faith card? Answer - never.

Originally posted by Agerg
Public debates have sod all to do with integrity and everything to do with showmanship. Moreover (having read the link proper knob provided), why the hell should he pander to their requirement for credibility!?

Since when did any creationist ever resist the urge to pull some nonsense from out of their arse for the sake of obfuscation or misdirection (if not ...[text shortened]... e face of a damning attack on their beliefs, or just play the damned faith card? Answer - never.

yeah because life from non life is way more credible, unbelievable hypocrisy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah because life from non life is way more credible, unbelievable hypocrisy!

Not even engaging you on how you are wrong (as you always are, and are proud to remain) on the earliest origins of life issue and how it has no impact on the truth of evolution; is it not true you believe that god made humans (by magic!) from some dirt in the Garden of Eden!? and you have the temerity to talk about life from non life!!! 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Public debates have sod all to do with integrity and everything to do with showmanship. Moreover (having read the link proper knob provided), why the hell should he pander to their requirement for credibility!?

Since when did any creationist ever resist the urge to pull some nonsense from out of their arse for the sake of obfuscation or misdirection (if not ...[text shortened]... e face of a damning attack on their beliefs, or just play the damned faith card? Answer - never.

Well, if you want to be believed, it helps to tell the truth.
Dawkins just isn't credible. If you are not armed with the
truth on your side, it can be fearful going up against an
opponent that is. So it is understandable that he and
everyone on his side would find excuses for him not willing
to participate in a debate where he knew he would be called upon
to make reasonable arguments for his position, while having the
knowledge of the critque against him. He is obviously not
prepared to defend his false ideas.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, if you want to be believed, it helps to tell the truth.
Dawkins just isn't credible. If you are not armed with the
truth on your side, it can be fearful going up against an
opponent that is. So it is understandable that he and
everyone on his side would find excuses for him not willing
to participate in a debate where he knew he would be call ...[text shortened]... knowledge of the critque against him. He is obviously not
prepared to defend his false ideas.

He probably doesn't care what creationists like you think about him. For example: if an idiot calls me stupid I, at the very least, see the funny side of it. Similarly if a creationist calls someone who's had the courage to actually engage their brain and push forwards the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding "a coward"; then again, the accused can simply see the funny side of it and move on.

You creationists don't deserve to be taken seriously - you deserve to be pointed at, laughed at, and ridiculed...and then ignored when you protest about it 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
Not even engaging you on how you are wrong (as you always are, and are proud to remain) on the earliest origins of life issue and how it has no impact on the truth of evolution; is it not true you believe that god made humans (by magic!) from some dirt in the Garden of Eden!? and you have the temerity to talk about life from non life!!! 😵

yes because life from non life is not magic, ooops, the FSM strikes again! Puff the flying Monster lived by the sea. . . . .materialists deserve to be mocked and ridiculed, their empty visions of a non reality given a veneer of respectability through terms like abiogenesis, it is to laugh!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because life from non life is not magic, ooops, the FSM strikes again!

Please explain how making humans from dirt works. If you've got nothing other than "dunno, goddidit" then you have no basis for attacking even the strawman you've built to challenge evolution (which says nothing about first life btw! abiogenesis =/= evolution)

Originally posted by Agerg
Please explain how making humans from dirt works. If you've got nothing other than "dunno, goddidit" then you have no basis for attacking the strawman you've built to challenge evolution (which says nothing about first life btw! [b]abiogenesis =/= evolution)[/b]

first of all, i did not introduce evolution, you did, making your assertions of straw, straw itself, secondly, the Bible is not a scientific text book on how Gods created, making your other assertion, even more straw than strawberries on a straw hat, near Strawttingham on straw Tuesday!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
first of all, i did not introduce evolution, you did, making your assertions of straw, straw itself, secondly, the Bible is not a scientific text book on how Gods created, making your other assertion, even more straw than strawberries on a straw hat, near Strawttingham on straw Tuesday!

You introduced the standard fundie attack on evolution: life from non-life.

Please explain how making humans from dirt works.

Originally posted by Agerg
Please explain how making humans from dirt works.

No i did not, i said nothing of evolution, i said life from non life, it is you who have construed that to mean, evolution not I, Mr Strawman!

what is it about, 'the actual mechanism for describing how God created the first humans is not detailed in scripture', that you FAIL to comprehend?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it about, 'the actual mechanism for describing how God created the first humans is not detailed in scripture', that you FAIL to comprehend?

Then on what basis do you challenge even the caricature of the "materialists" belief set that they (as you assert - not they actually) believe that life came from non-life?

Originally posted by Agerg
Then on what basis do you challenge even the caricature of the "materialists" belief set that they (as you assert - not they) believe that life came from non-life?

that its an unobserved event like the creation of humankind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that its an unobserved event like the creation of humankind.

You ridicule the caricature as though it is orders of magnitude less believable than the unobserved god magically made Adam from dust theory.



Why?