Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

willhud9 vs Byron. Formal debate comment thread

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#121  Postby Mick » Oct 03, 2013 1:31 am

There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#122  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 03, 2013 1:45 am

Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


If you think it's possible. I'm just saying: even if you manage to build that foundation (here, off all places), going upwards from there is going to be ten thousand times the original effort. St. Thomas was able to do it because he was on home turf with a receptive audience. Julian and Porphyry's tracts had long since been banned & burned. Had those guys been around, they would've trounced Aquinas. Hitchens suffices nowadays.

Good luck.
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#123  Postby Scar » Oct 03, 2013 9:44 am

Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


History tells us that no, you can't.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#124  Postby Mick » Oct 03, 2013 8:01 pm

Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate. Perhaps you're next?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#125  Postby Mick » Oct 03, 2013 8:04 pm

Moses de la Montagne wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


If you think it's possible. I'm just saying: even if you manage to build that foundation (here, off all places), going upwards from there is going to be ten thousand times the original effort. St. Thomas was able to do it because he was on home turf with a receptive audience. Julian and Porphyry's tracts had long since been banned & burned. Had those guys been around, they would've trounced Aquinas. Hitchens suffices nowadays.

Good luck.

That Hitchens is sufficent to convince people is an embarrassing revelation concerning the state of critical thought and informed decision.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#126  Postby Rumraket » Oct 03, 2013 9:23 pm

Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#127  Postby Rumraket » Oct 03, 2013 9:27 pm

Mick wrote:
Moses de la Montagne wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


If you think it's possible. I'm just saying: even if you manage to build that foundation (here, off all places), going upwards from there is going to be ten thousand times the original effort. St. Thomas was able to do it because he was on home turf with a receptive audience. Julian and Porphyry's tracts had long since been banned & burned. Had those guys been around, they would've trounced Aquinas. Hitchens suffices nowadays.

Good luck.

That Hitchens is sufficent to convince people is an embarrassing revelation concerning the state of critical thought and informed decision.

Heh, it just goes to show people have really REALLY shitty reasons for believing in their gods. Most religious belief is based on emotion and indoctrination, not critical thought at all. That's why a book showing the falsities and fallacies in the usual rationalizations the average believer goes through when they try to rationally support their beliefs, is sufficient to deconvert them. That's why books like the god delusion are so effective.

Once deconverted, the apologetic smokescreen people like you like to erect with your "sophisticated philosophy" is all the more unimpressive and laughably unconvincing when you can see right through it without religious blinkers blinding you to agree for psychoemotional reasons.

The simple fact is that almost noone comes to religious belief for rational reasons, and the average believer joe isn't a thomist by any stretch. Sad fact (for you), but your kind of apologetics is so remarkably ineffective to people who don't already believe. It's just apologetic word salad, the emperor has no clothes.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#128  Postby Scar » Oct 03, 2013 11:36 pm

Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate. Perhaps you're next?


Can't remember you did.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#129  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 5:55 am

Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:There is a way I can do that, though I have to build from the foundations upwards.


History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#130  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 04, 2013 6:05 am

Mick wrote:That Hitchens is sufficent to convince people is an embarrassing revelation concerning the state of critical thought and informed decision.


I'm not so sure about that. You ought to audit your own camp first. As Rumraket pointed out, your average layman is a far cry from a Thomist—and this is not necessarily a good thing in terms of the state of critical thought, as the theology of the pew-sitter is typically of even shittier a strain than Thomism. Hitchens, on the other hand, put together a nicely incisive attack on theism shortly before he croaked; I think it will have some staying power. He was a terrific orator. The best part of any Hitchens debate is when, in regards to Aristotelian logic and Thomistic proofs, he says, "I'm perfectly willing to grant all that," and proceeds to eviscerate the various theistic models on the shoddy morality of their deity. "Compulsory love, what a grotesque idea."

I liked your ethics-of-eating-animals thread, Mick, but you continually refused to answer the posters who questioned you on why your moral axioms were ignored by your own God. And that is the problem that Hitchens so aptly exposes: even granting a god, the religions that claim the deity as a law-giver have demonstrably less-than-divine moral codes. You would doubtless lose a debate if you chose to defend Roman Catholic morality.
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#131  Postby Scar » Oct 04, 2013 7:50 am

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:

History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.


I was under the impression that the one who wins the debate is the one who convinces the audience of his arguments. Can't say a lot of people agreed yours were any good. Actually, I think people have gone to great lengths to express they were nothing but brainless ramblings.

You've won nothing. The fact that you would pathetically try to spin things to your favor (as has been predicted) just goes to show that one shouldn't engage you expecting even a minimum of honesty.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#132  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 5:42 pm

Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:

Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.


I was under the impression that the one who wins the debate is the one who convinces the audience of his arguments. Can't say a lot of people agreed yours were any good. Actually, I think people have gone to great lengths to express they were nothing but brainless ramblings.

You've won nothing. The fact that you would pathetically try to spin things to your favor (as has been predicted) just goes to show that one shouldn't engage you expecting even a minimum of honesty.


No, that is typically not how debates are won. That would be an extreme unfair advantage in favor of lobawad, since the audience here is thoroughly secular and largely unaquinated with philosophy.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#133  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 5:44 pm

Moses de la Montagne wrote:
Mick wrote:That Hitchens is sufficent to convince people is an embarrassing revelation concerning the state of critical thought and informed decision.


I'm not so sure about that. You ought to audit your own camp first. As Rumraket pointed out, your average layman is a far cry from a Thomist—and this is not necessarily a good thing in terms of the state of critical thought, as the theology of the pew-sitter is typically of even shittier a strain than Thomism. Hitchens, on the other hand, put together a nicely incisive attack on theism shortly before he croaked; I think it will have some staying power. He was a terrific orator. The best part of any Hitchens debate is when, in regards to Aristotelian logic and Thomistic proofs, he says, "I'm perfectly willing to grant all that," and proceeds to eviscerate the various theistic models on the shoddy morality of their deity. "Compulsory love, what a grotesque idea."

I liked your ethics-of-eating-animals thread, Mick, but you continually refused to answer the posters who questioned you on why your moral axioms were ignored by your own God. And that is the problem that Hitchens so aptly exposes: even granting a god, the religions that claim the deity as a law-giver have demonstrably less-than-divine moral codes. You would doubtless lose a debate if you chose to defend Roman Catholic morality.



I refused to answer since it is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the truth of what I said.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#134  Postby THWOTH » Oct 04, 2013 5:53 pm

I wonder if discussion of Mick and lobawad 's debate could take place in the other Peanut Gallery thread?

:coffee:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37112
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#135  Postby Scar » Oct 04, 2013 6:34 pm

Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.


I was under the impression that the one who wins the debate is the one who convinces the audience of his arguments. Can't say a lot of people agreed yours were any good. Actually, I think people have gone to great lengths to express they were nothing but brainless ramblings.

You've won nothing. The fact that you would pathetically try to spin things to your favor (as has been predicted) just goes to show that one shouldn't engage you expecting even a minimum of honesty.


No, that is typically not how debates are won. That would be an extreme unfair advantage in favor of lobawad, since the audience here is thoroughly secular and largely unaquinated with philosophy.


Then I don't see how you could have possible won that debate apart from in your own head. Your arguments, on their own, don't stand up to scrunity either.

So you have bad arguments and your rethorics did not convince anyone. Pretty clearly no win to me.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#136  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 04, 2013 6:36 pm

Mick wrote:I refused to answer since it is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the truth of what I said.


That the popularity of Hitchens' arguments indicates what you perceive as a low point in critical thinking? It would presumably be no lower now than it was throughout much of the Church's history, when she saw fit to burn & ban the work of atheists and pagans who were critical of Christianity.

We all know what happened to Celsus, Julian, and Porphyry's tracts. Even as recently as the 18th century, Pope Clement XIII was brimming with the spirit of fatwah:

They have run first of all against God in their pride. Armed with a thick neck, they have strengthened themselves against the Almighty. They raise again from the ashes the absurdities of the impious which have been destroyed so often. They deny God even though He makes Himself known everywhere and comes before their eyes daily, not because of the dullness of their mind, but only on the urging of their depraved will. Or else they represent God Himself as lazy and indolent. They do not respect His providence nor do they fear His justice. They preach with a detestable and insane freedom of thought that the origin and nature of our soul is mortal although it was created in the image of the supreme creator little lower than the angels.

... Then consider how they sprinkle their writings with a certain refined splendor, a seductive pleasantness of speech and allurement so as to penetrate more easily into the readers' minds and infect them more deeply with the poison of their error.

... It is necessary to fight bitterly, as the situation requires, and to eradicate with all our strength the deadly destruction caused by such books. The substance of the error will never be removed unless the criminal elements of wickedness burn in the fire and perish.

... Explain the cause of the Church's sorrow and arouse its beloved sons who have always served it well on many occasions to bring their help. Since they do not carry the sword without cause, urge them with the united authority of state and of priesthood, to vigorously rout those accursed men who fight against the armies of Israel
.


For an institution which claims to have reason and critical thinking on its side, burning books and threatening authors with the sword are a strange way to meet your intellectual adversaries. It reveals a telling insecurity.

I just visited Edward Feser's site and got a headache just trying to make it through a couple of his sentences; no doubt my own fault for not having been properly schooled in rarefied philosophy. But if that's what's supposed to win the day for Catholicism, good luck. Hitchens has a broader appeal.
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#137  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 7:18 pm

Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#138  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 04, 2013 7:51 pm

:this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.


Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#139  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 7:55 pm

Opaque then?(the opposite of transparent) I know what you mean.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#140  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:18 pm

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.

Blah blah. Debate me. Quit your inflated baloney and debate me.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest