Posts: 8715
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 12:24 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 12:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: (November 17, 2015 at 9:35 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Your acceptance of the 5W would require two things: 1) an earnest desire to know the truth and 2) understanding the arguments. You seem to have neither.
Interesting, Chad. How is it that you have come to the opinion that I have neither of these?
Experience on AF has taught me that atheist members have only cursory understanding of Aquinas and base their objections on arguments that Aquinas never made. Your claim to understand them perfectly guarantees that you do not. Only if you had 1) you could you gain 2).
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2015 at 12:29 pm by Cyberman.)
Is that like "if you can remember the 60s, you weren't there"? And for the same reason?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
116
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 12:36 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 12:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (November 17, 2015 at 12:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Interesting, Chad. How is it that you have come to the opinion that I have neither of these?
Experience on AF has taught me that atheist members have only cursory understanding of Aquinas and base their objections on arguments that Aquinas never made. Your claim to understand them perfectly guarantees that you do not. Only if you had 1) you could you gain 2).
So your objection to my assertion is based on your experience with other people.
This is the same with Drich and his A/S/K nonsense. If it didn't work you didn't do it right.
Intellectual honesty: not your bag, Chad. And this opinion is based on my experiences with you, not with others.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 8715
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:07 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 12:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: (November 17, 2015 at 12:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Experience on AF has taught me that atheist members have only cursory understanding of Aquinas and base their objections on arguments that Aquinas never made. Your claim to understand them perfectly guarantees that you do not. Only if you had 1) you could you gain 2). So your objection to my assertion is based on your experience with other people. This is the same with Drich and his A/S/K nonsense. If it didn't work you didn't do it right. Intellectual honesty: not your bag, Chad. And this opinion is based on my experiences with you, not with others.
You are always free to prove me wrong and demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of Thomas Aquinas; although, obviously you are under no obligation to do so. You can just say so but why should anyone believe you. Metis claimed to be a divinity student and expert on Aquinas, yet everyone agrees that his performance was an utter failure.
Intellectual honesty?....hmmm...what does that really mean anyway?
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:15 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (November 17, 2015 at 12:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: So your objection to my assertion is based on your experience with other people. This is the same with Drich and his A/S/K nonsense. If it didn't work you didn't do it right. Intellectual honesty: not your bag, Chad. And this opinion is based on my experiences with you, not with others.
You are always free to prove me wrong and demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of Thomas Aquinas; although, obviously you are under no obligation to do so. You can just say so but why should anyone believe you. Metis claimed to be a divinity student and expert on Aquinas, yet everyone agrees that his performance was an utter failure.
Intellectual honesty?....hmmm...what does that really mean anyway?
Obviously, you don't know, because you still refuse to acknowledge that Metis' "performance" was an utter failure because we caught him plagiarizing, not because Aquinas' 5 ways are so compelling.
I took an entire class in college about Aquinas from a professor who was borderline obsessed with the guy; got an A and everything, so obviously I understand it pretty well. I still don't think the arguments are at all valid.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Posts: 35418
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
145
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:23 pm
When you get someone claiming "but none has been able to defeat me", you know the credibility of that person.
They usually fall into the Ken Ham/Ray Comfort category of theists.
"I have a claim and no matter what counter arguments you present, whatever the audience thinks, I'm going to claim victory because, despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm right!"
Yeah, good luck with that.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
103
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Posts: 8715
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 4:15 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Obviously, you don't know, because you still refuse to acknowledge that Metis' "performance" was an utter failure because we caught him plagiarizing, not because Aquinas' 5 ways are so compelling. I took an entire class in college about Aquinas from a professor who was borderline obsessed with the guy; got an A and everything, so obviously I understand it pretty well. I still don't think the arguments are at all valid.
Whether Metis plagiarized is irrelevant because he presents the exact same straw man arguments I hear repeated all all over AF. Those straw man arguments are bogus regardless of from where they come.
Posts: 67500
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:52 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2015 at 4:53 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No, it wasn't irrelevant, it was, again..the reason you "won".............. Victory comes cheap to an apologist, it seems.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 31043
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Debate Challenge
November 17, 2015 at 4:56 pm
(November 17, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, it wasn't irrelevant, it was, again..the reason you "won".............. Victory comes cheap to an apologist, it seems.
Considering that we don't declare winners at all in hosted debates... It seems a bit unseemly to be declaring oneself the winner in the first place.
Just sayin'.
|
![[Image: homer-duel-o.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=stream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview6%2F3783053%2Fhomer-duel-o.gif)
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
