Commentary on "Last Man Standing"!

Overblood

Since we can't post in the Last Man Standing thread, maybe we can discuss whats going on in there.... in here!

$50 on Dumbledore.

Zillah

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

pts

I'll wager 200 Quatloos! on the newcomer!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

What?? That's the equivelent of the pope's annual jewelery bill!

robindch

All bets will be held in escrow by yours truly and 10% will be donated to the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Phototoxin

I realise that this may be moved deleted but it may be helpful to define what qualifies as demonstration of significant editing in the bible and what is the impossibility of the bible to be considered the Word of God.

Surely, strictly speaking, it is not impossible as long as any one person considers it. (And thus by considering it it makes it true..) so I feel that the second question is biased and the first should be better defined.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

I shall wager you the souls of four of my most fanatical Cultists.

Mena

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

I'd say this is a pretty safe bet, along with Galvasean's 4 usurped souls

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

+1

Especially as he was let get away with his opening gambit of defining the key points of the argument with both the words "impossible" and "prove" in there!
Dangerous words, especially apt here when the word "to" is put between them...

Fanny Cradock

How will it be determined who is the last man standing?

Overblood

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

Is there even that much cash in the world?

mardybumbum

I bet my worldly possesions that neither of them can prove their points successfully, and that when the debate ends no progress will have been made.

I look forward to it regardless.

lostexpectation

why are we wasting our time on the bible for pdn's amusement?

Overblood

Dades wrote: »

What?? That's the equivelent of the pope's annual jewelery bill!

I must say, that's funny. I laughed heartily. Really! Because I was just recently (as in like earlier on today) thinking about the pope's wardrobe:

I don't mean to sway off topic, but since you mentioned the papal "Jewel Encrustment" issue, I thought I might add this:

Jesus wore this, essentially, a length of carpet:





and the pope wears.... Gold:









One question... Wtf? Like, what's the point in all the gold? Could he not smelt it down, sell it off and donate the proceeds to the world like a good christian???.....


Anyways, continue...

Zillah

Overblood wrote: »

One question... Wtf? Like, what's the point in all the gold?

Remind everyone how much better he is than their undeserving sinful selves?

Could he not smelt it down, sell it off and donate the proceeds to the world like a good christian???.....

You seem to be confused as to what the Vatican is. The Pope's finery is the least of their (absolutely staggering) wealth.

Zillah

Overblood wrote: »

Is there even that much cash in the world?

Hell yes. The US government alone has ploughed almost 5 trillion dollars into the banking system in the form of bailouts.

EDIT: Apparently my info is out of date. So far they've dished out over ten trillion dollars.

MatthewVII

mardybumbum wrote: »

I bet my worldly possesions that neither of them can prove their points successfully, and that when the debate ends no progress will have been made.

I'm sure J_C will want in on that one

Rev Hellfire

I'm betting 99 Virgins on the plucking young upstart.

Goduznt Xzst

lostexpectation wrote: »

why are we wasting our time on the bible for pdn's amusement?

there's a shortage of babies to eat around my area, but my blood-lust must be satisfied. What better way then to watch an old pious Pastor openly agree to a petty contest of rhetoric, sophistry and veiled insults against a confused and questioning ~17 year old.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote: »

why are we wasting our time on the bible for pdn's amusement?

It's just one more thread nobody has to read if they don't want to.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How will it be determined who is the last man standing?

When the music stops, an A&A mod will close the thread.


@ Overblood - you should read "In the Name of the Rose". As well as a cracking 14th century murder mystery, one of the themes is the whole "poor Jesus v rich church" contradition that was being debated amongst the various branches of Christianity.

Fanny Cradock

lostexpectation wrote: »

why are we wasting our time on the bible for pdn's amusement?

Oh lighten up. It's not actually a requirement of atheism that you have to read every thread on this forum.

Stercus Accidit

Dumbledoor has been given the burden of "proof", this is not fair in my opinion.

Science and atheism are not in the business of proving anything, proof (picked this nugget up here, thanks guys) is a mathematical concept, you can prove something mathematically, in the world of science, things are studied and theories composed, evidence is gathered and understanding is sought, there is no agenda to prove a stance one way or the other, merely an open minded approach to how something truly functions, and is subjected to peer evaluation, and continued critique, in search of further understanding.

Atheists stance is based on lack of proof of god, and the position that a lack of proof cannot be countered by a demand to prove it isnt so. The atheist standpoint being that one shouldn't subscribe to or believe something un-proven, and even with such flimsy evidence, not that one must "prove" that something isn't true.


Burden of proof is a real stinker here, no atheist has proven anything about god, seeing as he/it doesn't exist, proving anything about him/it is not possible IMO. No proof or something non-extistant or faith based is possible.


PDN's position is a strong one from a purely pedantic viewpoint, regardless of his notions, the need for proof on Dumbledoors side, proof regarding something un-studyable, and quite frankly non-existant is impossible.


I propose that not only must he prove that the bible is not the word of god, but it must be proven that it isnt the word of corrupted or uninformed men, and that it must also be proven that it IS the word of god.


By burdening Dumbledoor with the requirement of proof, PDN's position is that by not proving it isn't true, by default it is true, I want to see proof that it is true also, if I am to be subjected to a debate on proof of the unproveable, or, a concession on both sides that proof is not the correct term here, as neither can prove anything about eithers stance. The wording of the challenge I believe leaves Dumbledoor in an awkward position, demanding a hugely swaying level of evidence, is more achieveable.


Either that, or prove its the word of the flying spaghetti monster, or prove it isnt.

The word of santa either, I don't see a logical way anything can be proved about any creation of fiction, faith or otherwise.

mardybumbum

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm sure J_C will want in on that one

THE JC?

PDN

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Dumbledoor has been given the burden of "proof", this is not fair in my opinion.

Science and atheism are not in the business of proving anything, proof (picked this nugget up here, thanks guys) is a mathematical concept, you can prove something mathematically.

Atheists stance is based on lack of proof of god, and the position that a lack of proof cannot be countered by a demand to prove it isnt so, the atheist standpoint being that one shouldn't subscribe to or believe something un proven, and even with such flimsy evidence, not that one must "prove" otherwise.


Burden of proof is a real stinker here, no atheist has proven anything about god, seeing as he/it doesn't exist, proving anything about him/it is not possible IMO.


PDN's position is a strong one from a purely pedantic viewpoint, regardless of his notions, the need for proof on Dumbledors side, proof regarding something un-studyable, and quite frankly non-existant is impossible.


I propose that not only must he prove that the bible is not the word of god, but it must be proven that it isnt the word of corrupted or uninformed men, that it must also be proven that it IS the word of god.


By burdening Dumbledoor with the requirement of proof, PDN's position is that by not proving it isn't, by default it is true, I want to see proof that it is true also, if I am to be subjected to a debate on proof of the unproveable, or a concession on both sides that proof is not the correct term here, as neither can prove anything about eithers stance.


Either that or prove its the word of the flying spaghetti monster, or prove it isnt.

The word of santa either, I don't see a logical way anything can be proved about any creation of fiction, faith or otherwise.

I've never claimed to offer proof. Dumbledore is the one who claimed to have undisputed facts and evidence, and who spoke of producing "irrefutable evidence". He is also the one who has announced his confidence in his debating skills.

BTW, to the poster who called me a 'pious old pastor' - I am 46 years old. Sorry if that seems 'old' to some of you whippersnappers!

Stercus Accidit

PDN wrote: »

I've never claimed to offer proof. Dumbledore is the one who claimed to have undisputed facts and evidence, and who spoke of producing "irrefutable evidence". He is also the one who has announced his confidence in his debating skills.

That would be my point, the young man has caused himself a bit of trouble there, he wouldn't be as aux fait with the terminology, or the ability of the believer to argue around proof, this simply gives him a disadvantage, not by your demand, but by his own. My point is simply he may have left himself in an awkward position entering the debate, due likely to his inexperience of this nature of argument.

BTW, to the poster who called me a 'pious old pastor' - I am 46 years old. Sorry if that seems 'old' to some of you whippersnappers!

Even more experience with the tried and trusted responces, though I'm sure you are entering this with the best of intentions, I'm glad to see the restriction on you regarding the "because he can" refute.


My overall perception is that dumbledoor has phrased his challenge poorly, and a bit naievely, but we'll see how it pans out.

Point one, re: the bibles repeated translation and editing, is more reasliticly proveable by the terms of this debate, but I imagine, point 2, would be a great fallback for any believer.

Dades

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Dumbledoor has been given the burden of "proof", this is not fair in my opinion.

Science and atheism are not in the business of proving anything, proof (picked this nugget up here, thanks guys) is a mathematical concept, you can prove something mathematically, in the world of science, things are studied and theories composed, evidence is gathered and understanding is sought, there is no agenda to prove a stance one way or the other, merely an open minded approach to how something truly functions, and is subjected to peer evaluation, and continued critique, in search of further understanding.

This isn't a lab, though, this is a debate.

Dumbledore is charged with demonstrating that the bible has been chopped and changed so much so that it can't realistically be deigned the word of God.

I'm assuming that PDN - as the other side of the debate - will contribute more than, "No that doesn't prove anything", and will himself offer evidence that suggests the bible can rightly be called the word of God.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

IBTW, to the poster who called me a 'pious old pastor' - I am 46 years old. Sorry if that seems 'old' to some of you whippersnappers!

lol, well I suppose in your opinion it isn't old. I mean that's only the first 46 years of your infinite years left to live :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

@Stercus Accidit

It would be nice to actually read Dumbledore's opening gambit before writing him off.

robindch

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

he may have left himself in an awkward position entering the debate

There's nothing "may" about it -- he's arguing an impossible position. Bear in mind PDN's carefully-quoted points:

PDN wrote:

a) That the Bible has been significantly cut, chopped and edited.
b) That this makes it impossible for the Bible to be considered the Word of God.

(a) turns upon the definition of "significantly" and until a satisfactory definition can be agreed between both parties, neither is going to accept the other's position on it, regardless of how heavily the bible was or was not modified since the component parts were first written. In any case, since we don't have the original copies, we can't prove anything anyway.

(b) The bible can be considered the "word of god" just as it can be considered the word of a series of texts by raving bronze-age lunatics, or indeed considered -- if not wholly accurately -- a motorbike. Also, as PDN has capitalized the "word" in "Word of God", one must assume that he's referring to the Johannine notion of the Logos of the christian god, rather than the series of words which were written under the influence of (or by) god, as Dumbledore's original post made clear. A neato twist that the experienced debater would have picked up on.

Anyhow, in both cases, Dumbledore is unfortunately trying to prove the unprovable...

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

I don't know - lately he appears to think that anyone arguing against him must be intoxicated by some form or another.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

EDIT: Apparently my info is out of date. So far they've dished out over ten trillion dollars.

Surely they could've bought new ones for that!:)

DapperGent

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't know - lately he appears to think that anyone arguing against must be intoxicated by some form or another.

We is all drunk on reality.

Goduznt Xzst

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't know - lately he appears to think that anyone arguing against him must be intoxicated by some form or another.

It's part of his tired tactic or sneaking in a veiled insult when rebutting. You are either a drunk, a muppet, a troll... or some other such insult. He'll highlight irrelevant grammatical and linguistic errors, pointlessly examine analogies, and take the first chance to take a thread off onto a tangent that he might have an upper hand in. It does not surprise me that PDN is chomping at the bit to be let loose on a questioning teenager that he will be able to easily rile.

stevejazzx

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's part of his tired tactic or sneaking in a veiled insult when rebutting. You are either a drunk, a muppet, a troll... or some other such insult. He'll highlight irrelevant grammatical and linguistic errors, pointlessly examine analogies, and take the first chance to take a thread off onto a tangent that he might have an upper hand in. It does not surprise me that PDN is chomping at the bit to be let loose on a questioning teenager that he will be able to easily rile.

I have to say that, based on what I've seen that more than adequately covers his 'style'.

Dumbledore

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for this debate which is good to see. I have done a small amount of research during this free period and at the moment am considering basing my argument around reason, that between 1400BC and 500 BC, in other words the times when Moses allegedly received the ten commandments and the time the Old Testament was completed according to here , there is obviously a very healthy chance that there may have been some room for error or stories added or taken away in that time, basically like a 900 year long game of Chinese whispers.

Of course I may not go in this direction at all, any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

Dades

Dumbledore wrote: »

Of course I may not go in this direction at all, any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

We should have more of these only I don't think there are enough worthy competitors:P we'd have more fun arguing against ourselves.

robindch

Dumbledore wrote: »

am considering basing my argument around reason, that between 1400BC and 500 BC [...] there is obviously a very healthy chance that there may have been some room for error or stories added or taken away

...or you could ask why the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible, has a story which (except for names) is virtually identical to the story of Noah. However, that's derivation which isn't the evidence of "editing" that PDN's looking for.

Dumbledore wrote: »

any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

Unless somebody starts slinging mud or lobbing witless profanities around, I'd imagine that neither of the forum moderators is going to intervene all that much. Opening arguments are due whenever you like -- fire away.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote: »

We should have more of these only I don't think there are enough worthy competitors:P we'd have more fun arguing against ourselves.

This circus is no more than a diversion from the everyday humdrum of heathens v Christian debates that go on here!

Though if the debate style thread works out, we might consider future challenges - with more interesting motions and more matched opponents.

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

This circus is no more than a diversion from the everyday humdrum of heathens v Christian debates that go on here!

...and more matched opponents.

...what like Robin vs. JC or Wicknight vs. Kelly1..:)

seriously though I do think it is something that might liven up froum if done properly..particularly if I stop slagging it right now!

Goduznt Xzst

Dumbledore wrote: »

any word on who is moderating and when opening arguments are due?

BEGIN!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

JimiTime

'Commentary on Last man Standing' is what I read in the title. Seems more of a 'Roll up, Roll up, take pot shots at PDN' to me. Anyway.....

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

'Commentary on Last man Standing' is what I read in the title. Seems more of a 'Roll up, Roll up, take pot shots at PDN' to me. Anyway.....

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

d) PDN is frequently vitriolic himself and thereby recieves some blowback?
Just a thought.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't worry unduly about that. A hostile home crowd always makes a contest more interesting. I find it quite inspiring. I feel like Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics.

As for all the personal jibes and nastiness. A lot of it is surface stuff. Regular posters across the A&A and Christianity fora such as Wicknight and robindch know that we will all give as good as we get in robust debate.

As for those that attempt to be genuinely offensive - I put it down to one or three reasons:
a) Some zealots would like this forum to be a Christian free zone. They find it very annoying when a believer actually debates with them instead of rolling over and letting them slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on how rational they are in contrast to all those stupid Christians.

b) Others have fallen foul of me in my role as a mod on the Christianity forum. They know that if they take it to Feedback then they are on a hiding to nothing as they deserved to have their knuckles rapped for various acts of trolling and muppetry. Therefore they try to seek revenge by resorting to personal attacks if I post on another forum.

c) Some are just tools.

Boo!
Hiss!!
BOO!!!
Gerrerow aur fourum!!!

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

...or you could ask why the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the bible, has a story which (except for names) is virtually identical to the story of Noah. However, that's derivation which isn't the evidence of "editing" that PDN's looking for.

I may be missing the context completely, but would there be any relevance in my favourite little biblical inconsistency - the stuff about the concept of a virgin birth coming from a mistranslation of the prophecy of Isaiah?

I know that doesn't necessarily mean 'editing'. But it sure does suggest someone tailoring the account to what they thought was expected by the prophecy.

That said, is it fair to say that 'editing' isn't particularly the issue. Doesn't the issue boil down more to the time that might have elapsed between the earliest written records and the life of Jesus. IIRC from earlier discussions, the most optimistic Christian position was that the first written records could be dated to a few decades after the death of Jesus. That's both long enough for non-believers to say that the tale would have grown in the telling, and short enough for believers to say its substantially valid.

JFK visited Ireland in 1963. If we'd no written records of that, how confident would we be if we set about it now, relying solely on the evidence of people who claimed to have been witnesses? I'd take it that we'd accept the main points - that someone called JFK had visited, and even that he had appeared in certain places where he may have had said certain things. But, against that, we have to judge how the collective memory contains errors. For example, many folk attribute a quote to Jack Lynch in 1970 "the Irish Government can no longer stand idly by", where he apparantly actually said "can no longer stand by". How solid would we expect memories of a speech by JFK to be now?

Dumbledore

Dades wrote: »

You now have the floor - since you proposed the motion in the first place. PDN will then respond, you will respond in turn, and so on. We don't know how this will end, but I suspect it will be about the time we all start wishing it would. Perhaps at that indeterminate point in the future - the floor will be opened up to questions.

The A&A mods are moderating. Myself, robindch and Asiaprod. Although in the interest of objectivity our interference will be limited to ensuring the charter is not breached and removing thread-crashers, blow-ins, streakers and so on.

Unfortunately as this thread is effectively "the floor", you cannot ask questions here or post suggested arguments for feedback.

Hope that's all clear.

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

stevejazzx

Dumbledore wrote: »

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

What were those odds on PDN again?.....I'll take them.

Dumbledore

stevejazzx wrote: »

What were those odds on PDN again?.....I'll take them.

I get the impression you think I will not be a good debater simply because of my age, a point that was raised before I think. Very well, I can not change my age or your prejudices, but I contend that age is only a number, and that the truth is the truth, no matter who says it.

Genghiz Cohen

I'm sure you'll do fine dear, now enjoy school.
:pac:

PDN

Dumbledore wrote: »

Right-o. I have my Irish Oral exam on Thursday so it will not be any time before then, hope to have an opening statement up by the weekend at some point, that leaves time for any of you who want to to research the topic and PM myself or PDN any infromation or points they would like raised.

Please don't anyone send me PMs. I'll happily address whatever comes up in the debate. So far I'm liking the suggestions that have been offered in this thread.