Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Commentary on "Last Man Standing"!

Options
  • 30-03-2009 10:50pm
    #1
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭


    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.


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.


  • Options
    #3
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    I'll wager 200 Quatloos! on the newcomer! :)


  • Options
    #4
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Zillah wrote: »
    I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.
    What?? That's the equivelent of the pope's annual jewelery bill!


  • Options
    #5
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


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


  • Options
    #6
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Zillah wrote: »
    I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

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


  • Options
    #8
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭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 :D


  • Options
    #9
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭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...


  • Options
    #10
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


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


  • Options
    #11
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Zillah wrote: »
    I bet eight hundred billion euro on PDN.

    Is there even that much cash in the world?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    mardybumbum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


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


  • Options
    #14
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭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:

    Jesus%20pic.jpg



    and the pope wears.... Gold:

    pope_benedict_narrowweb__300x390,0.jpg

    pope-benedict-xvi.jpg

    Pope-Benedict-XVI.jpg



    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...


  • Options
    #15
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #18
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


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


  • Options
    #19
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    mardybumbum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    I'm sure J_C will want in on that one

    THE JC?

    Jesus_Christ.jpg


  • Options
    #24
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #25
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #26
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • Options
    #27
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #28
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    @Stercus Accidit

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


  • Options
    #29
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #30
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭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!:)


Advertisement