Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your quasi-metaphysical response was irrelevant and derivative.
It added nothing to the conversation, but rather, was intended to distract from the topic.

As I said, there was no lack of responses, only a lack of responses that you liked.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A position isn't necessarily required, in my opinion.
This is offered as theology, as a statement.
Contemplate, consider, converse.

But this has nothing to do with my suggestion that we attempt to have a conversation where we both make strenuous efforts to avoid the tactics you defined in the OP.

As far as I can see, you are using tactic #2 at the moment by directing us at a completely irrelevant thread. You have not explained why that thread has anything to do with the topic at hand. 🙂

--- Penguin

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I would only agree with point "1" you ridiculous, little fool.

😀

Originally posted by Agerg
That thread strikes me as one where the content was a personal project. I imagine it took you a considerable length of time to craft it, and furthermore, I'll wager that any theists who previewed it before us would have celebrated it for the depth of content.
You were probably hesitant about posting it, was your spelling correct? did you get all your Bible c ...[text shortened]... ejections referred to this point, and unless I am mistaken you ignored every single one of them.

"If this isn't true (and I am certain it isn't) then it is no more meaningful than a treatise on elves,.."

Then what is true, and based on what or whose authority do you assert that truth?

Originally posted by JS357
In follow-up to josephw's analysis of the debating tactics of atheists, I offer this debate on "the most important question of existence" -- the afterlife.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=310719887&m=312489781&live=1

It is from

http://www.npr.org/series/6263392/intelligence-squared-u-s

I wonder if josephw ...[text shortened]... interested enough to listen and critique the tactics, if they are interested in genuine debate.

I'm kinda interested in the debate. Don't see the point though.

Of course there is intelligent debate. I've heard it here and there. Do you think we have that kind of debate in this forum? Or do you find that both camps fall short?

JS, I started this thread to highlight a problem, not to create one. I did it as an attempt at humor more than anything else, because of the absurdity of the debate as it appears in this forum. Not to single out the atheist as the guilty party, but to show in fact that the symptoms occur across the board.

We need to stop the deriding of each other's intelligence if we hope to maintain a sense of personal integrity. A person lacking integrity isn't worth debating with, as they will invariably resort to insults and malignant postings.

In the real world, the way some of us behave in this forum, we would be just a bunch of a holes to each other.

Therefore, I promise to refrain from all demeaning and derogatory remarks from this point forward. Sarcasm with a sense of humor not included.

I'd rather be a fool then to think my words caused another any harm.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm kinda interested in the debate. Don't see the point though.

Of course there is intelligent debate. I've heard it here and there. Do you think we have that kind of debate in this forum? Or do you find that both camps fall short?

JS, I started this thread to highlight a problem, not to create one. I did it as an attempt at humor more than anything ...[text shortened]... e of humor not included.

I'd rather be a fool then to think my words caused another any harm.

Of course there is intelligent debate. I've heard it here and there. Do you think we have that kind of debate in this forum? Or do you find that both camps fall short?

Yes, I think both sides fall short. Obviously, being atheist myself, I see fewer failings on the atheist side but even so I still notice some.

JS, I started this thread to highlight a problem, not to create one. I did it as an attempt at humor more than anything else, because of the absurdity of the debate as it appears in this forum. Not to single out the atheist as the guilty party, but to show in fact that the symptoms occur across the board.

It's interesting then that you titled the thread Atheist debate tactics, since that does explicitly single out atheists. There was no obvious humour in the OP so it now sounds very much like you are using Theist Debate Tactic #10 from TWhitehead's post on page 2: pretend it was all a joke.

We need to stop the deriding of each other's intelligence if we hope to maintain a sense of personal integrity. A person lacking integrity isn't worth debating with, as they will invariably resort to insults and malignant postings.

In the real world, the way some of us behave in this forum, we would be just a bunch of a holes to each other.

Very true and inciteful.

Therefore, I promise to refrain from all demeaning and derogatory remarks from this point forward. Sarcasm with a sense of humor not included.

A noble ambition. I'll hold you to it. Maybe to help us discern when you are using humour and sarcasm (because it often does not travel well through the medium of text), you could use the <hidden> tag so we don't falsely accuse you of using theist tactic #10 in this new golden future.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin

Of course there is intelligent debate. I've heard it here and there. Do you think we have that kind of debate in this forum? Or do you find that both camps fall short?

Yes, I think both sides fall short. Obviously, being atheist myself, I see fewer failings on the atheist side but even so I still notice some.

[quote]JS, I started this thr ...[text shortened]... we don't falsely accuse you of using theist tactic #10 in this new golden future.

--- Penguin

🙂

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If this isn't true (and I am certain it isn't) then it is no more meaningful than a treatise on elves,.."

Then what is true, and based on what or whose authority do you assert that truth?[/b]

I don't presume to know what *is* true with regards the nature of some extra-dimensional creature of the universe (if such a thing even exists), I claim only certainty that the attributes and existence of deities suggested thus far are not true.

Similarly I do not presume to know how people refer to you in real life, but I am certain it is not

Dexter "Velociraptor" John-Paul Ambrosia Terwilliger XV-III The Millipede Slayer

Originally posted by josephw
I'm kinda interested in the debate. Don't see the point though.

Of course there is intelligent debate. I've heard it here and there. Do you think we have that kind of debate in this forum? Or do you find that both camps fall short?

JS, I started this thread to highlight a problem, not to create one. I did it as an attempt at humor more than anything ...[text shortened]... e of humor not included.

I'd rather be a fool then to think my words caused another any harm.

Therefore, I promise to refrain from all demeaning and derogatory remarks from this point forward. Sarcasm with a sense of humor not included.

This is all each of us can do -- promise (to ourselves) to demonstrate the behavior we seek others to demonstrate. And forgive the occasional lapse.

Originally posted by Agerg
I don't presume to know what *is* true with regards the nature of some extra-dimensional creature of the universe (if such a thing even exists), I claim only certainty that the attributes and existence of deities suggested thus far are not true.

Similarly I do not presume to know how people refer to you in real life, but I am certain it is not

Dexter "Velociraptor" John-Paul Ambrosia Terwilliger XV-III The Millipede Slayer

".., I claim only certainty that the attributes and existence of deities suggested thus far are not true."

You're certain? How so? What evidence do you have to support your certainty?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]".., I claim only certainty that the attributes and existence of deities suggested thus far are not true."

You're certain? How so? What evidence do you have to support your certainty?[/b]

Before I waste my time answering a question in such way that you will not appreciate the answer, perhaps you would like to demonstrate you are fit for such a conversation by explaining what (if any) differences there are in the following two statements:

1) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
2) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

Originally posted by Agerg
Before I waste my time answering a question in such way that you will not appreciate the answer, perhaps you would like to demonstrate you are fit for such a conversation by explaining what (if any) differences there are in the following two statements:

1) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
2) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

I'll ignor the condescension.

In the context of this forum both statements are virtually identical.

Do I pass the test?

Originally posted by josephw
I'll ignor the condescension.

In the context of this forum both statements are virtually identical.

Do I pass the test?

No, you completely fail the test - those two statements are very different indeed. When you are able to acknowledge the differences between them you will then be ready for my answer, and not before.

Originally posted by Agerg
No, you completely fail the test - those two statements are very different indeed. When you are able to acknowledge the differences between them you will then be ready for my answer, and not before.

If you say so. 😞

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If this isn't true (and I am certain it isn't) then it is no more meaningful than a treatise on elves,.."

Then what is true, and based on what or whose authority do you assert that truth?[/b]

Actually they've been having problems with elves in Iceland recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27907358