Quality of Debate

[Zzyzx]

.
Quality of Debate

I have often wondered why some members’ posts make no sense at all. It had not occurred to me that anyone would be as foolish and unethical as to respond to a post without knowing what it contained. However, that is apparently a practice of at least one member – who brags about responding while refusing to read. Perhaps that is akin to commenting on a book without having read the book while relying upon assumptions and conjectures (which has also occurred in these threads).

In case you have not figured it out, I dont even read your posts...they are wordy and unrelated to any issue. I just presume you like to type...

Debate: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

If a person posts without reading opposition views are they debating or are they preaching? There is no opposition of argument when a person is merely promoting a viewpoint rather than debating issues.

On the other hand, it is useful to have such posts in threads because they discredit the person and the cause they promote or defend (i.e., make themselves and their religion look silly in public).

What do others think (those who read posts before replying)?

[McCulloch]

Try to convince those people I noted that returned from being clinically dead. They fit your definition of dead.

They fit a definition of dead. People who stop breathing and need a defribulator also fit a definition of dead at one time.

People who stop breathing and need a defibulator are not pronounced dead because they stop breathing and require a defibulator. These peolpe in the cases i mentioned were dead under the clinical definition. If you need to fudge the definition of dead to deny it, well... alrighty then.

My point is that the definition of dead has changed in the last few centuries and it is reasonable to believe that it may again. The people you mention in the cases were dead under the current clinical definition, whereas the people who need a defibrillator were dead under past clinical definitions.

How many examples of people who were dead for three or so days without life support have been resurrected recently?

Classic. When a request for evidence is met, just raise the bar.

No, I don't see this as raising the bar. I am asking for examples that match the requirement of the point being discussed, Jesus, Lazarus, the saints in the tombs ...

[Goose]

Try to convince those people I noted that returned from being clinically dead. They fit your definition of dead.

They fit a definition of dead. People who stop breathing and need a defribulator also fit a definition of dead at one time.

People who stop breathing and need a defibulator are not pronounced dead because they stop breathing and require a defibulator. These peolpe in the cases i mentioned were dead under the clinical definition. If you need to fudge the definition of dead to deny it, well... alrighty then.

My point is that the definition of dead has changed in the last few centuries and it is reasonable to believe that it may again. The people you mention in the cases were dead under the current clinical definition, whereas the people who need a defibrillator were dead under past clinical definitions.

Like I said. You need to change the definition, to make things work. They were pronounced dead by modern medicine. If they change the definition in the future will that mean that it is impossible to return from being dead then? What will be the new definition?

How many examples of people who were dead for three or so days without life support have been resurrected recently?

Classic. When a request for evidence is met, just raise the bar.

No, I don't see this as raising the bar.

Hence, part of the problem with maintianing quality debate (the actual topic of this thread, not the resurrection). A request was made by Zzyzx for evidence that dead people can return to life. I provided it and it's been brushed aside.

[Zzyzx]

[Cathar1950]

Brain dead as far as I know is a lack of activity in the brain where the body still lives or at least could with some help.
The claims about Jesus are not so much a body being reanimated but a body being transformed.
He eats but walks through walls. He appears and is not recognized until the break bread.
They are stories or myths that explain nothing and no analogy with a brain dead person will not work.
Now if a person were dead and then ground up and brought back t life that would be a miracle.

[OnceConvinced]

This guy Zack said he heard them announce he was dead. He obviously wasn't dead then.

Also the article does not state how long it was between him being pronounced "dead" to his family paying their respects. A few hours? Three days?

[Goose]

[Zzyzx]

[Goose]

[daedalus 2.0]

[Zzyzx]