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)?

[Zzyzx]

.

What part of “you have presented no evidence� is irrational or incomprehensible?

Simply stating there is no evidence is not an argument. It's merely an unqualified statement.

Can you provide ANY evidence other than quotations from religious promotional literature to substantiate a claim that dead bodies come back to life?

[Goose]

.

What part of “you have presented no evidence� is irrational or incomprehensible?

Simply stating there is no evidence is not an argument. It's merely an unqualified statement.

Can you provide ANY evidence other than quotations from religious promotional literature to substantiate a claim that dead bodies come back to life?

Are you now conceding there is evidence? What IS your position? Is there evidence or is there not? If you take the postion there is no evidence that is absurd and irrational. As there clrearly is evidence. You continually acknowledge this every time you request additional evidence "other than quotations from religious promotional literature." If you reject the evidence because of the source of the evidence - that's the Gentic Fallacy. If you reject the evidence a priori because of the type of claim it supports then you Beg the Question.

Which fallacy will Zzyzx choose? Which path will he take now?

[Goose leans forward in suspense as he eats his pop corn :nervious: ]

[McCulloch]

My edit of this evolving dialog. My additions in blue. Goose's additions in Green.

Non-Theist: What evidence do you have to support tales of dead bodies coming back to life? Just to let you know, I've already decided it can't happen, so it doesn't really matter what evidence you provide. A dead person can't return from the dead therefore no evidence will convince me. Be advised that since returning from the dead is considered a supernatural event, something that normally does not happen, the standard of evidence is going to be higher than for normally occurring more easily believed events.

Christian: I have quotations from an ancient books that I revere and some that I don't revere. Including many who's authenticity is in question and quite a few resurrection stories that I reject.

Non-Theist: I do not revere or respect that book and do not regard it as evidence.But don't ask me to rationally explain why I don't regard it as evidence though. It's probably because it's a religious text and I don't like religious texts because they are religious texts and talk about God and stuff. I reject the story of the resurrection of Jesus for much the same reasons you might reject the story of the resurrection of the 'Bab.

Christian: [strike]You should accept that evidence because you accept stories about Caesar.[/strike] What method do you employ to reject the Bible as evidence yet accept the evidence for Caesar? Because you really should accept the same standard of evidence for impossible, improbable miraculous events as you do for mundane probable events.

Non-Theist: I am not debating Caesar and I am not asking anyone to accept stories from ancient texts. I am not claiming superhuman feats for Caesar. So stop bringing up Caesar and other historical events and objective historical methodologies [strike]because all that is too rational for me and makes me look like I have bias. And I don't want people to notice that. I just want them to here all my subjective reasons for rejecting Christianity.[/strike] because it is immaterial whether I believe that Caesar did this or that. No one is asking me to commit my life to the proposition that Caesar did, in fact exist.

Christian: [strike]But you should accept the bible stories because selected scholars consider the bible as history.[/strike] You should accept as a historical fact the Bible accounts that pass an objective historical methodology that can be applied across the spectrum of history. The claims that do not pass the method one should acknowledge that one accepts them on less than reasonable evidence. But miraculous events attributed to either Caesar or Jesus can be discounted on the same basis.

Non-Theist: I do not regard the bible as complete objective history. As is common with many writings of the period, it is a mixture of fact and fiction. Myth and reality. [strike]Again, I can't explain why, so don't ask me.[/strike] Do you have any evidence from the real world? Because most historians are reluctant to stake their reputation only on the documentation provided by one side of any issue. [strike]because ancient texts are not evidence from the real world, even though historians accept them as evidence from the real world [/strike]Can you cite evidence from sources other then people writing church promotional literature? Because I don't accept that kind of evidence because I don't like church literature because church literature are lies because Christians are habitual liars.

Christian: You are [strike]unfair[/strike] irrational because you won’t accept the bible as evidence but accept other evidence for people like King Tut and Cesar and believe with "no doubt." I declare victory for religion.

[Goat]

.

What part of “you have presented no evidence� is irrational or incomprehensible?

Simply stating there is no evidence is not an argument. It's merely an unqualified statement.

Can you provide ANY evidence other than quotations from religious promotional literature to substantiate a claim that dead bodies come back to life?

Are you now conceding there is evidence? What IS your position? Is there evidence or is there not? If you take the postion there is no evidence that is absurd and irrational. As there clrearly is evidence. You continually acknowledge this every time you request additional evidence "other than quotations from religious promotional literature." If you reject the evidence because of the source of the evidence - that's the Gentic Fallacy. If you reject the evidence a priori because of the type of claim it supports then you Beg the Question.

Which fallacy will Zzyzx choose? Which path will he take now?

[Goose leans forward in suspense as he eats his pop corn :nervious: ]

I don't consider supernatural claims from 'holy books' written decades after the alleged event as evidence of the event. I view it as evidence of belief.

DO you have any evidence that isn't evidence of belief, but rather the actual occurence?

[Zzyzx]

.

Which fallacy will Zzyzx choose? Which path will he take now?

Zzyzx's position is VERY clear to anyone who can read and comprehend.

1. A theory has been advanced by others that dead bodies come back to life.

2. Zzyzx observes that in the real world we inhabit dead bodies do not come back to life.

3. Thus, Zzyzx asks those making the claim of "resurrection" to demonstrate that dead bodies come back to life.


Note: The same storybook that claims that Jesus “came back to life� ALSO claims that a valley full of “dry bones� came back to life to form a vast army -- as a result of preaching (Ezekiel 37:1 – 10). How credible is that story and that source?

[Goose]

My edit of this evolving dialog.

Yes, I'm sure some enterprising evolutionist will use this dialogue as evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

A few more additions (mutations?) in [brackets] from me.

My additions in blue. Goose's additions in Green.

Non-Theist: What evidence do you have to support tales of dead bodies coming back to life? Just to let you know, I've already decided it can't happen, so it doesn't really matter what evidence you provide. A dead person can't return from the dead therefore no evidence will convince me. Be advised that since returning from the dead is considered a supernatural event, something that normally does not happen, the standard of evidence is going to be higher than for normally occurring more easily believed events. [But please don't ask me what that standard is or to articulate it. I'll just make it up and continue to raise the bar as I go along because I've already decided the supernatural is improbable. If you really press me, I might throw some terms like extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. But I don't really have a way of quantifying that but at least it sounds good.]

Christian: I have quotations from an ancient books that I revere and some that I don't revere. Including many who's authenticity is in question [by those that question Christinity with out a transparent methdology]and quite a few resurrection stories that I rejectbec [because they fail the same by the same method]

Non-Theist: I do not revere or respect that book and do not regard it as evidence.But don't ask me to rationally explain why I don't regard it as evidence though. It's probably because it's a religious text and I don't like religious texts because they are religious texts and talk about God and stuff. I reject the story of the resurrection of Jesus [strike]for much the same reasons you might reject[/strike] [and] the story of the resurrection of the 'Bab [because I reject all resurrection accounts because they are impossible because they are a supernatural event and I reject the supernatural because the supernatural is impossible.]

Christian: [strike]You should accept that evidence because you accept stories about Caesar.[/strike] What method do you employ to reject the Bible as evidence yet accept the evidence for Caesar? Because you really should accept the same standard of evidence for [strike]impossible, improbable[/strike] miraculous events as you do for mundane [strike]probable[/strike] events. [Otherwise you reject the evidence because of the nature of the claim and thus Beg the Question.]

Non-Theist: I am not debating Caesar and I am not asking anyone to accept stories from ancient texts. I am not claiming superhuman feats for Caesar. So stop bringing up Caesar and other historical events and objective historical methodologies because all that is too rational for me and makes me look like I have bias. And I don't want people to notice that. I just want them to here all my subjective reasons for rejecting Christianity because it is immaterial whether I believe that Caesar did this or that. No one is asking me to commit my life to the proposition that Caesar did, in fact exist. [So, please don't remind me that I've now used my personal philosophical position regarding what Christianity requires of me as a justification for treating the evidence differently and holding it to an unquanitifiable standard.]

Christian: [strike]But you should accept the bible stories because selected scholars consider the bible as history.[/strike] You should accept as a historical fact the Bible accounts that pass an objective historical methodology that can be applied across the spectrum of history. The claims that do not pass the method one should acknowledge that one accepts them on less than reasonable evidence. But [other]miraculous events attributed to either Caesar or Jesus can be discounted on the same basis [if they fail the method]

Non-Theist: I do not regard the bible as complete objective history. As is common with many writings of the period, it is a mixture of fact and fiction. Myth and reality. [and the way I determine fact from fiction is simple. If I don't like it or it is a supernatural event it is a myth and fiction. If I like it and it is a natural event it is probably history.] [strike]Again, I can't explain why, so don't ask me.[/strike] Do you have any evidence from the real world? Because most historians are reluctant to stake their reputation only on the documentation provided by one side of any issue. [Despite this, they still do stake their reputation as they often have little choice because most of ancient history rests on the documentation provided by one side of the issue] [strike]because ancient texts are not evidence from the real world, even though historians accept them as evidence from the real world [/strike]Can you cite evidence from sources other then people writing church promotional literature? Because I don't accept that kind of evidence because I don't like church literature because church literature are lies because Christians are habitual liars.

Christian: You are [strike]unfair[/strike] irrational because you won’t accept the bible as evidence but accept other evidence for people like King Tut and Cesar and believe with "no doubt."[strike] I declare victory for religion.[/strike]

[Goose]

.

Which fallacy will Zzyzx choose? Which path will he take now?

Zzyzx's position is VERY clear to anyone who can read and comprehend.

1. A theory has been advanced by others that dead bodies come back to life.

No. A claim has been made that Jesus was rasied from the dead.

2. Zzyzx observes that in the real world we inhabit dead bodies do not come back to life.

Zzyzx must think his all-knowing. He must think that his limited scope of observations and experiences IS the real world.

3. Thus, Zzyzx asks those making the claim of "resurrection" to demonstrate that dead bodies come back to life.

That would be a straw man argument. Additionally, I've given modern accounts in our head-to-head of people that have been determined dead by a qualified physician and have then come back to life. So clearly it is not impossible for a dead person to return to life. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

.Note: The same storybook that claims that Jesus “came back to life� ALSO claims that a valley full of “dry bones� came back to life to form a vast army -- as a result of preaching (Ezekiel 37:1 – 10). How credible is that story and that source?

Do you want to run it through an objective historical method? You name the method and we'll look at it.

[McCulloch]

A theory has been advanced by others that dead bodies come back to life.

No. A claim has been made that Jesus was rasied from the dead.

A claim has been made, by those who believe that the Bible recorded literal events, that various dead bodies have come back to life, the most famous of these being Jesus.

Zzyzx observes that in the real world we inhabit dead bodies do not come back to life.

Zzyzx must think his all-knowing. He must think that his limited scope of observations and experiences IS the real world.

Having never seen any dead bodies raised to life not having heard of any validated accounts of such a thing happening, we remain skeptical that dead bodies can be re-animated. It remains with those who claim that such events can occur to provide evidence.

I've given modern accounts in our head-to-head of people that have been determined dead by a qualified physician and have then come back to life. So clearly it is not impossible for a dead person to return to life. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

Only by assuming that those individuals were actually dead. Have we ruled out the possibility that the individuals raised from the dead, were not really fully dead; that our clinical definition of death is completely valid?

[Goose]

I've given modern accounts in our head-to-head of people that have been determined dead by a qualified physician and have then come back to life. So clearly it is not impossible for a dead person to return to life. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.

Only by assuming that those individuals were actually dead.

Oh I see. If they are pronounced dead by a physcian but then return to life we must assume they were not really dead. And you guys say if evidence is presented you will believe. How silly of me to doubt you guys.

Have we ruled out the possibility that the individuals raised from the dead, were not really fully dead; that our clinical definition of death is completely valid?

Or adjust our definition of dead. Gotcha.

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Four months after he was declared brain dead and doctors were about to remove his organs for transplant, Zack Dunlap says he feels "pretty good."

Dunlap was pronounced dead Nov. 19 at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, after he was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident. His family approved having his organs harvested.

As family members were paying their last respects, he moved his foot and hand. He reacted to a pocketknife scraped across his foot and to pressure applied under a fingernail. After 48 days in the hospital, he was allowed to return home, where he continues to work on his recovery.

Source

Here is a link (if it's still there) to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral hemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family claims a miracle.

[McCulloch]

Oh I see. If they are pronounced dead by a physcian but then return to life we must assume they were not really dead. And you guys say if evidence is presented you will believe.

No, not at all. If someone is pronounced dead by a physician and later is shown to be alive, there are two possibilities: the physician was wrong and death was not complete or death itself can be reversed. Now, I am inclined to go with option 1. Do you have any compelling reason to argue for the second option?

Death

• the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.

You see, by definition, if you are dead, then you cannot come back.

The family claims a miracle.

Yes, any unexplained event is a miracle. That's why there are fewer of them now than there were in ancient times.