A Chance to Be Heard

[braxhunt]

Inow, I'm going to be a little direct here since you have. I am a PhD. candidate in philosophy and am well aware of the need for thorough definitions. I understand you think your being clever, but respectfully, I do not need the little tips. In academic circles philosophers understand that if any progress of epistemology is to be had then we must not unnecessarily complicate the words of another if we are aware of what they intend to say. I have and will make an effort to treat you with respect, I would expect that in return. If it is your intention to simply "knit-pick" the terminology I use on every point of the debate and then declare your intellectual superiority you have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled.

By the way, I think you and I would be in a greement with regard to what should be done with the evidence. However, it always comes down to how one interprets the evidence. Unless you are a presuppositionalist you look at the evidence that is before you and you interpret.

P.S. Are you going to keep trying to guess what arguments I'm going to use? Why not save your responses for the debate?

[iNow]

Inow, I'm going to be a little direct here since you have. I am a PhD. candidate in philosophy

Thanks for the heads up.  I don't really care, but appreciate the open nature of your comment.  For your reference, I've never taken a formal debate class nor have I studied philosophy.  I am a scientist, and an analytical thinker, and I have the added benefit of arguing for the side which is more valid.  

As I mentioned above, I am more interested in evidence than logic.  Logic can prove anything really, even if that anything has zero basis in reality.  This is why I will be scrutinizing your premises and assertions rather forcefully.

I have and will make an effort to treat you with respect, I would expect that in return. If it is your intention to simply "knit-pick" the terminology I use on every point of the debate and then declare your intellectual superiority you have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled.

Well, besides the fact that you have just back-handedly used an ad hominem by suggesting I am merely "declaring my intellectual superiority" and "have a poor understanding of how proper scholarly debate is to be handled," essentially attacking me as a messenger instead of addressing any of the content of my message... I wish to comment on your point about picking nits (note there is no "k" in that word when used in this context, and that the correct spelling is "nits."  The word you chose, "knits," is a homonym which refers instead to patterning and design with fibers or yarn, whereas the term of the expression you chose refers to the removal of lice, or "nits," and is written without a "k")...

However, now I am, in fact, just nit-picking... So, on to your comment suggesting that is what I was doing previously...


We are discussing a very vague concept here as pertains to theism, deity, and belief.  As I mentioned previously, discussions and debate about the god concept are often troubled since it is such an ambiguously defined three letter word.  By example, your version of god is likely to be markedly different from the version of god held by others... even those who practice your own personal brand of theism and faith.  For that reason alone, the demand for clarity in language and unambiguous points is indespensible, and for you to dismiss such a demand as "nit-picking" suggests to me that it is perhaps you who has a poor understanding of scholarly debate.  Now... taking a step back and taking a deep breath... I am rather confident this is not the case, and that you are a very learned and capable individual, however, I will not accept an assertion as empty as the one you've just put forward.  

Demanding unambiguous terms, dismissing logical flaws, and discarding baseless assertions is NOT nit picking, but is instead at the very heart of "scholarly debate."

P.S. Are you going to keep trying to guess what arguments I'm going to use? Why not save your responses for the debate?

You have yet to agree to the proposed topic.  I am still waiting.

Also, if I could request... Please start using the quote feature provided by this site's vBulletin software, and ask questions now if you are unsure how to do so.  I fear that arguments and points will be misplaced if you continue posting without reference to specific comments put forward by the person to whom you are reponding.  Agreed?

[McQ]

I am going to interject at this point, because I think this thread is starting to get a bit testy. Here is how I see it and what I would like to suggest:

 - braxhunt has very open, honest, and forthcoming about his intent and desires. I have seen nothing that indicates trickery, trolling, or mal-intent.

 - iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side. We like to give the benefit of the doubt to all people here, and sometimes our suspicions get the best of us, despite out efforts to be fair. I would respectfully request that you carefully consider the tone of your comments and take braxhunt at face value.

 - Whether or not anyone here wants to post these debates on braxhunt's site is entirely up to them, but we have created an area here, as noted, where this type of debate can be done.

 - Last observation relates to what braxhunt mentioned about wanting to do this in PMs, or off the main forum, and that is so many people piling into the thread without meaningful dialogue. It is already happening here, which is exactly what he said would happen. I don't want to see this debate get unfocused and off with tons of people inserting their comments or tangental thoughts.

If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to send me a PM, but this needs to move forward productively. Thank you.

[hismikeness]

I am going to interject at this point, because I think this thread is starting to get a bit testy. Here is how I see it and what I would like to suggest:

 - braxhunt has very open, honest, and forthcoming about his intent and desires. I have seen nothing that indicates trickery, trolling, or mal-intent.

 - iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side. We like to give the benefit of the doubt to all people here, and sometimes our suspicions get the best of us, despite out efforts to be fair. I would respectfully request that you carefully consider the tone of your comments and take braxhunt at face value.

 - Whether or not anyone here wants to post these debates on braxhunt's site is entirely up to them, but we have created an area here, as noted, where this type of debate can be done.

 - Last observation relates to what braxhunt mentioned about wanting to do this in PMs, or off the main forum, and that is so many people piling into the thread without meaningful dialogue. It is already happening here, which is exactly what he said would happen. I don't want to see this debate get unfocused and off with tons of people inserting their comments or tangental thoughts.

If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to send me a PM, but this needs to move forward productively. Thank you.

McQ... you sound like a chill dude. You are invited to my birthday party.  :hail:

Hismikeness

[McQ]

Thanks, hismikeness! I'll bring the adult beverages.  

I think Whitney has done a superb job with this forum, and agree that it is a unique place. It's difficult to find the right balance in moderating a forum, especially a forum where the entire context is a generally taboo topic. The mods here are a great mix and we tend to balance each other out nicely. We do appreciate the support!

[iNow]

iNow, as a very new member of this forum, you are still getting a handle on the tenor and tone here. Your posts to braxhunt are a bit on the aggressive side.

Unfortunately, my friend, I am more of a gladiator than a poet.   TBH, I am already censoring myself in my posts above, but will strive to do better so as not to upset larger site gestalt.  

[braxhunt]

INOW, You said you were more interested in evidence than logic. This is incoherent in that one cannot interpret the evidence before them, or even trust their own senses without logic.

You misunderstood me when you explained the need for a proper understanding of terms. I agree, we must define our terms. When I claimed that it is not helpful in academic discussion to unnecessarily confuse what someone else is saying, I made that comment based on the fact that when curiosity explained to you what I meant with regard to my suggested subject of the debate, you commented that you already understood. This means you were unnecessarily confusing the matter.

Once again, you may feel clever for getting off track with the whole nit-picking issue, but what I am discovering is that what attracted me to those on this site (namely the kindness or cordiality) may not be true of you. That does not make one a gladiator, it makes them childlike. In fact the proud assertion that one is a gladiator is in itself childlike.

My apologies to the administrator for the length of this post and this thread. I will once again submit the invitation to debate on this site in a thread with one other individual in a cordial public debate, but sadly I am afraid it cannot be Inow if this is the attitude that will be had. Any other takers?

[Arctonyx]

I would volunteer but our views on what the debate should be are too different. You are looking for a philosophical debate, most of the people on this forum (me included), will be looking for a scientific one.

[iNow]

you were unnecessarily confusing the matter.
<…>
Once again, you may feel clever…
 <…>
what attracted me to those on this site (namely the kindness or cordiality) may not be true of you.
<…>
That does not make one a gladiator, it makes them childlike. In fact the proud assertion that one is a gladiator is in itself childlike.

Or, it could just be an authentic and sincere recognition of myself as a human being, and a concession that I am aware how I come across sometimes as aggressive and passionate about topics such as this.

Anyway… Thanks for all the ad hominem, for the consistent attempts to smear my character and abilities, and for completely ignoring my central points.

[Reginus]

A flame war over the title of a topic??  

[braxhunt]

Inow, i'm truly sorry you saw it that way. However, when the site admin. even points it out (whose views I would assume more closely resemble yours than mine) I feel somewhat warranted in the assertion. I probably shouldn't have used a term like "childlike" and I apologize for that. Otherwise, I am not sure you understand the term "ad hominem." A good exercise would be this: if my claiming that I'm not sure you understand the term "ad hominem" strikes you as me arguing ad hominem then you misunderstand. However, I feel compelled now that I see a locked thread has been created specifically for this purpose to go ahead with the debate. If you want to then lets go ahead. If you don't like the title "What is more likely to be true atheism or theism." Then pick another one, but please pick one that isn't loaded.

[Whitney]

May I suggest the topic be "Which is a more reasonable position: atheism or theism?"

Imo, it wouldn't be a topic that could be approached using the scientific method since things which can't be observed (god) are outside of science and would therefore have to be debated philosophically.  It is my view that from a solely scientific viewpoint one must be an agnostic atheist towards god...just as a scientist should remain agnostic and not claim the existence of alien life until there is observable evidence of it.  That said, I don't think there is a reason to think a god is more likely than not from a philosophical standpoint...but that would be the purpose of the debate.

[braxhunt]

Whitney, I appreciate the suggestion. It's a good idea. I would be fine with that topic. there is one thing I would like to mention, though, since someone else made a comment about the science/philosophy dynamic. I am fne with discussing the matter on scientific terms. While I hold no degrees in what would be considered here as science, I have studied relentlessly where the scientific data touches this discussion. It is not the case, on my view, that because God is not directly observable science has nothing to say on his existence. In the case of a murder forensic science is still a science in that the observable evidence is studied and then an inference is made as to what happened. I believe that there are things in the universe that are observable from which we may infer God's existence/non-existence.

[Whitney]

I'm not sure what could be indirect scientific evidence of a god...but that would be the purpose of debate.

[karadan]