AronRa
Administrator
I got into it with a presuppositional apologist who actually imagined that his is the "worldview" which "cogently provides the preconditions of intelligible experience": as if he knows what that even means. So we had that discussion, and he thinks I went off-topic. I wonder if anyone here agrees?
Prior to this discussion, I told him that presuppositional apologetics was "a branch of religious belief wherein the believer asserts that he is right simply because he believes he is right." He accused me of committing a straw-man fallacy, but he demonstrated in our discussion that I got it right, didn't he?
After this discussion, he read the comments on the video and of course couldn't accept any of the criticisms coming from every single poster there. So rather than consider that maybe all those people had a point, he deflected all that with his confirmation bias and challenged them all to debate him. Get that? After he's already shown his hand and what an inevitable failure his argument is, he still wants to continue! As if reading the same script to someone else would get a different result, especially after they already heard what's wrong with it.
Then he challenged me to a moderated debate. Because his position is obviously based entirely on a word game, just like Sye ten Bruggencate's. Thus he can't go off-script. He said that "a moderated and formatted debate would allow for fair exchange for both of us. No talking over the other person and interrupting them. We can BOTH voice our positions without being stopped mid sentence."
I replied to his challenge, saying "You don't have a position. I pointed out in the beginning that faith means pretending to know things you don't know and asserting unsupported and indefensible speculation as if it was fact. I pointed out how both of these are deliberately deceptive misrepresentations, in other words, lies. I pointed out how apologetics is dishonest too, in that you simply refuse to admit when you're wrong despite any amount of evident or logical proof. So that's all you did, make false assertions and ignore all the proof that you're wrong. I can prove that I know what I know, but you can't defend or support any of the obviously indefensible nonsense you only make-believe. So what is there to debate?"
But he persisted. "There is something to debate and I think it's worth doing in a formatted and moderated fashion. No interruptions, no jumping around from topic to another.... Surely you're not intimidated to do things the right way?"
Now he's going to call me chicken and pretend that it's even possible for me to intimidated? By anyone, much less him? See how delusional this guy is?
So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.
So to open this up, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated." So you explain to me how you think being rational is irrational."
Prior to this discussion, I told him that presuppositional apologetics was "a branch of religious belief wherein the believer asserts that he is right simply because he believes he is right." He accused me of committing a straw-man fallacy, but he demonstrated in our discussion that I got it right, didn't he?
After this discussion, he read the comments on the video and of course couldn't accept any of the criticisms coming from every single poster there. So rather than consider that maybe all those people had a point, he deflected all that with his confirmation bias and challenged them all to debate him. Get that? After he's already shown his hand and what an inevitable failure his argument is, he still wants to continue! As if reading the same script to someone else would get a different result, especially after they already heard what's wrong with it.
Then he challenged me to a moderated debate. Because his position is obviously based entirely on a word game, just like Sye ten Bruggencate's. Thus he can't go off-script. He said that "a moderated and formatted debate would allow for fair exchange for both of us. No talking over the other person and interrupting them. We can BOTH voice our positions without being stopped mid sentence."
I replied to his challenge, saying "You don't have a position. I pointed out in the beginning that faith means pretending to know things you don't know and asserting unsupported and indefensible speculation as if it was fact. I pointed out how both of these are deliberately deceptive misrepresentations, in other words, lies. I pointed out how apologetics is dishonest too, in that you simply refuse to admit when you're wrong despite any amount of evident or logical proof. So that's all you did, make false assertions and ignore all the proof that you're wrong. I can prove that I know what I know, but you can't defend or support any of the obviously indefensible nonsense you only make-believe. So what is there to debate?"
But he persisted. "There is something to debate and I think it's worth doing in a formatted and moderated fashion. No interruptions, no jumping around from topic to another.... Surely you're not intimidated to do things the right way?"
Now he's going to call me chicken and pretend that it's even possible for me to intimidated? By anyone, much less him? See how delusional this guy is?
So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.
So to open this up, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated." So you explain to me how you think being rational is irrational."