Comments on: Atheism/Theism Debate: Dan Barker vs. Paul Manata

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:18:28 +0000

Arthur Says:

Can we not remark on Manata’s past? He may be (is?) the most idiotic of apologists, but bringing up his days as a druggie is really a cheap shot to someone who is trying to recover

The thing is, Manata is so intolerant of the “sins” of others that he invites criticism of his hypocrisy.

By: arthur

arthur — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:37:29 +0000

Can we not remark on Manata’s past? He may be (is?) the most idiotic of apologists, but bringing up his days as a druggie is really a cheap shot to someone who is trying to recover.

By: Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:02:45 +0000

Its funny you mention Derrida. He is the reason I put Philosophy on hold.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:20:49 +0000

Does anybody else think this guy is off his rocker?

Tell you what, Mr. Anderson. Go have a conversation with a parrot and get back to us with the ideas he managed to express to you. Are you gonna come back and say: “We had a great talk. I wanted to discuss Thomas Aquinas but he just wanted to talk about how much he wanted a cracker. Still, great conversation!”

By: todangst

todangst — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:16:35 +0000

Supernatural positions cant be proven because you preclude the possibility of a supernatural event being possible. Which I dont understand if this is a random, chance universe that is always changing
Supernatural positions can’t be proven because the supernatural is defined as ‘beyond natural’ – it necessarily follows that there cannot be any a posteriori means of detecting it’s ‘existence’ in the first place.

Read your Luther. Or your Saint Augustine:

What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

“Considering that every predicative language is inadequate to the essence, in truth to the hyperessentiality (the being beyond Being) of God; consequently, only a negative (‘apophatic’) attribution can claim to approach God and to prepare for a silent intuition of God.”

- Jacques Derrida

By: todangst

todangst — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:06:23 +0000

Nice posts Sean. It’s hilarious how often manata projects out his own flaws onto others… every time he calls out someone for ‘begging the question’ you can be sure he’s actually doing it himself…. in fact, watching a presupper accuse anyone of of begging the question in any context is just priceless!

By: Mr. Anderson

Mr. Anderson — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:00:23 +0000

Rainman-zilla,
We might need to leave Philosophuy of Language alone for right now. Right now all I am willing to say about what language is that if evolution is true, than it nesscarily started with primates uttering sounds or syllables to try and corroespond with reality as they preceived it. It would have then become progressive and transformed into what we have today. Be that as it may, there would be nothing more to words than an arbitrary starting point. For instance, if earlier humans referred to something as being hot and responded by saying “ooga-booga” it has evolved into our vernaculiar as “hot.” Therefore the preferance of using “ooga-booga” OVER “HOT” is arbitrary, and the word really is nothing more than an utterance we have used to explain something as being opposite of cold. If this is the case than a parrot or answering machine is doing nothing more than we do. You assume that a parrot cant reflect on the words that it mimics or speaks. This is an unargued point that you are merely asserting and needs to be explained.

Also…Supernatural positions cant be proven because you preclude the possibility of a supernatural event being possible. Which I dont understand if this is a random, chance universe that is always changing.

By: Anaksunamoon

Anaksunamoon — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:55:43 +0000

Dan- “What do you think the cat said to me?”

Anal retentive idiot- define “cat” define “speak”

Dan- “come on stupid, stop playing dumbass and answer the simple question you PINHEAD CUEBALL

Anal retentive idiot- the cat said “Hows the L S D Dan” uh ahahaha duh ahahahh , ahhhaaa duh duh duh ahah. using inductive reasoning I can conclude cats dont speak” hahahah

Dan- “What did the talking snake say to Eve?”

Anal retentive idiot- “Ye shall not surely die”

Dan- You moron!!