Debate 1 (02 SEP 2010) - Part 01
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2010
- This was the first debate the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics have been involved with, and the first religious debate at UNCG to my knowledge.
Topic: "Does the Christian god exist?"
The sides:
Shepard's Fellowship of Greensboro
A Sovereign Grace Baptist Church
- Sye Ten Bruggencate
- Pastor Dustin Segers
www.sfofgso.org/
UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics
- Joshua Deaton
- Phillip Drum
The debate was moderated by Pastor Sterling J VanDerwerker
Any chance we can make a playlist of the entire debate so it'll play all the way through on its own?
So what your saying is assertions are the same as truths? Because Ive seen many false assertions of refuting it, and in those refutations, I also saw huge flaws, and huge reasons to think that the proponents of said refutation did not really even understand the TAG at all, or were operating on flawed presuppositions, and only....
Man, This video seams to stall every 4 minutes. It only happends so far with this one, so is my internet blowing donuts today or is something up with the vid feed?
when conceding those flawed presuppositions (such as for example, naturalism, falsificationism, verificationism, etc etc etc et all) does the refutation have the illusory appearance of success, soundness, or validity.
@Paragon19 I couldn't paste the link here, but I made a playlist you can get at my channel timeless9you.
It's an inconsistency that's also in the theistic worldview. The idea that theists have the monopoly on certainty is ridiculous. No one has certainty, no matter how hard they believe that they do.
Even if you're getting beamed perfectly true information from a perfectly true being, you have no way of knowing that that being actually has all information or that they're correctly interpreting the information.
as a general rule, when a refutation of something includes likening it to goat shit, that refutation just failed. lol
Oh wow great refutation. An ad hominem/reductio ad absurdum followed by mistaking a grammar/spelling correction on a youtube comment (as opposed to somewhere where grammar actually matters, like a formal essay, etc) for refutation of the content of my statement. Two common refuges of intellectual cowards in one post. NOICE! (correct that spelling lol)
As an aside, I know this is probably one of the most often over looked facts in our post modern internet culture, but snarkiness, nor something with the appearance of humor only to those who already agree with that view the comment is based on are not points in the least. alright then. bye bye.
Annoyance doesn't even enter into it. Its about TRYING to annoy, whether or not you succeed. It shows you're unworthy of discussing the matter with, that you're intellectually dishonest, and that you, like many naturalists, replace points with rudeness, and act like there's been no juxtaposition.
*pats your head condescendingly*
go snark elsewhere