Atheism/Theism Debate: Dan Barker vs. Paul Manata
13 July 2006 by Sean
(Kudos to Stardust for bringing this one to my attention.)
A debate that was aired online this past Monday: Dan Barker and Paul Manata square off.
Debate format parameters:
* Paul opens, Dan opens (10min each) – 20
* Paul cross, Dan cross (10min each) – 20
* Paul rebut, Dan rebut (10min each) – 20
* Paul closes, Dan closes (5min each) – 10
Questions from audience (20 minutes) – 20
Total: 90 minutes
Manata comes across as an angry thug. You can hear him constantly scribbling notes, his voice cracks and he stammers constantly, and the rage that goes back to his violent, drug abusing days vibrates just below the surface of everything he says.
Most of his arguments are petty and fail to address any of the sweeping contradictions Dan points out. He keeps trying to push Dan into a semantic corner: “Did I say that? When did I say that? Define that. What do you mean when you say that?” Same thing he did when he was arguing with us. Everything is relative to his deranged presuppositional worldview, including the rules of logic and scientific inquiry.
Dan politely refutes everything Manata says in a way that comes across as more than mildly baffled that people like this exist. I would recommend skipping the openings and jumping forward to the cross-examinations. Much more fun.
At one point Manata tries, and fails, to make the hilarious argument that Dan’s secular morality can’t differentiate between eating broccoli for pleasure and eating people for pleasure. Dan demolishes that completely. And I almost fell out of my chair at the point where Manata admits that he believes in talking snakes. But there is even sillier shit than that. Being a Bible literalist just leaves you wide open to ridicule. And the circular reasoning of this presuppositional apologetics crap is a hoot. Dan does a good job of tearing it all to shreds — with great aplomb.
Not only that, but he doesn’t stop there. In closing, he makes some classic arguments as to why Manata’s worldview is not only logically incorrect, but morally bankrupt. Zing.
I mean, shit. Look at the picture. Which one of them would you sit next to on a bus?
13 July 2006, on 6:36 am
Brocolli? I always tought of myself as a potato. (I really need to loose wight.)
13 July 2006, on 7:25 am
I love the part where Manata tries to insist that Christianinity, or at least the religions seeded from Abraham, are the oldest in the world. Dan’s response of “well, if you want to disregard all of history…” is classic.
That aside, I realise Manata is an angry, angry man, but I felt Dan’s side of the argument was a little swamped by that hate and failed to shine as well as it really should have.
13 July 2006, on 9:04 am
Are you sure that’s not Kevin Harris without his airbrush and his wig?
13 July 2006, on 10:48 am
RDZ,
“Are you sure that’s not Kevin Harris without his airbrush and his wig?”
LOL
13 July 2006, on 11:09 am
Oiy vey
That is just pathetic and sad (granted in an amusing way – but still). Why must bully xtian’s always resort to such tripe?
Personally I don’t care if they want to keep their delusions, as long as they keep them to themselves. Me and mine do not require the threat of an invisible sky daddy monster to ensure that we follow the basic tenents of society. We know that murder is wrong, not because the ‘bible’ tells us so, but because it is intrinsically a bad thing (sans self protection and other extraordinary situations). Just as slavery is a bad thing for society, wether that slavery be based on ethnic decent or gender or any other reason.
My life experiences have shown me that there are two groups of people who tend to cause a lot of damage and hurt. Fanatics and men. (sorry guys, just an observation not an accusation). Mix the two of them together and give them the delusion of a god that supports their views and they seem to think they have a right to murder, rape, bully, oppress and start wars at will. History is full of countless examples
13 July 2006, on 12:02 pm
Yorrike Says:
That aside, I realise Manata is an angry, angry man, but I felt Dan’s side of the argument was a little swamped by that hate and failed to shine as well as it really should ha
I though Dan was cool and collected and made sharp points. Manata sounded shrill, again falling back on semantics instead of real logic, and had several of his more rambling points cut short by time, including the broccoli one. He sounds to me like a guy who would like nothing better than to punch you out in a dark alley for trying to take his security blanket away.
13 July 2006, on 12:05 pm
“He sounds to me like a guy who would like nothing better than to punch you out in a dark alley for trying to take his security blanket away.”
Well, to be fair, he was a “gang-banger” whatever that means to Paul.
13 July 2006, on 12:16 pm
I though Dan was cool and collected and made sharp points. Manata sounded shrill, again falling back on semantics instead of real logic, and had several of his more rambling points cut short by time, including the broccoli one.
When I heard him start talking about brocolli I was like, WTF???
Yes, Dan remained cool and collected and made some really good points (though they will completely go unheard by the xian brainwashed crowd). They probably think the brocolli thing is really funny.
13 July 2006, on 12:17 pm
This guy does like to engage in doublespeak, doesn’t he?
“When did I say that presupposing Christianity makes it true?”
Uh, only in your opening statement. You agreed with him that if the presuppositions of Christianity are true, then Christianity is consistant and logical (within its own worldview). And then later on you claimed that you DO believe the presuppositions of Christianity to be true: the Bible is God’s word, God exists, etc.
So you have effectively said exactly that which you later denied to have said. Jerk.
13 July 2006, on 12:51 pm
LoL
Paul Manata sounds like a psycho killer freak!
13 July 2006, on 12:57 pm
“Paul Manata sounds like a psycho killer freak! ”
Well yeah, but he’s a psycho killer freak for Jesus!
13 July 2006, on 12:58 pm
I guess he’s just living with purpose then.
13 July 2006, on 1:23 pm
Where the hell was this when my pastor Ethics teacher showed us the tape of the one sided, moot atheist/theist debate?!
I’ll have to download it, just in case it happens again.
13 July 2006, on 3:17 pm
That was one-sided. Paul proves once again that he should remain silent. Who told him he has good ideas? Good debating skills? I realize that people have off days but Paul must make a habit of it. Why does he do this to himself.
13 July 2006, on 5:55 pm
I think Paul, Kevin Harris, and others of their ilk, feel the need to engage the atheist community for the same reason some yahoo, fresh out of martial arts class wants to stroll through the rough part of town, looking for a fight. Some sort of machismo thing they can gloat to their fundie friends about. I guess that makes us the ontological “bad part of town”.
13 July 2006, on 9:11 pm
Wow. That means for the first time in my life someone views me as some kind of gangsta…
14 July 2006, on 4:24 am
Raindogzilla:
I think Paul, Kevin Harris, and others of their ilk, feel the need to engage the atheist community for the same reason some yahoo, fresh out of martial arts class wants to stroll through the rough part of town, looking for a fight.
The actual phrase is ‘kick school’. Sorta like those old Bruce Lee flicks.
I think Manata lost his ‘marbles’ a long time ago. My reaction to him is contingent on mood: he either makes laugh hysterically, or gives me a headache. My guess his, he was Holding’s cellmate at 1 point.
What an utter yutz. Right out the gate, he indulges in poisoning the well.
All these C.S Loonie clones are beginning to bug me more than a little bit.
14 July 2006, on 10:19 am
What a phenomenally pompous ass that Manata is. One of these clowns who slumps through a few philosophy classes and just gets out the other side with buzzwords to throw around “glorifying” exactly what his opinions already were before he walked into the building. He’s learnt no content, he’s done no thinking, he’s just learned some phrases which he thinks make handy bludgeons.
First, someone needs to inform him that it’s not “begging the question” to ask why he might think that the Bible is the word of God, for example. Since he doesn’t have an actual reason, he falls back on some hysterical charge that the inquiry is unfair. It’s not begging the question, it’s asking it.
And second, this gigantic swaggering (in the sense of the arrogant stance, and in the sense of it being a thing that’s pretty much unstable) tone of his is pretty damn rich, given that he says he became a Christian in 1999. He always returns to “given my worldview, all this follows”. And yeah, I guess it does. But he never addresses the reasons why a person might move to that worldview — and it makes you wonder what he thinks of his prior self. You’d think he might have a little humility. But I guess that’s way out of style with these folks.
14 July 2006, on 10:57 am
“given my worldview, all this follows”
I am so sick of xians using that phrase. Makes my skin crawl every time I hear it anymore. In Jeffrey Dahmer’s worldview, people taste good.
14 July 2006, on 12:24 pm
Goddamn that is insane! I wish I could have been there in person to see it. It sounds like Manatas gotten worse over time.
I was there in person for the Derek Sansone/Manata debate. But this one was better. More intense. Wow.
I know Manata well, and Im always optimistic that even the most brainwashed automaton has hope for recovery, but now Im not so sure…
14 July 2006, on 2:22 pm
And to think I want to beat my head against a wall by accepting Paul’s challenge to debate me? Not until Paul grows a brain!
14 July 2006, on 2:28 pm
“given my worldview, all this follows”
I am so sick of xians using that phrase. Makes my skin crawl every time I hear it anymore. In Jeffrey Dahmer’s worldview, people taste good.
Ramen, Star!
14 July 2006, on 2:31 pm
PJ says:
And second, this gigantic swaggering (in the sense of the arrogant stance, and in the sense of it being a thing that’s pretty much unstable) tone of his is pretty damn rich, given that he says he became a Christian in 1999. He always returns to “given my worldview, all this follows”. And yeah, I guess it does. But he never addresses the reasons why a person might move to that worldview — and it makes you wonder what he thinks of his prior self. You’d think he might have a little humility. But I guess that’s way out of style with these folks.
I agree. Very well put. He’s gone from being a gangbanger with no humility to a gangbanger for Christ with no humility. Did not pass “go.” Did not collect one shred of humility or real moral reflection on the way.
14 July 2006, on 5:37 pm
Manata’s argument:
If you believe everything in the bible to be true, it makes sense and is not irrational because God can do anything. You cannot challenge the rationality of believing the bible because that is begging the question. Atheism is not rational because you don’t know if being logical and rational is a logical and rational thing to do.
———————
He is moving the goalposts- the part that is seen as irrational is not questionable according to him- he decides that you can only question the rationality of the situation if you believe everything. AND he claims to not be presupposing anything. Then he bitches about not being rebutted. What a loon.
14 July 2006, on 7:29 pm
What’s hilarious is that if you poke around on the web sites of Manata’s minions, they actually believe he won this debate! They really don’t live in reality, these people.
14 July 2006, on 8:32 pm
Heh, remember I got in that long ass argument with him about the exact same thing? Me n’ Dan are on the same wavelength eh?
14 July 2006, on 10:08 pm
I gathered that he somehow sees that logic only makes logical sense with god. He mainly just spewed and bunch of shit to confuse the issue and mumbled about a lot of irrelevant shit.
“See!! Dave said we’re no more important than brocoli!!”
Nice listening skills asshole, or were you purposely misinterpreting everything he said?
14 July 2006, on 10:08 pm
Yes, Ford. You inspired me to go back and re-read some of the Tribbledogs battle. I ended up wasting an hour at work, and laughing my ass off. Good times. Good times.
14 July 2006, on 10:44 pm
What’s hilarious is that if you poke around on the web sites of Manata’s minions, they actually believe he won this debate!
That’s why it is pointless to debate xians, because no matter what the outcome, they will declare victory. And in all their bullshit rhetoric, they always FAIL to provide evidence that is the base of these arguments . . . the existence of a god. So, like faith, their winning is all in their own minds and puffed-up egos.
14 July 2006, on 11:54 pm
Boy genius Manata better hope there isn’t a presuppositionalist judge on the bench the next time he runs afoul of the law.
I ask again: do these people not understand our own legal system? The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Period. There is no discussion on this issue. Fucking delusional morons.
15 July 2006, on 12:10 am
One day paul will wke up and realize that: Paul; “I was all fucked up on drugs then iwas all fucked up on jesus but today I realize I’m just all fucked up.
15 July 2006, on 9:42 am
If you believe everything in the bible to be true, it makes sense and is not irrational because God can do anything. You cannot challenge the rationality of believing the bible because that is begging the question. Atheism is not rational because you don’t know if being logical and rational is a logical and rational thing to do.
Nice exposing of the sophistry, DM…
15 July 2006, on 9:59 am
[...] Given DrunkMonkey’s great summary of sophism, one can just imagine the replies… [...]
15 July 2006, on 3:33 pm
I was wondering why Barker even asked if Manata believed in talking snakes. It would have been funny if Manata had asked him if he thought it was absurd to think that animals can talk. For instance parrots. As far as Barker is concerned, he and Manata are nothing more than evolved-talking monkey men. So it shouldnt come as any suprise to him that a snake spoke. After all it is a chance and random universe according to Barker.
15 July 2006, on 3:48 pm
Mr. Anderson Says:
I was wondering why Barker even asked if Manata believed in talking snakes. It would have been funny if Manata had asked him if he thought it was absurd to think that animals can talk. For instance parrots. As far as Barker is concerned, he and Manata are nothing more than evolved-talking monkey men. So it shouldnt come as any suprise to him that a snake spoke. After all it is a chance and random universe according to Barker.
I’m sorry, but that is some pathetic reasoning. Parrots only speak words that they have heard from humans. And even then, as anybody who has ever lived with a parrot knows, it is extremely random what words and phrases they will pick up. This is not talking. It’s called “mimicry” — and guess what, genius? It is a trait that some animals have evolved to protect themselves, just like camouflage.
What species of snake was it that was able to talk? Have they all died out in the past 6,000 years? (Sorry, I am making a presumption that you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, since you also believe snakes can talk) Most importantly: what language did the snake speak? Was it a snake language or a human language? If it was a snake language, where did the humans learn to understand it? Snakish night school? If it was a human language, where did the snake learn to speak it? Did it pick up a Pimsleur Humanish CD at the local market while shopping for snake oil?
And yes, Manata and Barker are nothing more than evolved “talking monkeys.” But they are not monkeys. They are Homo sapiens (okay, in Manata’s case, that’s debatable). Little known factoid you may not be aware of: Homo sapiens can talk.
Read a book, you waterhead.
From now on I shall address you as Agent Smith might, MISTER Anderson!
15 July 2006, on 7:21 pm
Sean,
You obviously missed the point, waterhead. Barker made it sound as though the idea of a talking animal was absurd. I was pointing out, correctly I might add, that talking animals in Barker’s worldview is an acceptable hypothesis no matter the case.
As you correctly pointed out, if Barker is corrrect we are just talking homo sapiens so whats the differance? So lets recap…on one hand we have talking snakes and the other we have evolved talking monkeys (homo sapiens). Whats all the fuss about? Both worldviews have taliking animals. Christianity has “snakes and donkey’s”, and atheist have “whatever species” comes down the pipe with vocal chords as a possibility. So I dont see the relevance in Barker using it as an argument against Manata’s position. Furthermore, the language used by the snake is also irrelevent given that the narrative in Genesis portrays “whatever” language it was, to have been intelligible to Adam and Eve.
That said, my question for you Mr.Waterhead is does it make sense for Barker to argue with Manata, given that he must already know he is nothing more than a talking monkey? Nevermind dont answer that…you couldnt if you tried. The answer is no. The reason is that obviously evolution is taking the two said men down different paths of natural selection. To be sure, Barker claims that logic is like digestion. It is just something that happens in the mind (whatever that is), and since Manata’s mind is working differently than Barker’s it will come down to which mind gives the said species the best chance for surivival.
Barker’s mind is the bastardization of survival. His morality is grounded in his own mind, as he claimed in the debate, as well as logic (the non-thing as he described it). I dont see why anyone would side with that lunitic of a human. How is it that Barker described morality again? Being moral means not causing harm to other humans. I ask why and what constitutes harm if we all have seperate minds working in different ways?
As for the brocolli verses cannibalism issue, Barker fumbled the ball with the notion of a distinction being made between the right to eat one over the other. He maintains that “cosmically” it doesnt matter, but individually it does. Why? What ethical or moral right does one monkey owe another by not eating him? None. Do you complain when a lion eats a rabbit? Or when a rabbit eats a carrot? What about if a snake eats another snake? Is that morally wrong? Why does Barker, arbitarally of course, make a distinction between humans and tossed salad? He has some explaing to do. ANd his answers in the debate do not suffice. What say you, Monkey boy?
15 July 2006, on 8:25 pm
Is there a transcript anywhere for those who cannot listen to the debate?
15 July 2006, on 9:18 pm
Herr Anderson,
Dr. Dolittle also talks to snakes, I believe. Of course, he’s as fictional as your Adam and Eve. Why don’t you do us all a favor and go rustle up some gopherwood and start building you an ark in your backyard. Once you have it built and filled with between two and seven of every living species, go grab yourself the jawbone of an ass- hopefully not a talking one, and see if you can kill a thousand men with it. After that, go and hurl yourself into a working incinerator- don’t worry, gawd will leave you untouched. Think of it as your Herculean tasks to convert the godless to the true Jeebus. Then, come back and we’ll talk. Got all that?
15 July 2006, on 10:01 pm
Martin, I couldn’t find a transcript of this debate anywhere but I did turn one up here of Dan Barker debating Michael Horner on the subject of “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?”- scroll all the way down. Here’s another on the historicity of the resurrection between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig
15 July 2006, on 10:55 pm
[...] Check out this dumb fuck. [...]
16 July 2006, on 12:34 am
Mr. Anderson Says:
“As you correctly pointed out, if Barker is corrrect we are just talking homo sapiens so whats the differance?”
Uhmmm… We know humans can talk. We’ve never seen a snake talk and it appears physically impossible. Therefore by induction and the principle of uniformity of nature we can be fairly certain that it didn’t happen.
“As for the brocolli verses cannibalism issue, Barker fumbled the ball with the notion of a distinction being made between the right to eat one over the other. He maintains that “cosmically” it doesnt matter, but individually it does. Why?”
Seriously? Well… we as humans evolved as a social species working in cooperation within a community / tribe / in-group. We tend to view it as wrong to eat other humans. Humans were selected to do what was in the best interest for their genes and that means cooperation within a society. It’s simple humanism. How is that not better than not
eating people because you fear you’ll burn in hell if you do? And what is wrong with morality based on minimizing harm? We as a society determine what is most fair in order to protect ourselves and our community. We generate social rules (laws) meant to discourage defect behavior. It’s like the ‘prisoners dilemma’… we all do better by cooperating. No god is needed for society to function well.
16 July 2006, on 1:19 am
That said, my question for you Mr.Waterhead is does it make sense for Barker to argue with Manata, given that he must already know he is nothing more than a talking monkey? Nevermind dont answer that…you couldnt if you tried. The answer is no.
Wrong. You’re making a generalization from the get-go, something which won’t win you many arguments. So what if Barker believes than humans are walking, talking man-apes? That just means that he believes that ONE species (based on observation and inductive reasoning) has the capability to speak. This does not mean that he must then believe that all animals by default have the inate ability to speak.
Keep waving that brush around, Anderson. Maybe one of your broad strokes will actually strike true. But I highly doubt it.
16 July 2006, on 12:28 pm
Thanks Julie and Matt for pointing out the obvious to MIIISTER Anderson! It being Sunday, I hope he is in church right now praying for us.
16 July 2006, on 1:10 pm
Paul (outraged) Are you saying there is no difference betweeen eating broccoli and humans. You are refuted, I win. My christian theism is more tenable. You have no objective basis for morality, you ninny poopy eater.
Atheist: No, I said there is no “cosmic” difference. Your habit of redefing what other people say is annoying. Tell me, since you claim your god is the source of all morality, Are you saying your reason for not eating humans is because he forbids it?
Paul (if he really would answer questions without dodging) Of course. The bible is the source of all morality.
Atheist: Then Paul, if God were to lift the ban on eating humans, which would you prefer, a thigh or a leg?
and if you wouldn’t eat a human, then aren’t you basing this on something other than the supposed objective morality of god?
Haven’t you dug yourself into another corner?
Paul: Oops, gotta go.
Athiest: Would you like a garnish of broccoli with that thigh?
Hehe.
16 July 2006, on 4:24 pm
If this is the range of Miister Anderson’s ability to reason. Then I aam very happy that he has a book to tell him not to eat people. Because he apparently doesn’t get it. He says
As for the brocolli verses cannibalism issue, Barker fumbled the ball with the notion of a distinction being made between the right to eat one over the other. He maintains that “cosmically” it doesnt matter, but individually it does. Why? What ethical or moral right does one monkey owe another by not eating him? None. Do you complain when a lion eats a rabbit? Or when a rabbit eats a carrot? What about if a snake eats another snake? Is that morally wrong? Why does Barker, arbitarally of course, make a distinction between humans and tossed salad? He has some explaing to do. ANd his answers in the debate do not suffice
16 July 2006, on 4:26 pm
Mike,
you said:
Uhmmm… We know humans can talk. We’ve never seen a snake talk and it appears physically impossible. Therefore by induction and the principle of uniformity of nature we can be fairly certain that it didn’t happen.
You missed my point. The point was that it could be possible that other species might one day speak since this universe is random and operates on chance. That said, you beg the question on the induction issue altogether. Heres a tip….take an Intro to Philosophy course at your local University and read a little about David Hume and what he had to say about the problem you will have with chance and randomness as a axiom. Bonehead!
Mike also said:
Seriously? Well… we as humans evolved as a social species working in cooperation within a community / tribe / in-group. We tend to view it as wrong to eat other humans. Humans were selected to do what was in the best interest for their genes and that means cooperation within a society. It’s simple humanism. How is that not better than not
eating people because you fear you’ll burn in hell if you do? And what is wrong with morality based on minimizing harm? We as a society determine what is most fair in order to protect ourselves and our community. We generate social rules (laws) meant to discourage defect behavior. It’s like the ‘prisoners dilemma’… we all do better by cooperating. No god is needed for society to function well.
Seriously? Your offspring, providing you get goverment clearance to breed, wont make it very far up the evolutionary ladder withthis type of reasoning. While your at the local University sit in on an ethics class to help narrow down your approach to the issue. You are advocating at least 2 differnet ethical systems. Utilitarianism and Hobbs’ “Social Contract” approach. However in all fairness you did ask:
And what is wrong with morality based on minimizing harm?
The answer is…You dont have a standard to measure what universal harm is. For instance, suppose you are married and you have an abusive spouse. According to Barker’s ethic, you could kill said mate and be justified because you were reducing the amount of harm you had to endure. Thus, murder would be O.K. Of course now there seems to be a strange paradox in his system, because you just caused harm by killing said spouse all the while reducing harm for yourself. So you cant reduce harm in this instance without causing harm. Have fun in those classes and come back to see me when you grow a brain.
Julie, its your turn now.
you said:
Wrong. You’re making a generalization from the get-go, something which won’t win you many arguments. So what if Barker believes than humans are walking, talking man-apes?
First, this isnt a question its a statement. Second, if it were a question it would not make no sense for an evolutionist to argue with someone who is heading in opposite directions of evolution, and this must be the case since both men approach reality from different perspectives. The best thing would be to just sit back and let things evolve as they will.
you also said:
That just means that he believes that ONE species (based on observation and inductive reasoning) has the capability to speak. This does not mean that he must then believe that all animals by default have the inate ability to speak.
I did not say he must think that all species have the innate ability to talk. I said that he should not be surprised that a snake talked being that this is a chance universe where anything might happen. Furthermore, it might be the case given evolution, that only one snake in history spoke and that nature selected it for extinction for some random reason. Again, I dont see why it is so hard for atheist to have a problem with a snake that spoke. Just because you have never observed one? Thats nonsense. Thats true of any species until the first time they speak. Then the question is wether or not you are justified in the expectation that every other one you find can do the same. Thats Hume’s Problem of Induction sweetie. Now you and Mike sign up for the same Intro class and learn together how it is impossible for secular humanism to justify its preceding on the expectation that the future will look like the past. Class dismissed!
16 July 2006, on 4:38 pm
Anderson,
Use quotation marks- they were created to make reading less confusing. I see many places where you could benefit with this punctuatarial technology. Please make sure you read our brochure and consider investing in our other textual cohesiveness science programs.
16 July 2006, on 4:49 pm
Why is it that these pressups are always such assholes, and why do they always build up the strawman of the “chance universe in your worldview”?
These are rhetorical questions.
It gets so old. The only entertaining thing about it is the vehemence in which they declare themselves victors in every conversation. Kind of reminds me of a special olympics race where the last place guy jumps up and down in victory like Rocky Balboa.
16 July 2006, on 4:55 pm
Clue Mr. Anderson. There is no such “universal harm”. Harm is a concept..apply it as you will. When your definition causes society ‘harm’ defined as how we conceptualize it, then we will move to protect ourselves against you. If another society contains a definition of harm that threatens us, we will likely go to war over it.
It is laughable that you declare a “universal” concept of morality based on the bible when many biblical concepts of morality will get you locked up. It is further laughable that you defend such absurd concepts as talking snakes by attacking straw man concepts of other people’s worldviews. What a childish dodge.
Go ahead, Beat your slave with a rod….if you do I’m calling the police, or at least telling my talking snake to make the call for me.
16 July 2006, on 5:26 pm
It is laughable that you declare a “universal” concept of morality based on the bible when many biblical concepts of morality will get you locked up. It is further laughable that you defend such absurd concepts as talking snakes by attacking straw man concepts of other people’s worldviews. What a childish dodge.
Go ahead, Beat your slave with a rod….if you do I’m calling the police, or at least telling my talking snake to make the call for me.
Nice, Grefl.
MIIIISTER Anderson! said:
The answer is…You dont have a standard to measure what universal harm is. For instance, suppose you are married and you have an abusive spouse. According to Barker’s ethic, you could kill said mate and be justified because you were reducing the amount of harm you had to endure. Thus, murder would be O.K. Of course now there seems to be a strange paradox in his system, because you just caused harm by killing said spouse all the while reducing harm for yourself. So you cant reduce harm in this instance without causing harm. Have fun in those classes and come back to see me when you grow a brain.
Like Grefl said, there is no universal harm. There is, indeed, the social contract. If you need a book filled with barbarian morality to tell you that you should not kill your spouse in order to “reduce harm” to yourself, then common sense says you are a danger to society. Because that is magical thinking, and you likely have antisocial personality disorder, which psychiatrists have been unable to treat. You are so deluded, in fact, that with or without your magic book, you are a danger to society. So if you kill your wife in order to reduce harm to you (or even to her, since maybe you’re insane enough to think that you are saving her from Satan), the natural social order kicks in and we remove you from society and lock you up where Bubba can do a New Jersey piledriver on your ass every night. Can you tell I am enjoying imagining this happening to you?
Here’s a little bit of your universal good and harm. It’s interesting we see that explanation for murderous behavior all the time. When was the last time someone said they killed somebody because there is no gawd? Maybe that doesn’t happen because atheism/agnosticism doesn’t promote magical thinking.
Now, MIIIISTER Anderson, you may tell me that I “missed the point completely,” make another circular presup argument, and tell me to take a philosophy class (where was your philosophy class taken, Patrick Henry College?).
16 July 2006, on 7:02 pm
Again, I dont see why it is so hard for atheist to have a problem with a snake that spoke. Just because you have never observed one? Thats nonsense.
Newsflash, Anderson: The atheist’s credo is “There’s no evidence for it, therefore I don’t believe in it.” It applies to talking snakes as much as it does to ressurecting the dead and invisible, all-powerful dieties.
I wonder if by Mr. Anderson’s philosophy, evolutionists must also allow for a talking, burning bush?
Thats Hume’s Problem of Induction sweetie.
I’m not your sweetie.
Now you and Mike sign up for the same Intro class and learn together how it is impossible for secular humanism to justify its preceding on the expectation that the future will look like the past. Class dismissed!
I’ve taken an Into To Philosophy course. It reminded me of why I’m a pre-vet major, and not a liberal arts major. A bunch of doublespeak, meaningless redefining of terms, and circular arguments. I can do without the headache, thanks.
16 July 2006, on 10:01 pm
http//triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/reflections-on-my-debate-with-dan.html
16 July 2006, on 10:18 pm
Hey Paul, If God lifts the ban on cannabilsm, would you prefer a leg or a thigh?
16 July 2006, on 10:24 pm
Hey Gregfl,
The brain, that way, accoding to Barker, I’d be eating universals. I’ve always wanted to eat broccoliness.
16 July 2006, on 10:29 pm
Good answer. We will all be sure to lock our doors tonight.
16 July 2006, on 10:32 pm
Paularino!
(Flashing gang signs)
Where ya been? It’s been months since you commented! Where did you move to? Is it a nicer neighborhood?
16 July 2006, on 10:35 pm
Paul,
By the way- don’t url dump on our comments. That’s our perogative.
16 July 2006, on 10:45 pm
Greg,
Yes, lock your doors. I might start with your brain if the ban is lifted tonight. I’m on a diet and so I need to start light.
Marcus,
Steve called me an ex-gangbanger, I never applied that term to myself. Thanks for letting me know about url dumping, I’ll be sure to honor your request. Please forgive me for pointing out where your readers could get an opposite take on the debate, I was under the assumption that you folks were free thinkers here. Won’t let it happen again, that’s to be sure.
16 July 2006, on 11:00 pm
Paulio,
(flashing gang signs)
“Steve called me an ex-gangbanger, I never applied that term to myself.”
Whut up wit dat? Why you gotta be dissin’ you own crew, dog?
“Please forgive me for pointing out where your readers could get an opposite take on the debate, I was under the assumption that you folks were free thinkers here. Won’t let it happen again, that’s to be sure.”
Don’t worry about it; I repaired your link so you’re in the clear.
And don’t mess with me- I found an amateur porno with you in it. I’d hate to have to unleash it on YouTube or GoogleVideo.
16 July 2006, on 11:58 pm
And don’t mess with me- I found an amateur porno with you in it. I’d hate to have to unleash it on YouTube or GoogleVideo.
Please, please no.
17 July 2006, on 12:46 am
On his site, Manata talks about the snake stupidity:
1. I believe the biblical account. If true, this refutes the inductive generalization. Therefore, one must undermine the biblical account *before* one claims it can’t be correct.
Bullshit. Common sense tells me the biblical account has no basis in reality. Evolution refutes Adam and Eve, zoology refutes talking snakes.
2. To just dismiss the biblical account is called begging the question.
You people love to twist this fallacy. Begging the question defined:
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”
So you are the ones begging the question. You are stating “The bible is true. The evidence for this claim is that the bible is true.”
3. Induction does not tell us what is impossible.
No, but it does a good job of telling us where to place our bets, and since no record of a talking snake exists anywhere in the whole of human knowledge, saying it’s impossible is a pretty safe bet.
4. To put Barker’s say-so and the Bible’s (as God’s word) say-so on the *same level* begs the question. It does not follow that because I don’t believe Barker I must also not believe the Bible, especially given my other beliefs.
There you go with begging the question again. Barker is not saying his word should be put on the same level as your delusions. He is saying that your delusions have no basis in objective science or current human knowledge.
5. How am I irrational for believing this story in the Bible? Given my worldview I believe that this is God’s word and He does not lie. Taking something on the authority of someone who never lies is not irrational. Thus the argument assumes that God is not the ultimate authority and the Bible is not His word, which begs the question against my worldview.
You just used beg the question again. You people speak in circles. Your worldview has no basis in fact. That’s the summation of the argument. Because you say you believe a chair is actually a table does not make it so, and it is not up to anyone to disprove your “worldview” on the matter. The burden is upon you to prove that chairs are in fact tables.
6. Even if I did accept a talking cat, how’s that a problem for my worldview? I see how it fails to prove me irrational. Even an evolutionist should have no problem admitting that through mutations we can get talking cats.
Are you saying now that evolution is the explanation for your talking snake? That they could talk at one time and they evolved into non-talking snakes? Interesting that you should use evolution, rather than, say, MAGIC to explain your argument. Because you know and I know that you believe it was magic. And magical thinking is a sign of psychosis.
7. Parrots talk.
No they don’t. They mimic. Read a science book.
Let’s fast forward a bit, this is getting tedious.
ii. Satan used the snake, Barker has only sampled “non-possessed” snakes.
Who is Satan? Can you make an introduction, please? Can you supply irrefutable evidence besides your “worldview” (in other words, what goes on in your head) that this Satan individual exists?
And can you please provide a sampling of possessed snakes so we can make a serious inquiry into the matter?
Why do you waste so much of your energy on the absurd, Paul? Somewhere in there is a good brain that could be doing good things, rather than spreading irrationality. Maybe it’s because that in order to have a really good brain, you first have to have a good heart.
17 July 2006, on 12:52 am
PS: I think what Marcus objected to was you simply stopping in and dropping a link on our comments board with no effort made to actually write something. That can be considered spam. I’ve never just walked into a bulletin board and dropped a link. Even Digg requires that you explain what you are linking to.
17 July 2006, on 12:57 am
God is, in fact, King Buzzo, not the boogieman of the bible, Paul, and not Eric Clapton either.
17 July 2006, on 9:17 am
Paul, this exchange has convinced me you aren’t well. I think Gene may have take you to your next debate in one of those Anthony Hopkins-silence of the lambs masks-whilst pushing you along in a straight jacket tied to a hand truck. This way you can’t take a bite out of your opponent if you get the message from god that its now okay to eat people.
17 July 2006, on 9:21 am
Gregfl,
What, I can’t eat broccoli anymore!
17 July 2006, on 10:26 am
Sure you can paul, sure you can..
(injects tranquilizer in ass).
17 July 2006, on 11:11 am
Gregfl,
Oh, so I guess Gene *does not* need to put Hannibal’s mask on me? Why’d you say he did? Odd.
17 July 2006, on 6:55 pm
Sean,
you said: Are you saying now that evolution is the explanation for your talking snake? That they could talk at one time and they evolved into non-talking snakes? Interesting that you should use evolution, rather than, say, MAGIC to explain your argument. Because you know and I know that you believe it was magic. And magical thinking is a sign of psychosis.
You are such an idiot. You have to understand by now. The POINT is that you should not have a problem with a “talking snake claim!” It is probable that a snake talked given you worldview as well as a Christian theistic worldview. Your staring to remind me of the Biblical account of the talking ASS!
17 July 2006, on 7:20 pm
Sean,
You also said?
7. Parrots talk.
No they don’t. They mimic. Read a science book.
So parrots dont talk they mimic? What is the differance “vocally” between what a parrot does, and what a human does? I think you need to rethink this. If uttering a word intelligibly is talking, than a parrot is talking. If he is mimicing, than you are mimicing as well, because there is no differance vocally, or in the sound waves collected by an ear that says other wise. Now you may argue that a parrot cant formulate a language of his own, but then again neither did you. You simply “mimiced what your “special education teacher” taught you to say. Ass!
17 July 2006, on 7:34 pm
Now you may argue that a parrot cant formulate a language of his own, but then again neither did you. You simply “mimiced what your “special education teacher” taught you to say.
You just dismantled your own argument. You do that a lot.
Parrots don’t talk. You make a claim that your magic snake could have spoken because parrots speak, too. No they don’t, they mimic. How does this not get through? If your snake was comparable to a parrot, all it would be able to do is parrot back what was said to it. That is not conversing, capiche?
I’m done with you. Go back to the short bus.
17 July 2006, on 8:01 pm
Dear Mr. Anderson,
“So parrots dont talk they mimic? What is the differance “vocally” between what a parrot does, and what a human does? I think you need to rethink this. If uttering a word intelligibly is talking, than a parrot is talking. If he is mimicing, than you are mimicing as well, because there is no differance vocally, or in the sound waves collected by an ear that says other wise.”
Here’s your answer, Hydrocephalic one. The difference is in semantics- a tactic you and your fundie ilk are wont to descend to when the crux of the matter is beyond your argumentative skills. Language is more than just the simple act of speaking a set of agreed upon words. Equally important is the meaning contained within the words chosen by their speaker. Or, would you also say that the machine playing back your voice messages is also “speaking” to you? Both the parrot and the answering machine merely play back- sometimes arbitrarily, what was “spoken” to them without investing those words with meaning of their own.
A snake doesn’t now nor has it ever had the most basic of physical tools that might allow it to speak. This can be ascertained by the fossil record. Therefore, for a snake to have spoken in your biblical scenario, supernatural forces would have had to act upon it’s body to make it capable of doing so. A miracle, if you will. This we reject out of hand because it fails to even approach the lowest of evidentiary thresholds to beg belief. Quite simply, and it follows for all disagreements between the rational and the irrational, the supernatural claim is the one which must be proven, not the case aginst it.
18 July 2006, on 12:55 pm
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!!
18 July 2006, on 5:00 pm
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.
18 July 2006, on 5:06 pm
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!
18 July 2006, on 5:16 pm
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.
Or
“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
18 July 2006, on 5:20 pm
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!”
18 July 2006, on 8:02 pm
Its funny you mention Derrida. He is the reason I put Philosophy on hold.
21 July 2006, on 1:37 am
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.
21 July 2006, on 2:18 am
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.