7 comments

1. 

   Comment by Warren on July 12, 2005 at 10:05 am

   I like everything you had to say — you made it pretty clear that you know what you’re talking about, and resent being spoken down to.

   I DO have a problem with the word “irregardless” that you used in your last post, but that seems to be more of a problem with the changing English language than with anything you said. 😉

2. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 12, 2005 at 3:56 pm

   I left it in there on purpose, to see who would concentrate on that, and not the glaring grammatical/spelling errors in the original.

   Like clockwork, they did. Didn’t surprise me – that’s exactly what they did. Along with more condescension, of course. That didn’t surprise me at all.

   Neither that forum, nor it’s host, is known for it’s high debate standards. So, really – it shouldn’t surprise anyone.

3. 

   Comment by Hookflash on July 12, 2005 at 4:54 pm

   Razorskiss: Sorry things didn’t work out there. I was really hoping for an intelligent debate (I think it would’ve been fine once it was moved into the One-on-One forum). To be honest, I’m open to the possibility of the existence of some sort of God, even though I think specific God’s can be disproven by the exposure of internal inconsistencies. I actually agree with much of what you said in your initial response.

   I agree than many of the posters at the IG forums are a tad bit dogmatic in their capital “A” Atheism, but you have to realize these people have been burned by religion. Most of them are former Christians who feel like they’ve had decades of their lives stolen by a myth. Having said that, there are also some highly intelligent, eloquent individuals over there (todangst, Philosophos, and J_Lazarus, to name a few) who could’ve provided you with a decent challenge.

4. 

   Comment by Catez on July 14, 2005 at 9:48 am

   Hi RK,
   I think a short message declining the invitiation, on the basis that you believe God can neither be proved or disproved, probably would have been enough. It is difficult trying to debate several people at once anyway, and if I was doing that I’d expect some sort of moderation that kept it on track. That whole discussion went off track pretty fast.
   As Hookflash mentions, a one-on-one is more ideal. Interestingly, Hookflash also acknowledges the emotional content of the debate, which was evident, i.e. the ex-Christians. So no, not really a rational debate – too much emotional grist for the mill.
   I think trying to dismantle the actual basis for holding the debate may have taken you a bit off course – it became a debate about the debate, if you see what I mean. So my view is – just decline briefly or arrange the parameters beforehand, e.g. one-on-one, maybe moderated if more than one with the understanding it stays on the one originaltopic.

5. 

   Comment by Catez on July 14, 2005 at 8:29 pm

   Have you changed this post since you first put it up?

6. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 14, 2005 at 10:57 pm

   The content above the

   ---

   is all I’ve changed, and it was later that evening, about 3-4 hours later.

   That’s it, afaik.

7. 

   Comment by Splashman on July 16, 2005 at 5:22 am

   Hi RK. I’m just curious — and this is an honest question — was the response to your first post at ID about as you expected? Or what did you expect?

   Personally, I wouldn’t have posted at all if I didn’t intend to accept the challenge. The responses were predictable, and I mean that literally, and not as an insult to anyone. There are several very sharp cookies lurking there amongst the multitudes of reactionaries, as Hook mentioned. I’m in your camp, but it seems to me your post was jus’ askin’ fer it.

   Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative; I won’t be fisking your response. I’m just curious about your rationale for posting.

The comments are closed.