jasonlong Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 This exchange just happened to cross my mind today: Dan Barker v Jason Gastrich (edited for brevity) JASON: And now that's why God destroyed the Earth with the flood, because they had all this demonic offspring. And when God is saying in the Old Testament, destroy this whole entire people, you have to understand that these people were contaminated. That's why they said that Noah's line was pure. Noah had not intermingled with these demons. DAN: Jason, are you telling me this with a straight face? I mean do you really sincerely believe this stuff about the angels coming down and having sex with human beings? I mean that's part of the Bible that is legendary and mythical. You don't really believed that happened, do you? JASON: Well it's compounded again in Jude, and yes, absolutely . . . DAN: You do. You actually believe that some angelic creatures came down from Heaven and . . .? I mean, this is the twenty-first century, Jason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Did that particular debate take place in public? You know, with a bunch of people around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 it was in Jason Gastrich's interview with Dan Barker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 it was in Jason Gastrich's interview with Dan Barker. Oh you've got to be kidding me! Really? Okay, let me get a little more detailed here. Did-the-debate-take-place-in-a-public-setting-with-lots-of-people-around-? My next question is, if so, how did they react? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 My most fond rememberance is when I cornered Jason Gastrich (on an IIDB debate) for being unable to define his own sentence "God is perfect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Did-the-debate-take-place-in-a-public-setting-with-lots-of-people-around-? My next question is, if so, how did they react? No, it was a phone interview. But just about everyone I've played it for has reacted with peals and peals of laughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Hate to sound narcissistic, but this is my fav... PAUL MANATA: So, there are differing version, indeed, some elimenative materialists (cf. Churchland) deny things like: truth, reason, etc., as "folk psychology." MRSPOOKY: You are BLATANTLY wrong there. Eliminative materialists argue that CONSCIOUSNESS is "folk psychology," NOT reason. This is a huge error that no serious student of epistemology/philosophy of mind would make. PAUL MANATA: You guys are seriously silly. Fine you get your way, I'm done here. if you guys want to act like idiots then have fun. Mr. Spooky, you really are dumb, aren't you? Eliminativists deny more than 'consciousness' you fool. They deny: truth, belief, intentionality and many other things. Try and construct "reason" without the above, you teenage philosopher. ... Look online at thousands of definitions of "reason" and see that: truth, belief, opinion, etc are used. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...on+&btnG=Search (emphasis added: MrSpooky) MRSPOOKY: Oh REALLY??? And this is relevant how? If you used the word "reason" with the intent of mulling around with the multiple vague definitions why the HELL do YOU say: "I know how I use the term. 'Rationality' is not un-equivocal, AUB. To pretend that it is shows, in fact, that you are not up to date with the state of affairs. Then there are moral issues on how we should use our reason. Or epistemic issues such as, is reason autonomous and ultimate. So, there are differing version, indeed, some elimenative materialists (cf. Churchland) deny things like: truth, reason, etc., as "folk psychology." Reason is a rational faculty whereby we can know truths about the world, it is a gift of God and a tool, thus it is not autonomous or ultimate. So, I'm sure you have a definition, but let's not pretend to be neutral about it." ~Paul's First Post, First Paragraph (emphasis added: MrSpooky) Doesn't sound like the "thousands of definitions of reason" such as "truth, belief, opinion, etc" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 I have a number of favorite debate moments; most of which involve Jason Gastrich. You guys aught to know the first one. It's from the infamous Jason Gastrich interview on Live with the Infidel Guy. It's really a joke in my head. Like, I'll ask God a question, and he'll say the wrong answer. And I'll be like, "Are you serious?". And he's like, "No... no... I'm just kidding", and that's the joke I hear.Then there's the Doug Krueger debates. I like the one where Krueger corners him on a verse about the effecacy of prayer, and Jason accuses him to not understanding the verse and refuses to talk about it anymore. And then there was the Gastrich/Barker interview... Jason Gastrich: I'm looking at it right now. It describes the battle here. Dan Barker: (reading) I am against you, thus says the Lord God. I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws... Jason Gastrich: It's referring how Magog, or Russia, will be drawn into this battle. Dan Barker: They will put hooks in their jaws, they will lead you out with the army. The horses? They're going to have horses? Jason Gastrich: wh...uhh... Dan Barker: Is Russia going to attack with horses and horsemen, clothed in full armor, with shields and bucklers and swords? Is that going to come to pass? Jason Gastrich: You know what, you had Old Testament writers hundreds of years ago writing things. Dan Barker: (chuckles) Well, don't you see my point? Jason Gastrich: The same thing with Revelation. You have human beings who have never seen or heard a helicopter or a tank or any of these things trying to describe these things. And then Jason goes on and shows us that, like our president, he's incapable of saying the word "nuclear". Then there was the entire Franc Tremblay/Arthur Daniels "debate", in which all Arthur Daniels did was to avoid most of Franc's argument, accuse Franc of making a strawman (which, ironically, was based on a strawman of what Franc said), and just quotemined to death. And finally, there was the "debate" between Ron Barrier and Ray Comfort, which was even more pathetic than Jason's alleged debate with Dan Barker. Ray Comfort did not once attempt to debate Ron Barrier at all. The most he did was pull a quote out of Barrier's book. It was the most pathetic debate ever, and it included such beaten-to-death groaners as "evolution is a religion" and "atheists are afraid facts that are unchanging". But it was Ron Barrier's treatment of Mr. Comfort's sorry performance is what made it a comedy classic. A must-listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 You forgot the best part of my debate with Daniels, when he said that airplanes break the law of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Hahahaha! Oh yeah... See, it's been a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Now... where would I be able to get a copy of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Normally, I'd say Infidel Guy, but you have to be a Gold Member. Luckily our friend Derek Sansone has been kind enough to hook us up with a copy... http://www.dereksansone.com/page2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortunehooks Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 You forgot the best part of my debate with Daniels, when he said that airplanes break the law of gravity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> interesting, i didn't have any prior knowledge of that being the scientific explanation for those things. airplanes breaking the law of gravity, xtian debaters say some of the zanest things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Normally, I'd say Infidel Guy, but you have to be a Gold Member. Luckily our friend Derek Sansone has been kind enough to hook us up with a copy... http://www.dereksansone.com/page2.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cool... thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 interesting, i didn't have any prior knowledge of that being the scientific explanation for those things. airplanes breaking the law of gravity, xtian debaters say some of the zanest things. I guess they don't need wings then. We can just ignore aerodynamics. Gravity doesn't apply to airplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Good grief... he just loved them quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 The funniest part was when my friend Ed and I looked for those quotes, and they all turned out to be misattributed or misquoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 ah, quote-mining....it's just great. Francois....I've never actually listened to or read any of your debates with theists....care to share a few links? I've only heard you on IG once, talking about strong atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Well, someone posted the link to Sansone's site that has my debate with Daniels. You can read my written debates on this page... well, you should be able to see it on my objectivethought.com site, but it's down. Geesh. When it comes back up, just go in the Articles-Debates section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 yea, I bookmarked sansones site, so I'm gonna be listening to Derek debate Cook, and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 yea, I bookmarked sansones site, so I'm gonna be listening to Derek debate Cook, and all that. Also see my wife's Hellbound Alleee show - http://www.hellboundalleee.com/ - and listen to the "GOD ON TRIAL" show. We both went against Matt Slick on morality. We didn't get to talk about the issues we wanted to raise (such as the Holocaust, the Flood, etc), but we'll have him on again another time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 your wife is hellbound alleee? Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Oh yes. She's just as hardline as I am, but she's more restrained about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts