Jump to content
LogicalFallacy

Side Gallary: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

     LuthAMF and I have become best friends so you should not ban him.

 

         mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, has Luth-ifer fallen from heaven?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has grown tiresome. I'm not much for banning people, but he's basically begging for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mwc said:

     LuthAMF and I have become best friends so you should not ban him.

 

         mwc

 

 

Do you need help? Should I call a therapist? Maybe the psychiatric ward? I'm concerned about you.

 

Best

LF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Do you need help? Should I call a therapist? Maybe the psychiatric ward? I'm concerned about you.

 

     Don't worry.  You're still my best imaginary friend.  :)

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Ok y'all this has been fun. 

Hee hee hee

 

This has devolved into mindless trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

And let's not forget Josh's mature and rational attempt to engage poster LuthAMF in the parallel "informal debate" thread, from which we were given only more of poster LuthAMF's hubris, discordance and bleating. 

 

Allowing him to continue to expose his empty suit, with attendant vacuous vitriol, focused hate and irrational nonsense is not going to help members or lurkers any further, and is only going to foster a deepening of his unfortunate malady.  For his own good, he should simply go away.

 

Yes, ban him.

 

I have to agree with the above. The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything. The gigs up, basically. 5 pages of opportunity to come in strong with hard evidence should have left plenty of opportunity to do so. But no hard evidence was provided. Newbies, lurker's and whoever else can read through and contemplate the whole thing. If some new apologist comes forward and wants to continue on where Luth has failed, then I will hear them out unless they too devolve to mindless trolling and trying to aggravate members. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I have to agree with the above. The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything. The gigs up, basically. 5 pages of opportunity to come in strong with hard evidence should have left plenty of opportunity to do so. But no hard evidence was provided. Newbies, lurker's and whoever else can read through and contemplate the whole thing. If some new apologist comes forward and wants to continue on where Luth has failed, then I will hear them out unless they too devolve to mindless trolling and trying to aggravate members. 

Josh I sent you a pm. You need to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Josh I sent you a pm. You need to read it.

 

Reading now. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything.

 

I'm not arguing for a ban, but I certainly agree with the above. Presuppositionalism is asinine. Anyone can presuppose anything, be it Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, Scientology, astrology, etc. Presupposing something to be true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and trashing everything else for not conforming to the presupposed assumption is NOT a path to truth. It's simply idiotic on every level.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I'm not arguing for a ban, but I certainly agree with the above. Presuppositionalism is asinine. Anyone can presuppose anything, be it Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, Scientology, astrology, etc. Presupposing something to be true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and trashing everything else for not conforming to the presupposed assumption is NOT a path to truth. It's simply idiotic on every level.

 

Citsonga, folks, Luth is willing to back off from the issues going on in the side gallery and elsewhere which have become disruptive to a lot of members here. He's still interested in proceeding with the informal debate. 

 

But having said that, I think that in order to continue with the debate another direction may need introduced due to the inherent problems with using a presupposition oriented position. And I'm not sure how Luth will choose to try and rectify the problem. But I'm open to allowing him to continue trying. Especially because he's asked that he be allowed to continue and isn't giving up or throwing in the towel. So perhaps this isn't quite over yet. 

 

If we hit another brick wall, though, we'll be looking at the same problem again in new clothing. For the sake of lurkers who might think we're unfair if we shut him down prematurely, I think we ought to let him continue for now. If we do exhaust every position he can possibly take in this same way, the way of dead ends, what else can we do at that point? Luth or us? At that point, if we get there, fair is fair and the game may reach a complete dead end......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck in going up against a presup. I've heard Matt Dillahunty talk about debating presup's and he says you just get No where. The idea of a debate is that good argument and evidence should change your mind. But if your position is presuppositionalist then evidence and argument is kinda moot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 And I will go further and encourage others to make a careful consideration of the existing facts before taking any type of presuppositionalist at their word. 

 

A presuppositional Buddhist or Hindu. 

 

A presuppositional New Age cult. 

 

A presuppositional Christian. 

 

A presuppositional Occultist, etc., etc.

 

......

 

Presupposing that my favorite system of thought is the ONE TRUE WAY to be rational, is absurd. I think it's a good idea to draw from different sources of wisdom and knowledge to get through life. And often times to make good decisions in life requires an emotional component. 

 

Skimming this article: It's probably mostly illogical --> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-divided-mind/201207/logic-and-emotion

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Matt did not fare well in his debate with Sye. 

 

You mean the debate where he opened up by saying "Why does God exist? Because its true that God exists" then playing short clips of Matt and responding to them instead of laying out his position proper? 

 

Great. Why does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? Because it's true that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Take that unbelievers! 

 

Where Sye says "In my view of reality God exists, and I really really believe that my view of reality is the right view". So what? If you cannot demonstrate it then it's not part of reality that we share. There is just so much wrong with Sye's position. It's only going to convince the converted, or the true believer. 

 

You remember the big hooha a few pages back about you strawmanning Josh? Well Sye strawmans Matt in the debate in order to attack the weak strawman he creates. He takes short clips out of context in order to attack a line from Matt such as "I don't care if this is not the ultimate reality". He then cuts another clip in from years prior of Matt saying "I really really don't care" No context as to what Matt wasn't caring about, only using the clip to reinforce the strawman he was building.

 

I respect some Christian debaters - but not Sye. He's a dishonest, arrogant, condescending 'debater'.

 

I love Matt's opening line "Didn't I just get 10 minutes?" So true. You have to have lost all critical thinking capacity to have your mind changed by Sye. His argument is devoid of any substance. 

 

One commented posted this in the comments section of the debate video: "You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate." Which of course was the point of my above post. If your entire debate argument comes down to saying "How do you know that" then you don't have an argument, you are just a moron.

 

Edit: Listen to the opening 2 minutes of Syes rebuttal. It is seriously so full of shit I cannot adequately express how shitty it is.

 

"All of you know God exists" "I don't present evidence to you because you are not the Judge, God is the judge"

 

For fucks sake. You cannot debate with someone like this. He is totally full of shit. I know this. How do I know this? Because I know, that I don't know that God exists.

 

Syes claim is so outstandingly arrogant and moronic I don't see how anyone would ever be convinced by it.

 

By the way Luth you know no God's exist. You just won't admit it because you can't handle the idea of having to make your own moral decisions. 

 

See how that sounds? Observant people will recognise this as the reverse of the claim that atheists don't want to believe God because they want to sin. 

 

Such drivel is of course wrong and pointless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course no presupposition apologist (PA) can ever get anywhere in a debate. How could they? All evidence must conform to their presupposition. Taking an objective look at Genesis 1 doesn't seem possible. And what we find is that a PA has one hell of a time trying to look at it objectively. How could they? They've already presupposed that it's true prior to confirming with credible evidence. To try and tell a PA that the bible doesn't prove the claims made within the bible, looks to fall on deaf ears. 

 

'What do you mean the bible doesn't prove it's own claims? That's the very heart and foundation of presupposition? What are you, dense? The proof of the bible is everywhere written on the pages of the bible!'

 

The Koran doesn't bloody well prove the claims of the Koran, Luth. And that's identical to taking up a similar position about the bible. If the claims are not confirmed outside of the bible, then claims remain unconfirmed.

 

That's why archaeology had to part ways with biblical, special pleading oriented tactics of the past. Many earlier generation archaeologist's of the 19th century and beyond took off claiming that sites were confirming the bible when the opposite was true. Joshua's conquest of Canaan is a good example. Instead of one sweeping conquest it turns out that many of these cities were destroyed for various reasons ranging over a some 1,000 year spread of time - not one sweeping conquest by any historical Joshua as described in the bible, nor fitting the timelines. That's just one very obvious example of many, many other similar situations where the bible has been demonstrably wrong, via the damming evidence that does exist contrary to the admission of PA's and others. 

 

Full documentary for the interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfd4kFPWjzU

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.