BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[webby]

Originally posted by Evangelion
I am wondering if there's any point in phoning a radio station for the dubious pleasure of being verbally abused (and screamed at) by the talkshow host.

Does Enyart realise that rabid ad hominems and shouting competitions are not actually permitted in a formal debate?

Apparently you haven't listened to his show. Bob is generally very gracious.

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Zak is speaking for himself, remember. He can still claim that such-and-such is wrong from his perspective, even if others disagree.

Evangelion, with all due respect keep in mind that Zakath is arguing from the perspective that right and wrong are relative to the individual, society or government. Therefore making the claim that something is wrong from his "perspective" holds no more weight than I making the claim that blue is better than red.

 

[Evangelion]

Webmaster -

Apparently you haven't listened to his show.

I was invited by PaulDeYonge (and others) to listen to a show in which Bob verbally abused a caller for about 10 minutes. They seemed to think that this was a good thing.

I listened to the show, and I was not impressed.

Bob is generally very gracious.

I am prepared to accept that, generally speaking, he is very generous. What concerns me is the fact that he is not always very generous.

 

[Valmoon]

Vitamin J.

I agree with you. But that doesnt really concern this debate.

 

[Evangelion]

Vitamin J -

Evangelion, with all due respect keep in mind that Zakath is arguing from the perspective that right and wrong are relative to the individual, society or government.

Yes, I realise this.

Therefore making the claim that something is wrong from his "perspective" holds no more weight than I making the claim that blue is better than red.

Yes, I know. I wasn't endorsing the relativist position.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Evangelion
I am wondering if there's any point in phoning a radio station for the dubious pleasure of being verbally abused (and screamed at) by the talkshow host.

Does Enyart realise that rabid ad hominems and shouting competitions are not actually permitted in a formal debate?

That's weird. I've called in a couple times and he's been one of the nicest people I've ever talked to. Even if I had a question that disagreed with him.

 

[Goose]

Re: Standing challange

Re: Standing challange

Originally posted by Lion
Hey I just got off the phone with Bob Enyart and he loved the idea of this fighting... er... wrestling... er... boxing... er... grappling... er... discussion page and made a standing challange of his own.

He told me he would take on any or all combatants, live (no two minute correction time), on his show (knowing that we on Theologyonline have the most skilled debaters in the world... even if some of them are moronic God haters or idgits that claim that God is an unliving, unmoving, rock).

Just give him a call at 1-800-8Enyart (1-800-836-9278) between 9 and 10 pm ET. (and wait for the slaughter to begin.)

Although I will warn you... getting into a debate with the big "E" is kind of like getting your shoe lace caught in a gear. At first it seems like no big deal but by the time you realize just what is happening to you, it's too late... and the whole time the horrible grinding of your bones is reaching your ears, you just keep thinking you can't belive what is happening to you.

Do you tell bed-time stories like that too? LOL :up:

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Webmaster -



I was invited by PaulDeYonge (and others) to listen to a show in which Bob verbally abused a caller for about 10 minutes. They seemed to think that this was a good thing.

I listened to the show, and I was not impressed.



I am prepared to accept that, generally speaking, he is very generous. What concerns me is the fact that he is not always very generous.

You can't always be generous. I wouldn't want to be "generous" to some homo hitting on me. Agreed?

 

[Goose]

Knight with a TKO

Knight with a TKO

I didn't even have to hand him a chair...

 

[Valmoon]

And he showed the existence of absolutes where? Remember the topic.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Valmoon
And he showed the existence of absolutes where? Remember the topic.

In the very fact that Zakath is unknowingly asserting absolutes, by disagreeing with Knight. Relativism is self defeating.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
In the very fact that Zakath is unknowingly asserting absolutes, by disagreeing with Knight. Relativism is self defeating.

Goose, the issue is to prove that absolutes exist. I am waiting for Knight to do so.

If he is not able to do so, he loses.

 

[Goose]

If what is true for Knight is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

If Zakath would say no, then what is true for Knight is not true and relativism is false. If you Zakath says yes, then relativism is false.

Besides, they are talking about moral absolutes, which is so very different, right?

 

[Valmoon]

Would you care to answer the questions in english Goose? Seriously though please elaborate and clarify what you are saying. I have seen NO evidence put forth by Knight showing any moral absolutes exist.

If you have seen the evidence Goose then please show me exactly what was said that you think proves moral absolutes (even just one) exist. I could just as easily assert that Knight has proved salami is better than bologna. Can you back up your assertion or is the sound of your own hand clapping causing you to not "hear" what is being said?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
If what is true for Knight is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

A relativist would say "yes, for Knight".

If Zakath would say no, then what is true for Knight is not true and relativism is false.

No, goose. It's not that simple. You are making the assumptionn that what Zakath said is true.

How would you know???

If you Zakath says yes, then relativism is false.

Again, you are assuming that Zakath is stating a truth.

Besides, they are talking about moral absolutes, which is so very different, right?

But, as Valmoon has so graciously pointed out, neither you or Knight has yet to demonstrate or name a single moral absolute or to prove its existence...

We're all waiting...

 

[Goose]

Valmoon,

The question you raised:

And he showed the existence of absolutes where? Remember the topic

That was about absolutes. Not absolute morality. All, I did was just refute relativism. Morality isn't a physical existence, so you have to prove or disprove it logically.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
... All, I did was just refute relativism...

Isn't it amazing that a 22 year old kid has, in a few sentences, managed to do what theologians have been unable to do for the last 150 years...

Maybe after dinner, he'll take a couple of minutes to solve the "Problem of Evil" dilemma.

Must be that "mind of Christ" stuff again...

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath


A relativist would say "yes, for Knight".

That's not a real answer to a logical statement. It just sounds like one. Logical statements are either yes or no. Off or on. 1 or 0... you get the point. No exceptions. Please answer YES or NO.

No, goose. It's not that simple. You are making the assumptionn that what Zakath said is true.

Then if it's not true, then it's not true. I win. I don't have to know. logic will continue to to refute your answer for all eternity.

How would you know???

I don't need to know. Logic does. Logic doesn't assume. Don't mistake logic for human error or interpretation. Logic is something that exists whether I exist or not. My existance is exclusive to logic.

I suppose you're going to say that logic doesn't exist now either.

Again, you are assuming that Zakath is stating a truth.

I'm not assuming anything. It's a logical statement, therefore, there's no knowledge to deal with. It's all logical, externally, pure of any human error.

Relativism is self-refuting. Whatever answer you answer with, you end up being wrong.

 

[Zakath]

Let's try this again goose. We'll just change a few nouns...

• If what is true for Zakath is that goose's religion is false, then is it true that goose's religion is false?
  
  If goose would say no, then what is true for Zakath is not true and goose's religion is false. If goose says yes, then goose's religion is false.

It would appear that your own logic proves your religious belief to be false, goose.

Does the logic flow make as much sense that way??

Perhaps you'd like to try again...

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by webmaster
No actually he didn't.

The process is automated - end of story.

For all intents and purposes, he did. All one has to do is compare the times on the screen. They clearly mark two minutes between the post and the revision. As he pointed out, TOL does not show the seconds, so he had no way of knowing if he was exactly within the two minutes or not. We are talking about a matter of seconds beyond the allowed time. You're simply being petty.