Mini-Debate Thread?
Offline I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, and I am not sure if anyone will volunteer, but here goes: Is anyone willing to go into a small mini debate with me on the subject of what it all means? Essentially, the mini debate structure would go like this:
I'd go first with my main argument and sub arguments in one post. A brief, 300-500 word post should be sufficient. Then my opponent would offer a 300-500 word rebuttal comprising his main argument ect. Then the thread is opened for voting, and the first person to get--say...30 votes wins the debate? And a moderator could set up the poll, seeing as how I don't know who I'd be going up against?
The resolution is kind of vague, but that's cause I'm having a hard time wording it in a way that I find acceptable. Suggestions would be nice; here's a working revision:
Regarding what it all means; The solution is a journey into immediacy
Since this is my debate, I will be arguing in the affirmative.(Also It would help me explain what I mean by "Journey into immediacy"
Here is my Opening Argument. Remember, you only get one rebuttal, ok? AND PLEASE! THIS IS JUST FOR REVIEW PURPOSES! WE WILL ONLY BE CHOOSING THE CHALLENGER IN THIS THREAD! Thanks. 
Affirmative: Regarding what it all means; The solution is a journey into immediacy.
I think that we, meaning myself, my opponent, and all the members of this forum can agree that all human beings feel a certain intellectual dishonesty overtake them by the time they turn to religion. After all, to rely on faith is essentially to admit to oneself that one's questions can not be answered by emperical science.
It is one thing to see that the goat herders in babylonian times didn't have modern scientific methods or particle accelerators to help them understand and answer their questions more effectively; in essence, to scratch their intellectual itch. They turned to faith to assuage them. We, however, we have science, which allows us to do more than the go herders could: WE CAN scratch that itch. Unfortunately, as I am going to suggest, that itch seems to be growing harder and harder to satsify.
Something seems wrong here. The scientific journey opens up a vasty cauldron of mysteries, but the journey is never ending. Some see that as a good thing, and yet this was not what man signed up for. Really, it's one thing to go through the motions and just calculate forever, but does it really make sense to contemplate a universe built on endless mysteries? *gasp* You mean, a universe that really, in all of time, no matter how dilligently we look, we will never find any definitive answers? That is right, a universe that we would have to accept on--wait for it--faith. There is that word again. Risen ascendant from the ashes. God has the last laugh!(in some strange metaphorical, antiseptic sense, I would suppose)
What could be worse? Well, how about actually finding that ultimate answer? You mean *gasp* actually understanding the universe and then suddenly realising that now we have nothing to do with ourselves!? How horrible! If the first scenario demonstrates that truth is an illusion, the scenario on the other hand is an even greater blasphemy, demonstrating that the pursuit of truth just might be, in the greater scheme of things, just not that important as we previously thought.
Then what does it mean?
I would suggest that the journey we should be taking, is a journey into immediacy. My argument for it, however, must be excused on the grounds of being a little unorthodox. I might even have to be excused for lacking that sophisticated intellectual punch. But essentially, We are here, and this is where we are. My argument then, for being in this moment, actually is this moment, this moment being what it is, and the next moment being what this moment is not, but being what this moment shall be, and thus will be what this moment is, is now, thus is. And so forth. The stability, comes not from certainty. For now we are not concerned with argumentation. We are not concerned with proofs or with belief, and leave such things behind all together, except for when we are.
Instead then, we are precisely wherever we go. And where we go is where we are now.
Now, for the rebuttal. My opponent, it might be expected, might challenge me on several points:
It might be asked: What is the justification for journeying into immediacy?
Keep in mind, however, that justifications are needed for action. Immediacy is allready here. Thus, if you need to justify something, it would be actually to move away from immediacy. Thus the burden is actually on my opponent to justify any assertion that would not allready be taking place, where by immediacy is not actually a journey in the usual sense. You can not actually "Journey" on to immediacy. Because the instant you have begun you have finished.
Another rebuttal point that might be asked is: I haven't proven that the journey into immediacy is "what it all means".
Coincidentally, it could be said that it doesn't get more empirical than immmediacy. In fact, this might be a very foolish claim to make, because if something so emperical as immediacy itself can not be taken as a proof of anything, then just what does "proof mean". In fact, what do we mean by "it". What is it that were are referring to when we say "What does it all mean"? The universe? Immediacy would be, pretty much what IS, right here, right now. If that doesn't sum up the bare butt of the universe in a nutshell, then I don't know what does, at list linquistically. Which means that the burden of the meaning of the statement falls entirely on the meaning of the word "meaning". Of course, which, in my case, is exactly the same meaning that I give to "Journey." Which is simple to be there. Be with right now. Right here. Right now.
That is all.
- Login to post comments
I would just like to point out that you didn't address any of the points I made in your "approaching the waters" thread.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Not much of a resolution to be honest. Your point is you're here and you're here. If anybody accepts that as something to debate, they deserve to lose.
You lost me when you defined "brief" as 300-500 words. I'm not up for it.
Can't it just be a regular thread or an e-mail conversation? wtf?
Sorry. I don't mean to hurt anyone's special little snowflake feelings or anything like that.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Maybe you could write another post that actually had an argument, or at least one that is more clear? Maybe a summary?
I don't even see what you want us to debate.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
OK dude, you are posting an idea about a debate BUT with strings attached. Pretty much, you are begging a debate where you are allowed to predefine the allowed responses.
Well, I could debate you but I would not accept unless I get certain rules stated up front. Here I what I am thinking:
Nobody gets to decide where anyone else is allowed to go. I see what I see and I reply as seems reasonable.
There will be a word limit. We can discuss what that should be but it needs to be way smaller than you want. We can discuss what it will be but just for shits and giggles, let's say that the limit is 30 words per post. Nobody will get nailed if they need 34 words to respond but a wall of text will be treated as a violation of the rules.
Replies must not be posted less than 24 hours after the bit which is being responded to. I do not find it amusing to read a “fast response” but one where you are forced to take your time to think about is fine by me. If you take more time, I don't really care (apart from the fact that a delay of a few days will cause the thread to scroll off of the supertracker page).
If you can handle that much then we can have a debate.
The forum software allows a one on one debate in one place (mods can post but whatever on that (like I should care?))
Do you want to take me on with something like those terms?
OK dude, you are posting an idea about a debate BUT with strings attached. Pretty much, you are begging a debate where you are allowed to predefine the allowed responses.Well, I could debate you but I would not accept unless I get certain rules stated up front. Here I what I am thinking:
Nobody gets to decide where anyone else is allowed to go. I see what I see and I reply as seems reasonable.
There will be a word limit. We can discuss what that should be but it needs to be way smaller than you want. We can discuss what it will be but just for shits and giggles, let's say that the limit is 30 words per post. Nobody will get nailed if they need 34 words to respond but a wall of text will be treated as a violation of the rules.
Replies must not be posted less than 24 hours after the bit which is being responded to. I do not find it amusing to read a “fast response” but one where you are forced to take your time to think about is fine by me. If you take more time, I don't really care (apart from the fact that a delay of a few days will cause the thread to scroll off of the supertracker page).
If you can handle that much then we can have a debate.
The forum software allows a one on one debate in one place (mods can post but whatever on that (like I should care?))
Do you want to take me on with something like those terms?
=
I'm confused...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That is God's way of telling you he exists.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well, congratulations to you, you just made the most inane point I have ever seen. Exactly how does the idea that we will never know everything justify belief in God? As far as I can tell, scientists, philosophers, and (ironically) even theologians are aware of this. But last time I checked, such revelations spawned things like Pragmatism, which used the limited knowledge of science as a foundation for it's philosophy whilst rejecting religion. Also, as Bertrand Russell pointed out in his book A History of Western Philosopy, science can only so much, but theology imposes dogma to what we don't know. In short, I'm saying that because we can't even fully know what we can observe, how can we possibly hold certain that which we can't even adequately define or conceive?
And yes--believing that the world can be explained rationally requires "faith". However, any and all ideologies require some sort of "faith". What atheists rail against are the claims that require MORE faith. For example, the idea that the world is rational and thus can be rationally explained makes one assumption, one leap of faith if you will. The idea of Christianity makes several, some if which I will list here:
Quite clearly, rationally speaking, this claim by Christianity requires much more "faith" than a number of other philosophies and world views, and thus the Atheist calls it irrational. Why make more assumptions than what you can handle?
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"