Todd Gates and the Socratic Method
Posted on: September 28, 2007 - 3:08pm
Offline
Todd Gates and the Socratic Method
Hey! Its everyone's favorite theist. I figured, since Brian and I are good buddies now ( 
), I could ask for a favor. I'm not sure exactly how much of an affiliate Todd Gates is with the RRS, but I was wondering if he'd be willing to take me on the show, and use the Socratic Method with me.
It might be a great way for him to promote his book, and as an added bonus he may be able to deconvert me. Sounds like a good deal to me. I know its a snowball's chance in hell that this will actually happen.
But I can't help but ask.
- Login to post comments
Does Todd get a microphone in this debate, Or would that be unfair to you?
BTW, lest you live it down.
Why, so you can find some pathetic excuse to back out at the last second? Again?
I see you have a narcissistic streak to go along with the yellow line down your back. I can't fathom why you'd think you could represent a 'value added' portion to such an equation....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I love how he said since he figures that Brian and he are good buddies now and then puts a smily face. He knows hes full of shit, but says shit like that anyways. Debates with people who are completely closed minded are just a waste of time, and from what I have seen Irish farmer fits that. But some of this take with a grain of salt, as I do have a slight bias.
Go here if you would like to donate to help pay for server costs
No bias needed - he said as much.
Something about a snowball's chance in hell...
If he goes in with a closed mind, of course nothing's going to change. Then he can go back to his Christian friends and talk about his "victory".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Todangst, unlike you I'm sure Gates is at least somewhat intelligent and understands that if you agree to follow literally any rule at all, and then proceed to break multiple rules multiple times, that's called forfeiting the debate.
Besides, it wouldn't be a debate. I simply want Gates to use his Socratic Method on me. If Christianity is false, I want to be the first person to know.
So to speak.
What rules were broken?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Has IrishFarmer been shopping? http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/0899570372?id=nsession
"The Christian Combat Manual is written to help Christians engage the culture. The chapters are carefully constructed to train ordinary Christians in how to confront and respond to the major intellectual and cultural challenges that face Christians today. One chapter or the book describes the Socratic method of encounter by asking "counter-questions" that puts the burden of proof on the non-Christian, forcing him to defend his beliefs. Part one defends the historical accurate accounts of divine revelation. Part two tackles the raging controversy of evolution. Part three demonstrates the existence of God. Part four centers on who is Jesus Christ. Part five focuses specifically on modern issues and secular postmodern doctrines. There are twenty-nine chapters in the book."
I mean really, you're just going to try and shift the burden of proof insteaad of back your claim with something real?
No, it's called you coming up with some bullshit excuse to run away.
You've already conceded that I am far more inteligent than you when you ran from defending your arguments. Do I need to post the emails where you concede this? Where you conceded that you couldn't debate me on logic or science?
You're a liar, you lie to yourself, and to the board. The reality is that you always bring a toothpick to a gun fight, and when even you are able to see this, you head for the hills.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Whatever bullshit 'rules' he made up in order to find a way to run from the debate. Just watching him talk about these rules demonstrates what a pussy he is. Why even bring up 'rules'? So that he can claim there were 'violated' and thereby enable him to run away without conceding the truth: The reality is that I offered him the chance to do a 10 minute intro, with me getting a ONE MINUTE response, and he then getting unlimited time for a counter response...and HE RAN FROM THAT! Why? Because even he admits that he can't debate me on logic or science, the issues HE RAISED that I expressed an interest in debating
He posts all day long when it comes to making challenges, and then heads for the hills when you make him back one of them up. Why even bring up rules when you supposedly want debate so much? He came here to whine about the RRS not debating him... well, here I am... let's go.
Cue: More whining from "Irish farmer"
PS DON'T ban this guy, mods. Let's see him post, it's the best way to expose this guy's incompetence.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Boy, lots of stuff to clear up here.
Rofl. Dude, lighten up. Seriously, you're talking as if I'm really trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and convince the RRS that I'm best friends with Sapient.
Of course, Todangst and the others are going to tell you that Todangst broke ridiculous rules that wouldn't have allowed an actual debate to take place, but this is stupid. Read on to find out why.
If you recall, I was more than happy to have a written debate, which is what Todangst first wanted. But then I was trying to "run from the debate" because I was accepting the debate but I wanted to have it elsewhere. That's an example of Todangst logic (accepting debate = running from debate).
I explained to Todangst why the rules were necessary. He was basically cyberstalking me through e-mail to have this debate. I continually asked him to come up with some kind of format, instead he kept throwing insults in e-mail after e-mail (I think the record was four within the span of seven minutes) and he was generally obnoxious. Based on his sophomoric behavior, I came up with rules that would ensure he wouldn't be a complete jackass during the debate, and based on his behavior I figured this would require me to have complete control. I would give more and more leeway if he proved he could actually be civil. At least that was the plan until he couldn't even keep his word leading up to the debate.
Regardless, its not like Todangst broke some outrageous rule. In fact, he broke the simplest of all the various rules I gave him: no insults. The very next e-mail after I told him that he had to refrain from insulting me up until and after the debate, he insulted me. Apparently, since Todangst has his brain in backwards, he thought that breaking the rules was ok after agreeing to be bound by "any rule at all." After all, if accepting a debate is running from a debate in his mind, then why not agree to follow any rule so long as you don't actually have to follow any of the rules?
That's pretty much true. Todangst has serious problems, including delusions apparently.
But that's besides the point. He never had a chance to break any of the ridiculous rules because he couldn't even hold to the simple and reasonable rule I gave. Though, based on his behavior, I would contend that none of my rules were ridiculous.
To Stuntgibbon,
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at. Todd is the one who wrote a book on using the Socratic Method against Christians. Perhaps you didn't read his article, but since I asked him to use the Socratic Method on me, your post still doesn't make any sense regardless of whether or not you knew about Gates.
Sure.
Yes, everyone can see the logic in this statement right here for themselves.
1) IrishFarmer didn't debate me.
2) Therefore I am smarter than him.
Todangst, do you really need to lie to your own people? You promised to keep any rule I asked, then whined like a baby about the rules I gave you and immediately broke at least one very reasonable rule. Why lie about it?
I'm starting to think that you actually believe what you're saying, which is almost sad.
Yes, please do. I never even mention science in any of the e-mails, and the only thing I said about logic was that I wasn't entirely convinced that my question I posted was based on a valid argument. WOW! Maybe the intellectually honest thing for me to do would be to stick with an argument that I don't find convincing anymore. Right?
Ah, irony....
Yeah, I had the nerve to ask him to stop insulting me (which he was doing for no good reason). I also asked him to stop lying, but he couldn't even do that much. He had apparently deluded himself into believing that I had actually challenged him to a debate because he kept insisting that I had done so. What's interesting is that you'll notice (if you had been following along in the original thread) that Todangst was the one who challenged me. But he kept insisting on insulting me and lying to me. Not to mention he was beyond obnoxious. Tell me again what good reason I had to waste my time on a debate with this wanker...
Thanks for putting in a good word for me. With all that's been happening with the RRS, I'm glad to hear that the mods need to be told not to censor other people.
I'm glad I get to expose the various logical fallacies you employ on a regular basis (especially in your writing) as a sample here.
This is called equivocation. You're saying I was whining about the RRS not debating me, which is true insofar as saying "RRS" means Kelly and Brian (the people I actually asked to have a discussion with). But according to you, the "RRS" encompasses Brian and Kelly (it has to, because they were the ones I was "whining" about) OR anyone affiliated with them. Which simply isn't true. I did not whine about not having a debate with anyone except Kelly and Brian.
Are you really going to keep lying to your own people like this, Todangst?
But hey! Feel free not to respond with one intelligent sentence, as is your MO. Why bother actually refuting anything I say when you can just insult me and lie about me?
You know, the point wasn't that running away from the debate automatically made todangst smarter, however he did say that made you a coward and/or a pussy. Which is pretty clear to all of us already.
You're just back and forth on the conditions of how/when/who to debate, and you have nothing to say.
I know that as a "freethinker", you're obligated to mindlessly parrot whatever you're told by your fellow "freethinkers", but you might want to try actually reading one single word of what I've said thus far. Unless you can refute any of my reasoning in the post, or unless you have some actual evidence of how I'm a pussy/coward, you should really stop throwing around baseless accusations.
Its making you look like a sheep, just following the flock wherever it goes.
Furthermore, between you, Todangst, and Sapient, what's the deal with all of the mysogynystic comments? Conflating cowards, or wusses with that representative part of the female anatomy seems like something so-called morally superior atheists would avoid.
But I'm probably the only one who cares about that.
I didn't start getting all uptight with Todangst until he crossed the line and then some. I have stuff to say, which is why I swing by the RRS stickam chat every now and then. Occasionally, there's good conversation to be had. I have no problem talking about my beliefs and challenging the beliefs of others.
Even though I usually have a plethora of insults hurled at me within five seconds of stepping foot into the chat. Even though I'm kicked for no reason, other than I'm a suspected spy. I still make the effort to chat with people, so long as Brian allows my presence in the chat.
You just showed up demanding a debate with Brian and Kelly. Regardless of what you think of them, they just don't seem to have time to debate any random person that comes along; especially dishonest weirdos with chips on their shoulders, like yourself. They're interviewing people that have some degree of prominence, or at least an interesting argument. You haven't demonstrated either.
Why is it that so many people have been able to sign up for these forums, and just enter the fray? Even theists who haven't tried to proselytize or foist magical thinking as an argument, who have been honest about the subjectivity of their beliefs, have managed to have productive discussions here without much controversy. Yet you're a special case. You just keep demanding a debate that's out of your reach, then hemming and hawing when an alternative is offered. You either have an unrealistically high opinion of yourself and can't see that you're a nobody (a nobody tainted by the stink of Frank "I'm gonna punch you in the face" Walton, no less), with nothing interesting to say; or you're just a coward, putting on a show for your bible-thumping, diploma mill friends.
You can't debate without genteel language? A 10:1 time advantage? Friendlier territory? If you had any balls at all, the debate would have happened in that first thread and we'd be done with it.
Wow, you're so enlightened. Did you know that "wuss" is a recently created word, and derived from "wimp" and "pussy?" But I guess you could argue that you have ignorance on your side, whereas the others knowingly committed the sin of using popular colloquialisms.
If you have something meaningful to say, you would have said it here. Instead your "comeback" is bitching about the use of the word pussy, which regular people are aware it can mean coward. (regardless of its origin)
You came in asking for a debate, you were offered an alternative and copped out unless the discussion adopted a certain set of rules (which was not a debate.) Here's your chance... say something to us that's profound. Inspire some conversation. Enlighten us.
The point is you made a ridiculous set of rules. Which was kind of the test as to what you were after. Why take you seriously or even listen to your views after you make the ridiculous rules. Todangst, allowed you to show everyone exactly what you were really about and after that point your rules were made it was clear what that you didn't want a debate, and at that point what reason did he have to take you seriously?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
*Sigh*
I suppose I could since the word "wuss", etymology aside, isn't readily related to any part of the female anatomy. What else is "pussy" supposed to be related to?
This is good practice for my course I'm taking from CMU. This is called a weak argument, because even if the premises are true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
Consider it this way.
1. If IrishFarmer had anything meaningful to say, he would have said it in this thread.
2. IrishFarmer has not said anything meaningful in this thread.
3. Therefore, IrishFarmer has nothing meaningful to say period.
You can reflect on that for a moment until it sinks in. By the by, what am I supposed to add that's meaningful? You guys have derailed this thread so severely - not to mention that you guys haven't said anything worthwhile yourselves - that I can't do much except correct your misunderstandings.
I'm glad that that's the only sentence you actually read, surely because its the only one that contained a sentence that could grab your attention for more than fifteen seconds, but believe it or not there was more to what I wrote than that minor aside.
...
I swear, some of you guys couldn't grasp a point if it slapped you in the nose.
For the final time, this is not accurate. Its a simplistic way of addressing the issue, and I'm tired of hearing it. How about addressing what I've already said concerning this instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum?
No.
Seriously...read what I've already said concerning this. My rules are besides the point. Todangst was obnoxious, he couldn't follow even one simple rule, that's the point. Had he settled down and acted like a sane, rational human being I wouldn't have been so strict. But he didn't.
Continuing the streak of nothing to say, but using a lot of words.
The irony of a bible thumper running to the defense of political correctness about women aside, the colloquialisms are synonymous with coward, though the bastardized version isn't generally considered vulgar. Oh shit, is this the debate? I'd better get all my arguments and research ready for... oh wait, you've said nothing again. And you ignored the rest of my post... and you've combined it out of context with some other posts. Would gimp be a better characterization of your performance? What size ball gag do you wear?
Geez, IrishFarmer, now you're having a one-sided debate with Todd over at your blog? Here's a question: Since the Todd Gates thread is still open, and Todd responded to the other poster once so far, why not just talk to him there?
Oh, and for eveybody else, here's one of IrishFarmer's buddy's blogs for lollers:
http://ugosspot.blogspot.com/
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
And yet they agreed to have me on the show...Interesting.
I have yet to see a reasonable aternative. The only one who has challeged me was the mentally deranged Todangst who didn't understand the importance of coming up with a format in order to constructively carry out a debate. That's called a "waste of time."
ROFL. And you're the king of what country?
That wouldn't have been a debate. It would have been me offering argument, and people insulting me in response. Debate don't take place in a 15 on 1 environment, where most of the people are more interested in offering one-liners than they are actually debating.
You realize that every time I counter one of your accusations against me, you have nothing to come back with? It appears "you have nothing to say" is synonymous with "I have nothing with which to refute what you just said, but I know that as long as I treat you with disdain my fellow atheists will accept my criticism, no matter how devoid of intelligence it is."
Thank you for reiterating my point, which was that they were using that representative part of the female anatomy synonymously with "coward".
I didn't make that big of a deal out of it, so I'm not sure why you guy's can't just drop it.
I took your post out of context? You mean by quoting the entire thing and then responding to the entire thing?
Since you apparently can't understand what I said, I'll walk you through my response.
Here was my response, but this time I'll insert some comments so that I can hold your hand through the process.
suppose I could since the word "wuss", etymology aside (etymology, for you RRS atheists, means "the study of the origin of words", more or less), isn't readily related to any part of the female anatomy (what this means is that wuss, to someone who doesn't know the etymology of the word, doesn't readily relate or compare to "pussy", so that therefore your claim that I could say I didn't know is actually quite reasonable). What else is "pussy" supposed to be related to? (In other words, the etymology of the word "pussy" is so well known, that to use it is to understand that it IS synonymous with that representative part of the female anatomy, and therefore you are without excuse. Consider this example, imagine I'm talking to a homosexual and he's describing this person who he does not like and I agree with him and call that person a "fag", would your excuses stand up in this context? Is that person justified in finding fault with my choice of words?)
Does that help you comprehend what I'm saying? Since I've made another point, perhaps you guys can come back with the standard response, "You haven't said anything." Thus freeing you of any burden to respond to anything I've said.
No, its called a critique. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between the two quite yet. Perhaps when you graduate from high school, we can continue this conversation.
That's not a bad idea, actually. Though it would be a critique and would not be him using the Socratic Method like I wanted, I'll get over it.
Yep. Leave it to an RRS member to bring up something completely irrelevant as if that proves something. Seriously, the guy's left two or three comments on my blog. If that makes him a buddy, then Todangst is my buddy too.
Though, notice that your resident genius still hasn't had the ability to refute anything I've written against his own writings on my blog. Surely he has the time, since he did challenge me to a written debate at first...
All right, champ. I left a brief version of my critique of his use of the Socratic Method in that thread.
Let's wait for the mental gymnastics to begin.
Mental gymnastics? Do you intend to post again?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Whoa, stop the presses, IrishFarmer actually posted a fucking argument in the Todd Gates thread. I'm not going to respond to your reply to me. I don't agree, but it's not a topic worth spending time on, just niggling tit for tat. Oh shit I said "tit!"
Oh fuck, I said "shit!" Sorry dude!
*Pulls up a chair in front of the Todd Gates thread*
Don't expect much from Todd. Judging from his poor responses to caposkia, who I don't think even did that great of a job answering Gates, he doesn't really know what he's talking about. I'm not trying to offend him, but he's ignorant and that's just that.