I’d crush Maher. He picks on slow/uneducated/unprepared subjects and declares himself the winner.[/quote]
No doubt you would, Chris.
I posted the second and third videos to show Frs. Coyne and Foster. Maher just happened to be in the shot.
My point was that if Frs. Coyne and Foster were the ones debating Hitchens and Fry, they would have been a lot more formidable spokesmen for the Church than the ones that showed up.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’ve seen the entire Maher video. He just picks weak subjects to argue against. I’ve yet to see anyone, but maybe Antony Flew give a solid theist a run for his money (I still think he lost the debate). Of the big four New Atheists, the only one to brave going up against someone that knows what they are doing is probably Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins when he went up against WIlliam Lane Craig. But, of course they didn’t really give him much for his time, and of course no one wanted an encore. Can’t blame them.
If you like listening to debates, listen to William Lane Craig debates: Luke Muehlhauser (especially the Antony Flew v. WLC, best one on there I believe).
Explain Reginald Foster when he says the Catholics polled over there prefer to petition dead
saints rather that to go straight to Jesus who’s not even priority one? That is Necromancy…WTF are they teaching there in Rome?
Occultism?
[quote]Karado wrote:
Explain Reginald Foster when he says the Catholics polled over there prefer to petition dead
saints rather that to go straight to Jesus who’s not even priority one? That is Necromancy…WTF are they teaching there in Rome?
Occultism?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And I did see that debate; you’re right, it was completely lopsided. Hitch and Fry left them for dead. It wasn’t even close.
[/quote]
Though it is almost a certainty never to happen and on that basis I am legitimately open to grandstanding on the hypothetical, I would love to debate Dawkins, Dennet, Nye _________ ______________ _____________ all at the same time. Not because I’m the most invincible intellect ever spawned upon God’s green earth, but because they have never faced an actually biblical challenge in their lives. Ever. The epistemology of Catholicism is by definition a whimpering surrender to atheism before the first shot is fired on either side. To be fair, this goes for protestant Arminianism too. They each begin with the crippled sinful finitude of self deluded autonomous man on whose basis atheistic skepticism is actually the only possible result. If you grant an opponent HIS foundation and HIS equipment before the debate begins, don’t be surprised when he forces you to erect HIS building on it.
I do not necessarily think the winner of a debate proves anything other than he is better at debating . It might bring up it’s best points is the best that can said for debate
Atheism is not a belief system in and of itself.
[/quote]
If you repeat a lie often enough…[/quote]
…you can start your own religion. [/quote]
Happens all the time.
You are one of those guys who REALLY tempts me, but I just cannot see getting into this here again right now. I have been engaged elsewhere for several months.
EDIT: Although. To MattyG. I feel really guilty about you man. I challenged you to read a bunch of stuff I wrote and you finally gave in and did. Then you wrote a very long thoughtful response which must have taken a couple hours. Though I sincerely meant to, I never did answer you. That was inconsiderate and disrespectful to say the least. I hope you will accept my apology and believe that it shouldn’t be seen as my not taking you seriously. I am told (I’m lookin at you Ben) and rightly so, that I sometimes commit to more dialog than there are hours in the day and that I should knock it off. I really do need to do that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Not related to anything, Squating Bear, but I’ve always wondered something.
Did you accidentally leave out the second “t” in the word “squatting” when writing your username, or do you imagine yourself as a bear that squates?
This of course brings up the vital question, if a bear squates in the woods, and nobody is around to see it, is the Pope still Catholic?[/quote]
Actually I never even after the fact noticed that, lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And I did see that debate; you’re right, it was completely lopsided. Hitch and Fry left them for dead. It wasn’t even close.
[/quote]
Though it is almost a certainty never to happen and on that basis I am legitimately open to grandstanding on the hypothetical, I would love to debate Dawkins, Dennet, Nye _________ ______________ _____________ all at the same time. Not because I’m the most invincible intellect ever spawned upon God’s green earth, but because they have never faced an actually biblical challenge in their lives. Ever. The epistemology of Catholicism is by definition a whimpering surrender to atheism before the first shot is fired on either side. To be fair, this goes for protestant Arminianism too. They each begin with the crippled sinful finitude of self deluded autonomous man on whose basis atheistic skepticism is actually the only possible result. If you grant an opponent HIS foundation and HIS equipment before the debate begins, don’t be surprised when he forces you to erect HIS building on it.
[/quote]
Tirib, my uber theistic friend, I do enjoy watching you pick at and annoy some of our resident catholics on this forum. LOL
As to your last part, could you expound a bit? Perhaps I’m a bit slow this evening, as I’m in the middle of a 36 hour work stint, but I’m not really picking up what you’re laying down there.
What I do know, is that atheists like Hitchens and even Penn Jillete, often have said that the least a believer could do is “fly under their true banner” (as Hitchens put it), which they considered to be faith.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
And I did see that debate; you’re right, it was completely lopsided. Hitch and Fry left them for dead. It wasn’t even close.
[/quote]
Though it is almost a certainty never to happen and on that basis I am legitimately open to grandstanding on the hypothetical, I would love to debate Dawkins, Dennet, Nye _________ ______________ _____________ all at the same time. Not because I’m the most invincible intellect ever spawned upon God’s green earth, but because they have never faced an actually biblical challenge in their lives. Ever. The epistemology of Catholicism is by definition a whimpering surrender to atheism before the first shot is fired on either side. To be fair, this goes for protestant Arminianism too. They each begin with the crippled sinful finitude of self deluded autonomous man on whose basis atheistic skepticism is actually the only possible result. If you grant an opponent HIS foundation and HIS equipment before the debate begins, don’t be surprised when he forces you to erect HIS building on it.
[/quote]
Tirib, my uber theistic friend, I do enjoy watching you pick at and annoy some of our resident catholics on this forum. LOL
As to your last part, could you expound a bit? Perhaps I’m a bit slow this evening, as I’m in the middle of a 36 hour work stint, but I’m not really picking up what you’re laying down there.
What I do know, is that atheists like Hitchens and even Penn Jillete, often have said that the least a believer could do is “fly under their true banner” (as Hitchens put it), which they considered to be faith.
[/quote]
Tirib rejects reason and free will. That’s okay, freedom of conscious. But, in doing so he pits himself against Christ and makes a new Christ in his own image. He knows this and hates that I point this out.
Karado wrote:
Explain Reginald Foster when he says the Catholics polled over there prefer to petition dead
saints rather that to go straight to Jesus who’s not even priority one? That is Necromancy…WTF are they teaching there in Rome?
Occultism?
Brother Chris did not have an answer but retorted: “What does this have to do with Fatima?”
Nothing, I was clearly asking a very simple question this time…I repeat in the simplest, easiest of language:
Explain Reginald Foster when he says the Catholics polled over there prefer to invoke dead
saints rather that to go straight to Jesus who’s not even priority one? That is Necromancy…WTF are they teaching there in Rome?
Occultism?