The Happy Heretic wants to debate a Christian

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**I got a reply stating that I had been one of 45 applicants and she would let me know - I thanked her, but I suspect I may not be the right material.
**

Possibly I am wrong, but she may not have been completely clear on who she wanted to debate.

Wanted: Stupid, poorly informed and inarticulate fundamentalist to bait. Willingness to be abused a must. Successful applicants will lack fundamental debating skills, and should not have thought thru any of their positions or beliefs. Klan membership a plus.

Good luck.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Siege *
**Good luck to you, Mangetout, although I think she may think non-Fundies aren’t nearly as much fun.

By the way, to risk a hijack, you do realize I’ve got a fair number of relatives running around southern England. Next time I’m over visiting them, shall I see if I can include at least one non-relative?

CJ **

Dammit I am slow-witted sometimes! It’s you, isn’t it cjhoworth? I wondered why I hadn’t noticed you posting lately. It would be a great pleasure to meet you in person; let me know when you’re headed this way.

[Aro]

BTW, I got this reply this morning:

Many people accurately pointed out that my questions in my column were “all over the place.” Of course when I began writing it I was just randomly thinking of questions, and midway through I got the idea of formalizing things. I have since formulated 8 clear questions and have already begun the debate with a reasonable, informed individual. I stay away from forums and billboards because of time constraints. I once did an author interview on about.com with Austin Cline and found I was chained to my computer. Since I have a life beyond cyberspace, I won’t make that mistake again!

Judith Hayes

I assume the individual is not you then, Mange? Maybe next time then…

[Mangetout]

Not me, sadly.

[Siege]

Well, for what it’s worth, I am indeed the former cjhoworth. If you could e-mail me, Mangetout, I’d appreciate it.

In the meantime, I’ve got to admit, I’d love to see this debate, but I suspect it would wind up like some debates I had with a coworker who was a very proud, staunch, conservative. When I would say things that disagreed with his perception of what a liberal is, he’d tell me I wasn’t a “true liberal”. He’s right, but I don’t think there are all that many people out there who live up to his image of what a “true liberal” is.

CJ

[Mangetout]

Cheers Siege, I’ll email you tonight when I get home.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
You’re unique vanilla (just like everybody else

I’m not.

[Mangetout]

You are all different. You’ve all got to work it out for yourselves!

[dantheman]

*Originally posted by vanilla *
**
So…am I an unusual fundie? **

You’re very unusual, but I’m not sure if being a fundie has anything to do with it …

[vanilla]

[gobear]

You could take a tip from an apocryphal encounter attributed to the mathematician Leonard Euler and the philosopher Denis Diderot:

Catherine [the Great] was a great admirer of the French Enlightenment and corresponded extensively with Voltaire, Diderot, and a number of other French writers, but got fed up with Diderot’s efforts of trying to convert her courtiers to atheism. She could not send him back to Paris, she had to find some other means to calm him down. Unfortunately, there was nobody in her Court that could stand up to Diderot’s genius. But then she had an idea.

Catherine, as a benefactor of science and letters, in 1766, invited Leonard Euler (1707-1783), the most prolific mathematician in history, “Analysis Incarnate,” to be her “royal” guest. (Euler’s collected works are still under preparation. When completed, they will contain 72 volumes.) She recalled that Diderot, as a man of letters, was not up on science and math, and his coeditor, Jean Le Rond d’Alembert (1717-1783), French mathematician, philosopher, and writer, worked on those subjects. So she asked Euler to cook up some mathematical gobbledygook to prove the existence of God, then asked Diderot to appear and respond to the proof. In a full court session, Euler advanced on Diderot, and solemnly declared:

“Sir, a + (b sup n / n) = x, hence God exists; reply!”

As Catherine suspected, Diderot knew nothing about algebra and was dumbfounded. Great laughter followed the silence and Diderot was so humiliated that he asked for Catherine’s permission to return at once to France. She graciously consented.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear Gobear:

You say,

“You could take a tip from an apocryphal encounter attributed to the mathematician Leonard Euler and the philosopher Denis Diderot:”

I must commend you for your caution in calling that account an apocryphal one. I came across that account in Hogben’s Mathematics, the Mirror of Civilization. Of course, Hogben was not advancing the cause of theism, he was more into showing that learning the language of mathematics is important to understand mathematics. But he maintains that theism has been losing the battle since Diderot’s time.
Anyway, for those who want to read something about the possibly inauthenticity of the encounter, I have come across two cites:

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html

However, there is apparently no evidence that the encounter ever took place. Here is a discussion by Dirk J. Struik, from his book A Concise History of Mathematics, Third Revised Edition, Dover, 1967, p. 129:

Also:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=euler+diderot+debate&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet&selm=ys0yb0p8mus.fsf%40pleides.camb.opengroup.org&rnum=1

has a good discussion.
Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

[Muad_Dib]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**I think I might be up for it. **

This is such an obvious lie. Everyone knows that there are not any Christians left in England.

[Muad_Dib]

Forgot to add:

I vote for using dark voodoo magic to raise C.S. Lewis from the grave and sic em on her.

[Siege]

Hmmm. That’s a thought. Wonder if my Wiccan connections would consider . . . especially if they got a chance to talk with him to? Nah. They’d never do it. On the other hand, as a couple of ex-Fundamentalists, they’re very good Christian apologetics. The idea of pulling a bait and switch has a certain temptation.

CJ
Are you sure I’m not going to hell for this one?

[Guinastasia]

Hmmm…I wonder what would happen if she tried to debate Polycarp?

[HJay]

Speaking as one of your Wiccan connections, Siege . . . I gave Clive Staples a ring on the astral hotline after seeing your post. He informed me with true British-gentlemanly good grace that he had better things to do just now than to be the shill for someone with a vested commercial interest in the atheist worldview. Sorry . . .

He also recommended that you read his “The Great Divorce” to see his take on whether or not you’re going to hell.

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by HJay *
**Speaking as one of your Wiccan connections, Siege . . . I gave Clive Staples a ring on the astral hotline after seeing your post. He informed me with true British-gentlemanly good grace that he had better things to do just now than to be the shill for someone with a vested commercial interest in the atheist worldview. Sorry . . .

He also recommended that you read his “The Great Divorce” to see his take on whether or not you’re going to hell. **

Splort!!! Best answer possible!

Good to see you back!

[FriarTed]

HJay- did he actually answer to “Clive Staples”? If so, that might not be the real CSL- call him “Jack”.

G

[HJay]

Polycarp–Thanks! Great to BE back! I’ve been feeling like I’ve been in technolimbo lately.

FriarTed–Actually, I find it hard to imagine ANYONE answering to "Clive Staples."He probably compromised and asked people to call him “Mr. Lewis,” or, possibly, “Sir.” Or “Professor.”

Of course, we might also call him “Uncle Screwtape.”