|
|
|
Im Cool Trust Me
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2008 : 04:13:46
|
Some would argue that debating religion with believers is pointless. Surely this is defeatism, I have found it to be only MOSTLY pointless. Over the years I've had many and witnessed many debates and come to some of my own conclusions about style and angles of attack.
First and foremost the worst thing you can do is insult the intelligence of the theist, ridiculing someone is an easy way to 'win' and argument but it will make them bitter and defensive, and is not particularly likely to change their opinions. Even if they initiate this the best thing is to not rise to it, and not to counter in a similar way. Although being too meek is also a bad thing, there's a fine balance.
Remember some of the people you are debating with maybe aren't as intelligent as you are, and might not have had a great education. Does this make them lost causes? In my opinion, no. Although it may take a lot more work.
Some people you debate with may be more intelligent than you, but although this has happened to me many times, none have ever found any logical flaw in my arguments or any logical substance in their own, they will tend to always debate from a flimsy philosophical point which they will portray as being a solid argument. These people are the true lost causes. They are intelligent enough to have already arrived at your conclusions but through blind faith will not accept them.
The subject of your arguments is equally important. Most people approach it from one of a few ways. Either it's the no evidence/need for a God, or it is biblical inconsistencies. (probably some people like to qoute inconsistencies form other religious texts, but I've never seen anything scrutinised as thoroughly as the bible). Biblical inconsistencies are a double edged sword, against fundies you can have a field day, but many of the stories can be dismissed as fable.
Those are probably the strongest of the two arguments. But some people fall foul to a number of bad arguments. I am defining a bad argument as one which is ineffective, not one which is not logical.
"If God is good why does he let bad things happen." - IMO this is a bad argument as no one is likely to be swayed by this. It's far too easy to just blame man or the devil or whatever for all bad things.
"The argument from poor design" - Again too easy, nothing is perfect except for God. Why wouldn't He create flawed beings? Maybe if you include genetically inherited flaws from more primitive species in order to support evolution it has more substance.
"The omnipotence paradox" - "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift", is the most famous. Interesting, but I don't see any priests tearing off their dog collars at this one. In fact most deductive arguments are bad simply because they are too abstract.
Probably some more bad ones, if I think of any I'll add them later
|
Dig your claws into my organs! Stretch into my tendons! Bury your anchors into my bones!
"Force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other means. The common thinking, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at it's worst! People who forget that always pay." |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 05:30:56 [Permalink]
|
tkster converted from Christianity after a closer and honest examination of the poor design argument, according to his own words.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Im Cool Trust Me
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 07:56:05 [Permalink]
|
| I'd need to speak to him to find out more about that really. |
Dig your claws into my organs! Stretch into my tendons! Bury your anchors into my bones!
"Force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other means. The common thinking, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at it's worst! People who forget that always pay." |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 08:18:47 [Permalink]
|
I have a good friend who also happens to be an evangelical christian. I talked to him a lot about evolution after he made one of those "my parents weren't monkeys" kind of comments. He is still a strong christian, but accepts evolution. Sure, it's theistic evolution, but he gets that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. He had not been exposed to anything beyond what he had been told in church. When I showed him how those little pamphlets they pass out distort the truth he started to listen. The easiest part was to show him the quotes taken out of context and what the scientists actually said, or were getting at. Not being an idiot, he immediately saw that whether evolution happens or not, the pamphlet writers were telling lies. And that did not sit well with him. Why would they do that?
Anyhow, he is still conservative and a christian, but he now accepts the evidence for evolution.
More generally, I think Jonathan Swift got it right when he said “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 09:14:11 [Permalink]
|
ICTM said:
First and foremost the worst thing you can do is insult the intelligence of the theist, ridiculing someone is an easy way to 'win' and argument but it will make them bitter and defensive, and is not particularly likely to change their opinions. Even if they initiate this the best thing is to not rise to it, and not to counter in a similar way. Although being too meek is also a bad thing, there's a fine balance.
|
Kil's quote of Swift sums up the problem. That leaves ridicule as the only option besides walking away.
I also disagree with your assessment of the "omnipotence paradox". That is one of the most compelling arguments against the existence of an omnipotent deity and the church has been apologizing for it for a thousand years. Despite the volumes written on the topic, there is no answer that can withstand critical examination. No intellectually honest individual, who is capable of understanding this simple bit of logic, can continue to believe in an omnipotent deity.
The reason it doesn't work to convince believers is they have too much of their life and self image invested into their belief. They don't want to relinquish it, so they just ignore the blatant contradiction and move on. Cognitive dissonance is really an interesting thing.
I have found very little point in trying to argue with the true believers. Sometimes its fun, but if you are trying to convince them of anything you are wasting your time.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 09:31:48 [Permalink]
|
ICTM.....
Remember some of the people you are debating with maybe aren't as intelligent as you are, and might not have had a great education. Does this make them lost causes? In my opinion, no. Although it may take a lot more work.
Some people you debate with may be more intelligent than you, but although this has happened to me many times, |
Uh, ICTM, unless you have a long acquaintence with the Believer, how do you assess her intelligence - a highly subjective matter to say the least - on the basis of a brief encounter? Largely, intelligence is as intelligence does and, IQ (hah!) scores aside, unless you have a hell of a resumé of your debate opponent, you really have no basis on which to gauge his intelligence other than a quick subjective judgment based primarily on her opinion of matters that do not admit of objective investigation.
An adamant "there is no God because that is my opinion" is manifestly as stupid as it's converse.
IMHO, Thomas Acquinas was definitely not a moron, nor were many of the theisticly deluded great philosophers of history - William of Ockham, Erasmus, Descartes, Hobbes, Berkeley, Emmanuel Kant - to name a few.
It is my highly educated guess that theism and religiosity are indeed inversely correlated with intelligence in the population at large; but I know of no large-scale scientifically conducted studies corroborating this opinion.| Some people you debate with may be more intelligent than you, but although this has happened to me many times, none have ever found any logical flaw in my arguments or any logical substance in their own, |
If you have not already, I suggest that you read a translation of Acquinas' Quinque viae and the works of Blaise Pascal; Bishop Berkeley, and more recently, Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga. Some of these writings will definitely give your Aristotelian Logic neurons a real workout.
Certain of this argumentation may appear to be "flimsy philosophical points", but the Boolean logical validity of the reasoning cannot be denied, only a few of the assumed premises; some of which are incapable of objective investigation.
Back in antedeluvian times, I had a real close, real smart friend who had been strictly raised as a Roman Catholic. In college, after a fling at engineering, I pursued Psychology and Philosophy and my friend Jim opted for a MBA.
However we had heavy religious discussions constantly, and over a period of six years, Jim slowly yielded up his dogmatic theism and became significantly agnostic in his religious views. Yes, it is a not a pointless or hopeless endeavor, just slow and difficult. It kind of illustrates why such a large chunk of the American electorate are either Catholic, or a bunch of fundamentalist dolts!
I do think you have a better chance of ultimate success in retroconversion if your opponent (more properly therapy patient) is at least as intelligent and educated as you are! In my view, subjective arguments are the weakest form of persuasion; the classic empirical and deductive/inductive arguments are the strongest. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 08/06/2008 12:42:22 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 10:20:25 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
However we had heavy religious discussions constantly, and over a period of six years, Jim slowly yielded up his dogmatic theism and became significantly agnostic in his religious views. |
I wish I could say the same about my evangelical friend of more than 20 years now. While it was easy to show him specific lies he was being told about evolution, because there they were on the page and undeniable, his faith is another matter. If you experience Jesus, as he says he has, nothing else matters. That's all the proof that's required.
At one point he challenged me to call out to Jesus every night before bedtime for a month. Ask Jesus to come into my heart and save me. What the hell? I did it. Jesus was a no show. After a month I told him that I did it and nothing happened. That was somehow my fault for not believing. What? I was told that all I had to do was ask, and be sincere about it, which I was. I was willing to have a personal experience that reason can't explain away if it existed. "Touch me, see me, feel me, heal me." Why not?
Why would Jesus reject my prayer? That was his opportunity to get a tough cookie, with regard to faith. And again, I was told that all I had to do is ask.
That argument failed. It was my fault because I lacked the requisite sincerity. The goal posts were moved. He never really considered my arguments because they were contrary to his personal experience. And that's where it stands after all of these years. I don't try anymore, and he doesn't either. We have enough in common to be friends and simply ignore that part.
He is not a stupid man. On all other matters where critical thinking applies, he is dead on. I have taken him to New Age expos and value his comments because he can see through the baloney as easily as I can. Go figure.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 11:36:38 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I also disagree with your assessment of the "omnipotence paradox". No intellectually honest individual, who is capable of understanding this simple bit of logic, can continue to believe in an omnipotent deity. |
Well, there are those Jesuit Dominicans who simply state that omnipotent means just that. Omnipotence includes the ability to suspend, negate or simply ignore the principles of logic commonly accepted by non-omniscient humans. God trumps Plato, the rigveda, Aristotle, Avicenna, Georg Cantor - indeed all mathematics derivative from logical theory, George Boole's algebra..... the entire panoply of irreducible logical thinking that much of man's accomplishments are based upon....at least we think they are!
An omnipotent God can create a universe in which none of the laws of physics, axioms of mathematics, or principles of any of the various logic systems of our universe, exist! More, he is so omnipotent that he can create the simultaneous superimposed coexistence of an infinite number of such universes - ones in which 2+2=3, or 7, or infinity - and changes every time you try it! And so forth.
So you have to reject the entire concept of omnipotence as truly impossible - yet you cannot empirically prove such a rejection. Your argument devolves into a mere repetition of your original thesis - God cannot exist because he cannot be God!
Thus the highly intelligent, highly educated (more than you), highly misled Jesuit priest's opinions are a priori no less self-evident, nor demonstrable, than yours. Just different.
Like your respective beliefs in the existence of a God!
The priest is fully capable of "understanding the simple logic" of your examples and he certainly is "intellectually honest", {albeit wrong), within his own cognitive matrix by any reasonable objective standard. He also lives his life largely within the physics of your convictions, but partly in his own, different reality (such as the "reality" of transubstantiation).
However he "knows" that, in addition to his intellectual house and your house (which are kind of a duplex or apartment house); God creates, has, and lives in many mansions!
And your opponent, the starchcollar savant of sacred solipcism goes right on "continuing to believe in an omnipotent deity."
What say you to this theoretical overeducated and annoying pedantic professor of religion?
And Dude, please don't skate away in evasion by some inane comment about my alleged drug hallucinations, or observations about self-embarassment. Although I recognize you as an expert in that subject, given your past toddler temper tantrums; neither you or I are capable of embarassing me! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 13:04:21 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| So you have to reject the entire concept of omnipotence as truly impossible - yet you cannot empirically prove such a rejection. Your argument devolves into a mere repetition of your original thesis - God cannot exist because he cannot be God! |
That is a misstatement of my position.
But in essence you are correct. I can't prove or demonstrate in any way that there is no omnipotent deity out there.
Conversely, no one can prove the existence of such a being.
When this set of circumstances occurs, the practical and rational position is to dismiss any knowledge claim that lack evidence. Bye bye unevidenced assertion of the existence of an omnipotent deity.
Now, from a pragmatic point of view, there are dozens of things that are impossible within the context of omnipotence. Free will, for example. Yes yes, the church has an apology for this one as well, but its just as weak as your Jesuit's imaginings of omnipotence.
The kicker here is that you can replace "omnipotent deity" with just about anything imaginable ("invisible pink unicorn" or "hypnotoad" come to mind) and your Jesuit's arguments are just as valid for them!
Go figure.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 13:18:04 [Permalink]
|
In all of these years, I have yet to change a single mind, that I know of, anyway. And y'know what? I don't care. Really, I don't. These days, I argue just for the fun of it and anyone can 'believe' anything that suits their fancy, be it Christianity, Islam, Voudon, Pastafarianism or some other fantastical delusion. It's nothing to do with me and after all, they picked the fight. I think that the best way to argue with them is to be relentlessly polite while picking out and criticizing their logical fallacies, and then burying them in accurate reference.
Of course, they usually don't open the links you provide, and that's no big deal, either. And there is always the hope that they will go ad hom, giving license for snide speculations on their intelligence, education, mental condition, prescription medications, family history dating back to Australopithecus, and personal hygiene.
Like I said: fun!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 16:32:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy[/i]
In all of these years, I have yet to change a single mind, that I know of, anyway. And y'know what? I don't care. Really, I don't. These days, I argue just for the fun of it and anyone can 'believe' anything that suits their fancy, be it Christianity, Islam, Voudon, Pastafarianism or some other fantastical delusion. It's nothing to do with me and after all, they picked the fight. I think that the best way to argue with them is to be relentlessly polite while picking out and criticizing their logical fallacies, and then burying them in accurate reference. |
Filthy I agree with everything you have said. Especially the fun part.
To believe in something is not the same as knowing something.
Intrinsic to the concept of belief is implication that there is an opposite to belief, disbelief. Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact.
A common error of human beings to allow belief, to allow a mental construct accepted on faith, to become so important, so obsessive, that it is taken as the same thing as fact. Indeed, there are many emotional reasons why a person might be driven to do this, but it still remains that any belief is purely mental whatever it's origin, and the mind can be mistaken.
|
Paul C. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 06:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
At one point he challenged me to call out to Jesus every night before bedtime for a month. Ask Jesus to come into my heart and save me. What the hell? I did it. Jesus was a no show. After a month I told him that I did it and nothing happened. That was somehow my fault for not believing. What? I was told that all I had to do was ask, and be sincere about it, which I was. I was willing to have a personal experience that reason can't explain away if it existed. "Touch me, see me, feel me, heal me." Why not?
Why would Jesus reject my prayer? That was his opportunity to get a tough cookie, with regard to faith. And again, I was told that all I had to do is ask. |
I believe you were told wrong. The bible is clear that you need to repent. Mt 4:17, Mk 1:15, Mk 6:12, Lk 13:3, Acts 2:38.
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:1-5)
The modern gospel is that you have a God shaped hole in your heart that needs to be filled. Can you find in the bible where it says that? What was the reason you wanted to be saved? The reason should be that you have realized that you have broken Gods holy law and are going to be eternally punished and rightly so. Then and only then will Jesus and the cross make sense to you. It does not sound like you had any contrition or acknowledgement that you did anything wrong. There is no salvation without repentance. Great you were sincere but where in the bible does it say that if we are sincere in asking Jesus that we will be saved?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 06:31:31 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah Kil you were doing it wrong. FAIL |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 07:47:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Yeah Kil you were doing it wrong. FAIL
|
Would it make sense that anybody could make up their own way to be saved and God should honor that? Look in the Bible and tell me why what I said was wrong. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 08:31:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Kil
At one point he challenged me to call out to Jesus every night before bedtime for a month. Ask Jesus to come into my heart and save me. What the hell? I did it. Jesus was a no show. After a month I told him that I did it and nothing happened. That was somehow my fault for not believing. What? I was told that all I had to do was ask, and be sincere about it, which I was. I was willing to have a personal experience that reason can't explain away if it existed. "Touch me, see me, feel me, heal me." Why not?
Why would Jesus reject my prayer? That was his opportunity to get a tough cookie, with regard to faith. And again, I was told that all I had to do is ask. |
I believe you were told wrong. The bible is clear that you need to repent. Mt 4:17, Mk 1:15, Mk 6:12, Lk 13:3, Acts 2:38.
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:1-5)
The modern gospel is that you have a God shaped hole in your heart that needs to be filled. Can you find in the bible where it says that? What was the reason you wanted to be saved? The reason should be that you have realized that you have broken Gods holy law and are going to be eternally punished and rightly so. Then and only then will Jesus and the cross make sense to you. It does not sound like you had any contrition or acknowledgement that you did anything wrong. There is no salvation without repentance. Great you were sincere but where in the bible does it say that if we are sincere in asking Jesus that we will be saved?
|
So basically you're saying that I must understand the Christian concept of sin as a Christian understand it, accept it, repent and then I can be saved. So, the catch is that I must be a Christian before I can become a saved Christian. Jesus isn't there to show me the way, he's just my ticket into heaven.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2008 : 08:47:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So basically you're saying that I must understand the Christian concept of sin as a Christian understand it, accept it, repent and then I can be saved. So, the catch is that I must be a Christian before I can become a saved Christian. Jesus isn't there to show me the way, he's just my ticket into heaven. |
That would be ridiculous. Jesus has showed you the way in the bible. Why do you think you need to be a christian to understand sin. It is breaking Gods Law as the holy spirit wrote in the bible. Look at the ten commandments and realize you have violated all of them. This is what you need to understand. I think the problem is that you do not think you have done anything wrong stemming from the fact that you do not know that God exists. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debating religious types, good and bad arguments
