Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums

L

lightgigantic

Banned
Banned
Why do you suppose debate on this thread sinks down to ad hom quite rapidly, even from persons acting in the facility as moderators?

Looking at the various circumstances and mediums for the xpression of ideas, there are numerous eg's of debate between these parties that doesn't fall into such a state of affairs ...... of course there are numerous eg's of situations where it does too.

The inability of sciforums to lift itself out of the latter indicates that it must share something in common with those circumstances that dictate how the latter develops.

Is it simply something intrinsic to internet discussion (perhaps a lack of non-verbal signifiers which communicate over 70% of information in discourses? Or maybe its the spontaneous expression common to threads, that you can let rip with an opinion in 10 seconds without thinking first)
 
qv my response to Q today in the 'spiritual advancement' thread in the Eastern Philosophy forum.
 
(edit - this is a response to a deleted suggestion that this be moved to the site discussion forum)

It could develop into discussions of atheistic/theistic ideas - like for instance a timeless dichotomy between between atheists/theists ... or so many other things ......

I recommend that you leave it in this thread because this issue is destroying the quality of the posts (or perhaps it has always been like this and discussing it is perceived as unsolvable and an interruption to the regular "business" of the religion subforum).

Alternatively you can repost it where you see fit and let the ad homs roll

"God exists moron"
"God is nonexistent moron"
"God exists moron"

etc etc
 
How about some examples. There are occassions when ridicule is justified and when it is not.

I am exactly the same off the forums as I am on it. My mother says she saw a ghost, I told her she is full of shit and just a lazy supernatual and superstitious thinker. We still have a good relationship however. I am able to make the distinction between ridiculing the persons irrational beliefs rather than the person full stop.

Your beliefs are stupid LG. That is just your beliefs, and any ridicule I have for you is directed purely to those beliefs. If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry, but that is the price you pay for holding irrational beliefs and expecting people to give you respect for them. There is just no way I will ever respect a persons irrational beliefs, although I respect their right to have those beliefs. Tolerance is important, but respecting peoples most superstitious beliefs is just wrong and it is also dangerous. If we accord people the default position where we give them respect for their most idiotic delusions, then we find ourselves slipping back in to the dark ages and reason and rationalism are lost.
 
It would be the highest form of hypocrisy to listen to a retard try to reason through reality and not tell him how retarded he is.

If you humor a moron, like lightgigantic, long enough then he’ll believe he’s worthy of serious consideration.
 
lightgigantic said:
Why do you suppose debate on this thread sinks down to ad hom quite rapidly, even from persons acting in the facility as moderators?

Looking at the various circumstances and mediums for the xpression of ideas, there are numerous eg's of debate between these parties that doesn't fall into such a state of affairs ...... of course there are numerous eg's of situations where it does too.

The inability of sciforums to lift itself out of the latter indicates that it must share something in common with those circumstances that dictate how the latter develops.

Is it simply something intrinsic to internet discussion (perhaps a lack of non-verbal signifiers which communicate over 70% of information in discourses? Or maybe its the spontaneous expression common to threads, that you can let rip with an opinion in 10 seconds without thinking first)
Click to expand...

Besause you do not engage in debate. You ignore the valid posts by anyone who brings up a point that significantly contradicts your own. All you do is spout the correctness of your own views regardless of the position of others. This is not debate. It's preaching.
 
lightgigantic said:
Why do you suppose debate on this thread sinks down to ad hom quite rapidly, even from persons acting in the facility as moderators?

Looking at the various circumstances and mediums for the xpression of ideas, there are numerous eg's of debate between these parties that doesn't fall into such a state of affairs ...... of course there are numerous eg's of situations where it does too.

The inability of sciforums to lift itself out of the latter indicates that it must share something in common with those circumstances that dictate how the latter develops.

Is it simply something intrinsic to internet discussion (perhaps a lack of non-verbal signifiers which communicate over 70% of information in discourses? Or maybe its the spontaneous expression common to threads, that you can let rip with an opinion in 10 seconds without thinking first)
Click to expand...

Because you're stupid. :mad:
 
KennyJC said:
How about some examples. There are occassions when ridicule is justified and when it is not.

I am exactly the same off the forums as I am on it. My mother says she saw a ghost, I told her she is full of shit and just a lazy supernatual and superstitious thinker. We still have a good relationship however. I am able to make the distinction between ridiculing the persons irrational beliefs rather than the person full stop.

Your beliefs are stupid LG. That is just your beliefs, and any ridicule I have for you is directed purely to those beliefs. If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry, but that is the price you pay for holding irrational beliefs and expecting people to give you respect for them. There is just no way I will ever respect a persons irrational beliefs, although I respect their right to have those beliefs. Tolerance is important, but respecting peoples most superstitious beliefs is just wrong and it is also dangerous. If we accord people the default position where we give them respect for their most idiotic delusions, then we find ourselves slipping back in to the dark ages and reason and rationalism are lost.
Click to expand...


One's personal relationships (like with one's mother for eg) are not the basis on which intelligent discussion becomes progressive - for instance great thinkers, regardless of whether thet are atheists or theists, don't use uncivil terms (that they may use when communicating disagreements to their mothers) - if they did they would immediately be rejected by academic circles - if you think that you are entitled to talk to other parties like the way you talk to your mother I would suggest that you violate what are considered the norms of civil discussion - at the very least you certainly cannot speak like that in public demonstrations and academic journals and expect to be taken seriously - I would hope that the ability to perceive the difference between these two mediums of communication is what distinguishes sciforums from yahoo instant message debate rooms
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
Besause you do not engage in debate. You ignore the valid posts by anyone who brings up a point that significantly contradicts your own. All you do is spout the correctness of your own views regardless of the position of others. This is not debate. It's preaching.
Click to expand...

Its not just about me - its practically about anyone you care to mention - prince james and gordon are two that come to mind that don't ad hom (I have engaged in numerous long debates with Prince James, all without ad homming, and neither of us wavered from our opposing stances), but it certainly doesn't stop others from ad homming them, which is the predominant mood of this site at the moment
 
Because both sides are defending highly polarized doctorines, its like the way leary would talk about how people existing in mental 'reality tunnels' will lash out when another person comes along with an entirely different version of reality.
Although people with different versions of reality should be able to discuss their differences maturely some of the time. I think the problem is the internet as a medium encourages immaturity and attracts mentally inferior people unable to help evolve and progress their chosen paradigm; only to defend it and cheerlead from the sidelines.
Basically what we have have on these forums in the main is a huge number of self-elected scientists/rationalists/philosophers who simply do not have what it takes to actually pursue their interest as a career. Therefore theyre going to do the next best thing - use what ever meagre knowledge they gain in their comprehension of those paradigms to call people stupid over the internet.
 
Last edited:
I think lightgigantic just got a new favorite word.
After epistemology and ontology we have ad hom.
And it's latin, oh my...how ....how ...intellectual.

Bravo…bravo.

I once spent an afternoon trying to explain the meanings of red and green streetlights to a dog.

The damned dog didn’t get it - kept running in the street without looking.

I then vowed to never waste my time like that again.
So, I beat it every time it did so.
Damn dog stopped running in the street pretty fast.

I loved that dog…..:eek:
 
lightgigantic said:
One's personal relationships (like with one's mother for eg) are not the basis on which intelligent discussion becomes progressive - for instance great thinkers, regardless of whether thet are atheists or theists, don't use uncivil terms - if they did they would immediately be rejected by academic circles - if you think that you are entitled to talk to other parties like the way you talk to your mother I would suggest that you violate what are considered the norms of civil discussion - at the very least you certainly cannot speak like that in public demonstrations and academic journals and expect to be taken seriously - I would hope that the ability to perceive the difference between these two things is what distinguishes sciforums from yahoo instant message debate rooms
Click to expand...

The parts of my reply you put in bold, how are they not relevant to people who proclaim as truth things which can not be observed, like celestial teapots ? A belief in the celestial teapot is stupid, quite simply.

On superstition, proclaimers can't be expected to receive the respectful opposition they would in matters of reality such as politics, where at least you can respect a persons political beliefs so long as they are not absurd. Superstitions, pseudoscience, religion, astrology, and magical thinking in general, should never be accorded any degree of respect. This is an essential part of society which magical thinkers fail to see, and without it, intelligent design would be in our science classes as we speak.

Now, why should I respect anyones belief in the irrational?
 
heliocentric said:
Because both sides are defending highly polarized doctorines, its like the way leary would talk about how people existing in mental 'reality tunnels' will lash out when another person comes along with an entirely different version of reality.
Although people with different versions of reality should be able to discuss their differences maturely some of the time. I think the problem is the internet as a medium encourages immaturity and attracts mentally inferior people unable to help evolve and progress their chosen paradigm; only to defend it and cheerlead from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

Problem is, you use the word "reality" here. Versions of reality are subject to testing otherwise they don't fall into the category of "reality". LG and those like him reject the idea of verifying their "version" and this flies in the face of all reason and logic. Given that, respecting such a position (one based on pure dogma derived from some ancient texts) is not an option among most intelligent humans.

We respect the right to hold such positions, but once examined and found to be without any basis other than hearsay, respect for the idea itself is intellectually dishonest and promotes ignorance.
 
Satyr said:
I think lightgigantic just got a new favorite word.
After epistemology and ontology we have ad hom.
And it's latin, oh my...how ....how ...intellectual.
Click to expand...

His bemoaning of ad homs of late has become totally pathetic and totally transparent. Irrational beliefs will never be respected or even tolerated on a science board populated predominantly by atheists. But if I was posting on a christian forum, I would be ad hommed to death, but would I care? No.

Just why should an atheist care if someone calls them stupid for not believing in god? It's like water off a ducks back. But conversely the theist knows being called stupid for believing in god is somewhat true, since it is inherantly irrational.
 
superluminal said:
Problem is, you use the word "reality" here. Versions of reality are subject to testing otherwise they don't fall into the category of "reality".
LG and those like him reject the idea of verifying their "version" and this flies in the face of all reason and logic. Given that, respecting such a position (one based on pure dogma derived from some ancient texts) is not an option among most intelligent humans.

We respect the right to hold such positions, but once examined and found to be without any basis other than hearsay, respect for the idea itself is intellectually dishonest and promotes ignorance.
Click to expand...
Well i dont really know LG well enough to be fully aware of his style of debating, what i will say is if someone isnt prepared to verify their version of reality via empiricalism you can only take them at their word, or at the very least entertain their subjective ideas. If youre not prepared to entertain his ideas, simply state as such and move onto something else would be my advice.
Going by any other means i honestly believe youd be wasting your own time.
 
heliocentric said:
Well i dont really know LG well enough to be fully aware of his style of debating, what i will say is if someone isnt prepared to verify their version of reality via empiricalism you can only take them at their word, or at the very least entertain their subjective ideas. If youre not prepared to entertain his ideas, simply state as such and move onto something else would be my advice.
Going by any other means i honestly believe youd be wasting your own time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Hence I don't "debate" directly with LG anymore (especially since he put me on his ignore list for demanding that he substantively address points that I brought up).
 
heliocentric said:
Because both sides are defending highly polarized doctorines, its like the way leary would talk about how people existing in mental 'reality tunnels' will lash out when another person comes along with an entirely different version of reality.
Although people with different versions of reality should be able to discuss their differences maturely some of the time. I think the problem is the internet as a medium encourages immaturity and attracts mentally inferior people unable to help evolve and progress their chosen paradigm; only to defend it and cheerlead from the sidelines.
Basically what we have have on these forums in the main is a huge number of self-elected scientists/rationalists/philosophers who simply do not have what it takes to actually pursue their interest as a career. Therefore theyre going to do the next best thing - use what ever meagre knowledge they gain in their comprehension of those paradigms to call people stupid over the internet.
Click to expand...

lol - agreed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top