The debating skills of evolutionists

The problem is that cranks/trolls like Carico can never be brought to reason, even if we did get him to admits to the evidence there is still the deny reality stance: "All evidence was placed by god/satan/etc to test the faithful" There is not way around this stance, once you can deny reality no evidence or logic can be mustered, all of it is fake, a conspiracy, the true reality becomes one of faith. I've debated evolution on other forums and when this point comes there is nothing I can do, at best I have been able to pit two different faithfuls against each other, in which one believes reality is a test made by their god and not the other, even in this case it's still a dead lock as neither can convince the other, because it all just testing their faith, which is unfalsifiable, untestable, and personal.
 
ElectricFetus said:
>...at best I have been able to pit two different faithfuls against each other, in which one believes reality is a test made by their god and not the other, even in this case it's still a dead lock as neither can convince the other, because it all just testing their faith, which is unfalsifiable, untestable, and personal.
Click to expand...
In pure argument, there aren't any absolutes. For example, there is really no way for me to say that everything I experience that I consider "reality" is actually real. It could be a very intense dream I'm having while in a coma that has lasted for 30 years.

Another form of the same argument is the "God" method. When an entity is given full omnipresent powers in a persons mind, then anything is possible. Time can be reversed, memories erased, events changed.

To a person who doesn't believe in that omnipresent capability, those arguments are worthless. To a person who does believe in the capability, his argument is as true as can be.

There is no compromise possible.

In post number 12, I'm trying to determine if this is the case with the person I'm addressing. So far, he hasn't replied.
 
Carico said:
Actually I'm so used to wading through off-topic posts and irrational responses that I either dismissed your response as the same or missed it in the fray. Either way, if your post was worth reading, you can post it again. If not, then I'll consider my post unrefuted.;)
Click to expand...

You ignored his post and therefore your argument is not refuted?.....:bugeye:

Please explain this logic. (genuine question)
 
NGM said:
In pure argument, there aren't any absolutes. For example, there is really no way for me to say that everything I experience that I consider "reality" is actually real. It could be a very intense dream I'm having while in a coma that has lasted for 30 years.

Another form of the same argument is the "God" method. When an entity is given full omnipresent powers in a persons mind, then anything is possible. Time can be reversed, memories erased, events changed.

To a person who doesn't believe in that omnipresent capability, those arguments are worthless. To a person who does believe in the capability, his argument is as true as can be.

There is no compromise possible.

In post number 12, I'm trying to determine if this is the case with the person I'm addressing. So far, he hasn't replied.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point if you can't believe in reality than you can believe in anything else. It begs the question, who and what is the omnipresent power? How are we who are incapable of living beyond empirical evidence suppose to know that this power exists?
 
ElectricFetus said:
Exactly my point if you can't believe in reality than you can believe in anything else. It begs the question, who and what is the omnipresent power? How are we who are incapable of living beyond empirical evidence suppose to know that this power exists?
Click to expand...
That question is answered by the "God" people by "Trusting all things in God's name". Those parts of life that they choose to not understand, or do not like the explanation presented are categorized into that bucket.

With that type of person, it's pointless to argue. Any argument presented that disagrees with theirs will immediately be placed into the the "God can do anything" phase of their thinking. The type of logic that you and I apply isn't a factor in their thinking. In our minds, they will forever be wrong. In their minds, you and I will forever be wrong. In absolute logic of the argument, neither side can be proven, ever. Contradiction is the only valid method of losing this type of argument. Find a direct contradiction in what this person says they believe and you've won, for what it's worth.

It's much like the outcome of explaining what "blue" looks like to a person who has been blind since birth. There simply is no way for that person to comprehend what it is you're seeing.
 
NGM said:
It's much like the outcome of explaining what "blue" looks like to a person who has been blind since birth. There simply is no way for that person to comprehend what it is you're seeing.
Click to expand...

Its worse than that, its like a blind man saying the sky is red, or better yet a color capable man (not color blind) saying the sky is red, saying "the sky is red, any evidence the shy is blue is simply god testing my faith!" how do we argue against that???
 
NGM said:
With that type of person, it's pointless to argue. Any argument presented that disagrees with theirs will immediately be placed into the the "God can do anything" phase of their thinking. The type of logic that you and I apply isn't a factor in their thinking. In our minds, they will forever be wrong. In their minds, you and I will forever be wrong. In absolute logic of the argument, neither side can be proven, ever. Contradiction is the only valid method of losing this type of argument. Find a direct contradiction in what this person says they believe and you've won, for what it's worth.

It's much like the outcome of explaining what "blue" looks like to a person who has been blind since birth. There simply is no way for that person to comprehend what it is you're seeing.
Click to expand...

That's the way religious indoctrination works. Remove the ability to reason and rationalize from childhood and replace it with religious absolutism and dogma, repeating it over and over during one's upbringing, accepting it without question and critical review.

These minds are unable to think form childhood. Pity them, for it's not their fault, or their parents fault, or their parents fault, and so on, it is the fault of religious indoctrination.
 
(Q) said:
That's the way religious indoctrination works. Remove the ability to reason and rationalize from childhood and replace it with religious absolutism and dogma, repeating it over and over during one's upbringing, accepting it without question and critical review.

These minds are unable to think form childhood. Pity them, for it's not their fault, or their parents fault, or their parents fault, and so on, it is the fault of religious indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Yeah but kids get over Santa, why can't they get over god?
 
ElectricFetus said:
Its worse than that, its like a blind man saying the sky is red, or better yet a color capable man (not color blind) saying the sky is red, saying "the sky is red, any evidence the shy is blue is simply god testing my faith!" how do we argue against that???
Click to expand...
Why bother arguing against it? What would be the value? If a person has convinced themselves that a grain of rice is their reincarnated child, why bother arguing with them? Their belief makes them feel better for some reason. If that persons belief isn't causing harm to your life, why not just leave them be?
 
NGM said:
Why bother arguing against it? What would be the value? If a person has convinced themselves that a grain of rice is their reincarnated child, why bother arguing with them? Their belief makes them feel better for some reason. If that persons belief isn't causing harm to your life, why not just leave them be?
Click to expand...

This is an internet forum, arguing is what we do.
 
(Q) said:
That's the way religious indoctrination works. Remove the ability to reason and rationalize from childhood and replace it with religious absolutism and dogma, repeating it over and over during one's upbringing, accepting it without question and critical review.

These minds are unable to think from childhood. Pity them, for it's not their fault, or their parents fault, or their parents fault, and so on, it is the fault of religious indoctrination.
Click to expand...
Some person in India believes that a cow is a reincarnated person. Their belief doesn't injure my life in any way. I simply don't care what that person believes. I don't pity them. Their belief may make them enjoy their life more. Great. Why would that bother me?
 
NGM said:
I understand that. I'm expressing my viewpoint on an Internet forum. It's what I do.
Click to expand...

surely you are but that not helping the issue, lets assume that we do argue with trolls and cranks, lets not question if we should, of course we shouldn't, but lets say we do, what then?
 
NGM said:
Some person in India believes that a cow is a reincarnated person. Their belief doesn't injure my life in any way. I simply don't care what that person believes. I don't pity them. Their belief may make them enjoy their life more. Great. Why would that bother me?
Click to expand...

What about the theists in your neighborhood, your town or city? Their churches and temples litter the landscape, tax free. It is you who are paying their taxes.

That doesn't bother you?
 
(Q) said:
What about the theists in your neighborhood, your town or city? Their churches and temples litter the landscape, tax free. It is you who are paying their taxes.

That doesn't bother you?
Click to expand...
Now you speak of the material results of their legal status. Yes, it bothers me. Their beliefs don't. I believe that all of the laws that grant exception to entities due to nothing but the fact that they are a recognised religion, should be terminated. Religions have turned "Separation of Church and State" into a money making venture. It wasn't intended as such and should now be eliminated as an unfair financial practice.

However, regardless of the legal status I disagree with, I feel no animosity towards anyone as a result of their personal beliefs.
 
(Q) said:
Could it be the lack of Santa Churches and Santa Temples one must visit every week to re-affirm Santa's existence?

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but do they have to visit those temples and churches, most religions are not cults, they are not forced to go for weekly brainwashings are they?
 
ElectricFetus said:
surely you are but that not helping the issue, lets assume that we do argue with trolls and cranks, lets not question if we should, of course we shouldn't, but lets say we do, what then?
Click to expand...
It makes no difference to me. I was merely stating my point of view that to do so is what I would consider a waste of my time. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Perhaps, but do they have to visit those temples and churches, most religions are not cults, they are not forced to go for weekly brainwashings are they?
Click to expand...
In one sense they are forced to attend. Peer pressure is applied by the other members of their group. Shunning in various degrees is practiced. Though subtle, it's a form of force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top