How to Debate

[tinybear]

I don't think this phenomenon is confined to Christian fundamentalists though.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear I don't think this phenomenon is confined to Christian fundamentalists though.

Agreed. It is happens whenever magical thinkers hold their magic to a double standard.

Starboy

[Paul]

tinybear: > ["I don't think this phenomenon is confined to Christian fundamentalists though."]

Yes, I agree

Fundamentalist Christians (and most Christians, in fact) cannot conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong.

[Paul]

Opps! I accidently clicked on 'Post Quick Reply'

tinybear: > ["I don't think this phenomenon is confined to Christian fundamentalists though."]

Yes, I agree.

Fundamentalist Christians (and most Christians, in fact) cannot conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong.

Do you know what causes that kind of closed mindedness?

May the Spirit of Love and be within and your deeds be accorrdingly

Peace be with you, Paul

[Starboy]

Quote by: Paul Fundamentalist Christians (and most Christians, in fact) cannot conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong. Do you know what causes that kind of closed mindedness?

Like I said, it happens when they hold their magic to a double standard. A double standard occurs when you have a different set of standards that you use for one set of knowledge or beliefs than you use for all other knowledge or beliefs. People practice double standards when they would be forced to abandon their preferred knowledge or beliefs if they applied the same standard to those beliefs that they apply to everything else. They will claim that faith is what is needed for their beliefs but will completely ignore that faith works for any belief including the beliefs that they choose not to believe in. Such practice causes these people to be dishonest. They must lie to themselves and once they cross that threshold, lying to others is easy. The game of ignoring their blatant double standard begins. And once the practice of the double standard is now percieved as the way of "truth" they can be convinced of anything.

Starboy

[Runa216]

The worst part about debating is knowing that no matter how right you feel you are, many of the same arguments you're using can be used against you. Such as 'can't you just admit that you might be wrong'. When debating, I try to counter this and let people know that I don't think I'm perfect. it's just no fun if it's just a competition of who can be more stubbourn.

Runa

[Cephus]

Quote by: Paul Fundamentalist Christians (and most Christians, in fact) cannot conceive of the possibility that they could be wrong. Do you know what causes that kind of closed mindedness?

I guess this part was a response to me and certainly I know what causes it. It's fear. Pretty much, religion exists because people are afraid. They're afraid to die. They're afraid to take responsibility for themselves. They're afraid to admit that it's a big scary universe out there and they're small and insignificant so they invent gods to worship that make them feel special. It makes them feel like someone is looking over them and protecting them (regardless of all the evidence to the contrary).

Of course, when your entire concept of self-worth is tied up in the worship of imaginary friends, you're not going to be able to think outside of that box easily. It's little different than two tribes of primitive people going to war over which magic rock is better. In those terms, it's silly, but it's really no different than modern man arguing "my god has a bigger dick than your god" to quote George Carlin.

In the end it's all just silly.

[Runa216]

I love you Cephus, you quoted my god Carlin.

And that's how it works in society, even if it's not gods that people need to look up to and worship, it's movie stars, it's political leaders, it's the country you live in. People feel worthless if they don't have someone important to attach themselves to. (and let's face, it, like the philosophers and religious fantics of old, we all truly are insignificant to the greater machine that is society.)

Does anyone here actually think that if they died tomorrow, the world would be torn?

Runa

[tusaki]

Since when did "debate" became a search for the truth? What is truth anyway? is the "truth" what most people believe? or is the truth based on the (almost) unshakable theories of nature and mathematics?

Along the lines of politics and religion, there is no truth, and therefore all debate is essentially useless to the ones engaging in it. To the passive observers, however, it might yield some information which they haven't thought of before. Or it might strengthen or weaken an aspect of something they have already formed an opinion about.

"Magical believers" are just as wrong or right as the ones who believe nothing like that exists. There is no fundamental truth which can be absolutely proven or disproved, so all one can do is to try and shape the thoughts of the observers.

Human beings are strange. Once a human being attributes a certain value to a belief (with a belief I mean everything from "pears are yummy" "I don’t like sprouts" to "The Vatican is the one and only true foundation of Christian religion" "liberals are wacko's"), they have something to lose if proven wrong. This causes discomfort and embarrassment, so instead of being proven wrong, human beings try to find ways to reinforce their current belief system. So they discredit the source, re-interpret the evidence, or basically choose to ignore the dissonant information. Being "open minded" means to allow yourself to re-judge your current belief system based on the new information. This, however, is not something most humans are good at. Even if you belief you yourself are "open minded", chances are, you probably are not as open minded as you think.

[Runa216]

A little off track, but I've noticed in an internet debate, having good points is as good as having bad points that people fail to catch. Also, on the flip side, exposing the other debater's errors is more effective than actually debating or countering their points.

Am I wrong?

Runa

[Starboy]

Quote by: Runa216 A little off track, but I've noticed in an internet debate, having good points is as good as having bad points that people fail to catch. Also, on the flip side, exposing the other debater's errors is more effective than actually debating or countering their points. Am I wrong? Runa

To a great extent you are right. In order to have good debate all those that participate must be prepared. They must have studied the subject and related material. They must have their wits about them and have a basic ability to reason logically. They must be aware of as many of the arguments as possible. They must be prepared to engage in the exchange in an honest manner. For the most part few of the debaters here do any of that. What happens is mostly just the proffering of very stilted opinion with little to no justification. For the most part there is no interest in exploring a subject. The magically minded that post here like to think they are free from such limitations but they are the worst of all since they behave the same as the rest and then expect special consideration just because it is their "great" idea or most cherished belief. Much of what goes on here more resembles the Monty Python skit "The Argument" then a debate.

Starboy

[Cephus]

Quote by: Starboy To a great extent you are right. In order to have good debate all those that participate must be prepared. They must have studied the subject and related material. They must have their wits about them and have a basic ability to reason logically. They must be aware of as many of the arguments as possible. They must be prepared to engage in the exchange in an honest manner. For the most part few of the debaters here do any of that. What happens is mostly just the proffering of very stilted opinion with little to no justification. For the most part there is no interest in exploring a subject. The magically minded that post here like to think they are free from such limitations but they are the worst of all since they behave the same as the rest and then expect special consideration just because it is their "great" idea or most cherished belief.

I've been debating religion for about the last two decades of my life, after spending the first two decades being very religious and honestly, I can say I've never run into a bunch of people who are *LESS* prepared to debate than online Christians. Most of them are completely ignorant. They don't know anything about logic, they don't know anything about honesty and the vast majority have never even read the Bible. They know no more about their religion than is spouted at them from the pulpit on Sunday. But they're right about everything they believe! Even if they don't know what it is!

They also cannot be convinced they are wrong. They cannot imagine actually daring to question their beliefs. They can't even figure out why they should have to defend their beliefs because, apparently, they are so obviously correct.

[Runa216]

heh, montly python is the greatest. I also like their stance on 'Eery sperm is sacred" classic stuff, and it illustrates a point, even if it is satire.

Runa