Say you were engaged in one of the countless discussions you find yourself in, regarding God. Say you made the comment that "if you can't touch, smell, see, hear, or interact with something on any level..it doesn't exist." Then you were presented with this question:
MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life. Why. Just answer me that. Like MoN was saying, science will never prove all of that. What gets me is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the possibilities. That is illogical. No bullshit involved. That is just purely illogical. Don't lecture me on logic.
Max wrote:Say you were engaged in one of the countless discussions you find yourself in, regarding God. Say you made the comment that "if you can't touch, smell, see, hear, or interact with something on any level..it doesn't exist." Then you were presented with this question:
MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life. Why. Just answer me that. Like MoN was saying, science will never prove all of that. What gets me is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the possibilities. That is illogical. No bullshit involved. That is just purely illogical. Don't lecture me on logic.
How would you respond. I'm at a loss. I think it's from shock.
Ask him to demonstrate how the laws of science were "bent to give humans life." Point out that life adapts to its conditions. Point out the example of extremophiles . . . primitive organisms which live in highly unpleasant conditions, such as in cracks in deeply buried rock, blocks of ice, volcanic hot-springs and hydrothermal vents, and highly acidic/basic environments (all of which would prove instantly fatal to forms of life not adapted to them.) Also point out the incredible diversity of places which life exists, and the fact that some of these places are unlivable to humans without technological aid.
The "you refuse to acknowledge all the possibilities" argument is a common asshole technique. It is a rhetorical trick designed to take advantage of the fact that if you take an extreme philosophical view, anything is possible. But science has achieved so much because it rejects such extremist (not to mention thoroughly useless) thinking and sticks to what can be demonstrated.
If science did not have this policy, it would never have gotten anywhere. We'd still be arguing about whether every action really has an equal and opposite reaction, and whether the Sun is really Apollo's chariot because we have to "acknowledge the possibility", no matter how little evidence or how little logic there is behind it.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
The fact that he's asking for a "completely infallible" explanation alone is enough to tell he's spewing bullshit. One common fundie tactic is to declare that if there's the slightest bit of room for doubt in one's explanation, then that explanation cannot possibly be legitimate, and to declare victory since their god is infallible.
Then proceed to hammer away that no scientific explanation is infallible, but you don't see him rejecting other scientific laws and theories. Like light, gravity, and electricity.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Just remind him that the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not an unreasonable doubt. Crowing that the evidence has "holes" in it is like crowing that the police in a murder trial were only able to recover part of the body from the lake, so you can't be sure the victim died.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Also, he asks for science to answer questions it really wasn't mean to. Why is a meaningless question in that respect, because the laws of physics have no motive behind their action.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Thanks, I think that will help me out a little...until he counters with something about how logic and science are out to get god and 'prove' he doesn't exist...again.
Hopefully he won't use that one a second time, but I guess you really can't expect too much variation with these people.
wolveraptor wrote:Also, he asks for science to answer questions it really wasn't mean to. Why is a meaningless question in that respect, because the laws of physics have no motive behind their action.
If the universe were an automobile, science would ask how it works, not why it was made.
Of course, I suppose some creationist would try to abuse that analogy to argue that it accepts the "argument from design", as if the universe is even half as orderly as an automobile. Of course, creationists do think the universe is orderly, despite the fact that it's mostly composed of chaotic gas clouds.
Last edited by Darth Wong on 2006-01-27 02:16pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Max wrote:Thanks, I think that will help me out a little...until he counters with something about how logic and science are out to get god and 'prove' he doesn't exist...again.
Hopefully he won't use that one a second time, but I guess you really can't expect too much variation with these people.
Fortunately fundies are incredibly predictible. Once you've argued with enough of them you start realising their patterns all boil down into a set of very predictable mannerisms that don't seem to vary much at all between fundies. Almost -all- of them use identical arguments, of varying degrees of extremes.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
My most favourite recent tactic is to say "OK, let's say we accept your standard of proof. Prove I am not God." And then you can take every argument they use for the existence of God and use it to prove that you are God.
"What's your evidence?"
Simple: I SAY SO. That's what my evidence was last time, after all. I didn't even say it first-hand; I told Moses, and he wrote it down. For all you know he just wrote down a hallucination he had after a night of drinking.
"God wouldn't do the things you do."
I work in mysterious ways.
"Why don't you demonstrate your power?"
Do not test me because I am the LORD.
"Why don't you act like the God in the Bible?"
I am giving you a New Covenant. I changed my mind about killing the Jews after that Golden Calf thing, now I'm changing it again.
"Why are you so rude?"
Stop whining asshole, at least I'm not killing your firstborn children or murdering your entire family and crippling you with debilitating illness in order to win a bet.
"Why do you let people do things that piss you off?"
I have given Mankind the gift of free will.
It's child's play.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?
Wherever you go, there you are.
Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's GuildCybertron's FinestJustice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Also, dont quote scientific THEORIES. theories ARE NOT fact. they are theories scientists came up with. that is also circular reasoning.
Have you spanked him thoroughly for his stupidity in not knowing that a THEORY is based on the FACTS accumulated thru STUDY?
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Stravo wrote:Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?
I'm guessing the audience.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
Stravo wrote:Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?
It depends both on the fundie and on the audience. While I might not be able to change the fundie's mind, I may be able to sway some of the audience; and if I can, then it won't be a complete failure. However, if there is a chance of swaying the fundie -- say, for example, if the fundie is my age -- and I use my most persuasive tone, im pretty sure I can get at least an "I'll think about it". In some cases, it's as simple as offering an alternative to the perceived dilemma between godless evolution and intelligent design.
Finally, of course, there's the element of amusement which we all know and love.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Stravo wrote:Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?
I'm guessing the audience.
I think it's because I don't like the feeling of losing, especially when these people are telling me that I'm the one that's being illogical and wrong. Or that science is just propaganda.
Max wrote:Now I'm being attacked because I'm an atheist...and must be an unhappy person, because all atheists are bitter and unhappy.
goddamn these people
Nice generalization on the part of your whack-a-loon friends. Of course, atheists who debate creationist morons tend to become unhappy people in very short order, mostly due to the soul-crushing realization that creationists and similar members of the fundamentalist species have been selected for thick skulls comprised mostly of armor plate, leaving very little room for brains . . . making them the human equivalent of box turtles, or ankylosaurs.
Of course, the other type of "atheist" that tends to hang around fundamentalist whack-a-loons tend to be lapsed Christians who have rejected the Christian god for a number of emotionally driven reasons, and as a result, are very vulnerable to the subjective, emotional arguments employed by whack-a-loons. To nobody's surprise, they quickly renounce their atheism, pick up the Jesus crack pipe again and return to the fold like good little sheep . . . propogating the stereotype that the fundies like to trot out time, and time again. I would say introduce them to some real, happy atheists . . . but I like my posting time here to be quiet, peaceful, and idiot-free.
Stravo wrote:Here's a question I always wanted to ask the fundy debaters. Do you actually think you will change any of their minds by debating them? Even if you go into this not trying to open their eyes do you think you would ever get a concession from these people? Is that why you debate them or is there another reason?
That was what I attempted when I first started out arguing fundies, but later on I just gave up trying so much to convince them, as showing other people how ridiculous their own arguments are. Seeing it's almost impossible to convince someone with a mile long wall of ignorance built up. Every once in a rare while there's a breakthrough, but these are usually moderate fence sitters than hard core fundy dips.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
When people start talking about what a bitter, angry man I must be for disbelieving in God, I usually start talking about how great my uninhibited sex life is, and how much I enjoy things like sodomizing my wife while watching pornography which I rented with the money that I didn't donate to church on Sunday.
Just remind them of the things I'm allowed to do without a trace of guilt so they can't get too smug about their delusion that I'm an angry embittered little man cowering in my basement from the Big Bad Christians. I'm actually the guy who's enjoying his life while they scurry around trying to appease the invisible man.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
My first fundie debate started with the fundie saying that the scientific explanation was critically flawed. By the end, he admitted that it was at least consistent. I never TRIED to get him not to believe in god, and I refused to be offended... so his hackles didn't get overly raised. And so I managed to teach him a few things.
