Is there any point in sophisticated arguments?

[atheist buddy]

ZZ recently posted a thread asking about the objectivity of morality. This is just one of several examples of interesting debate topics that some of the more sophisticated users post here.

My question is this: What's the point of attempting to debate such nuanced concept and sophisticated ideas as the objectivity of morality, the meaning of life, the value of spiritual intuitions, if our users seem to still be baffled by topics such as these:

Can donkeys talk?
Where do babies come from?
Is the earth flat?
Does the earth spin on its axis?
Is Einsteinian relativity real?
Do zombies exist?
What's the difference between eyewitness and hearsay testimony?
What's the difference between evidence and proof?
Can horses fly?

Shouldn't we help the more confused among us figure out the 5th to 10th grade questions first, and only then move on to the college level topics?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

Personally, dismissing a lot of common theological arguments is a lot easier than discussing topics that need actual information about the real world, because so many theistic arguments are logically flawed, and you just need to point and name the fallacy.

At worst, you can say "that premise is unjustified", but that's still nothing compared to a full on discussion about the science and evidence. (Not that something similar doesn't result from some discussions of premises)

[Zzyzx]

.

Shouldn't we help the more confused among us figure out the 5th to 10th grade questions first, and only then move on to the college level topics?

AB, that is a valid question.

However, my intent is NOT to help confused and uninformed opponents / adversaries learn high school subjects.

Instead, those opponents / adversaries are convenient means to present more convincing or credible or verifiable ideas to READERS than Theists can present. Some of our threads receive thousands or tens of thousands of views. I trust that many or most readers are capable of evaluating the merits of what is presented pro and con any subject.

I do NOT aspire to "win" debates or to convince fervent believers that their religion is bunkum. I am quite satisfied to present ideas for readers to consider. If our debates were required reading for Sunday School classes I'll bet that a lot of people would ask very serious questions of their religious "authorities" and "teachers" and would NOT be reassured by the answers.

When someone attempts to defend worshiping gods by demanding proof that the Earth rotates, or "debunks" science with an obvious ignorance of the topic discussed, or redefines words in attempts to make "scripture" appear less than irrational, etc -- I APPRECIATE their efforts.

They may think they "win" debates by such statements and by using various tactics; however, I seriously doubt that many readers are fooled.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

I find this a little hypocritical. In another current thread a Christian poster stated that they believe certain things to be fact based not on empirical evidence but on a subjective feeling (referred to as discernment). That could have gone all kinds of interesting ways. There could have been discussion about epistemology and what constitutes justification, consideration of whether we actually all do that to a certain extent, questions as to whether or not we choose our beliefs or many other possibilities.

Unfortunately, however

Do you have a special costume? Wear a cape? Do you use your power to fight crime? Do you have a secret identity? Did your uncle ever tell you that with great power comes great responsibility? Is that why you never use your superpower to discern the winning lotto numbers? I bet that it is. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she ok with all the attention you and your sidekick the Holy Spirit get as crime-fighting superheroes, or is she chill?

Pretty sophisticated stuff. But then who wants complex discussion when you can post about the talking donkey again/?

[Zzyzx]

.

But then who wants complex discussion when you can post about the talking donkey again/?

The talking donkey is like a sore toe for bible literalists (and for many Christians). It keeps being stubbed -- along with the talking snake, dead bodies coming back to life after days or more in the grave, the Earth ceasing rotation, a star stopping over a birthplace, water magically turning into wine, the Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains", etc.

In a current thread a Theist asks for proof that the Earth rotates, and maintains that there is as much reason to believe that the universe revolves around the Earth. We often encounter arguments that bible stories must be true because they have been believed for thousands of years.

Those issues repeatedly come up as subjects of threads. Is that surprising?

[atheist buddy]

.

Shouldn't we help the more confused among us figure out the 5th to 10th grade questions first, and only then move on to the college level topics?

AB, that is a valid question.

However, my intent is NOT to help confused and uninformed opponents / adversaries learn high school subjects.

Instead, those opponents / adversaries are convenient means to present more convincing or credible or verifiable ideas to READERS than Theists can present. Some of our threads receive thousands or tens of thousands of views. I trust that many or most readers are capable of evaluating the merits of what is presented pro and con any subject.

I do NOT aspire to "win" debates or to convince fervent believers that their religion is bunkum. I am quite satisfied to present ideas for readers to consider. If our debates were required reading for Sunday School classes I'll bet that a lot of people would ask very serious questions of their religious "authorities" and "teachers" and would NOT be reassured by the answers.

When someone attempts to defend worshiping gods by demanding proof that the Earth rotates, or "debunks" science with an obvious ignorance of the topic discussed, or redefines words in attempts to make "scripture" appear less than irrational, etc -- I APPRECIATE their efforts.

They may think they "win" debates by such statements and by using various tactics; however, I seriously doubt that many readers are fooled.

Fair enough. I guess it boils down to goals and debate style.

There is definitely value in debating for the reader rather than with the opponent.

I guess it's not my style. Dogma offends me. I don't just want people to read my posts and my opponents, and to see a qualitative difference. I want people who believe in talking donkeys to feel as embarassed to air out their beliefs in public as holocaust deniers and racists thankfully are in our society.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

I find this a little hypocritical. In another current thread a Christian poster stated that they believe certain things to be fact based not on empirical evidence but on a subjective feeling (referred to as discernment). That could have gone all kinds of interesting ways. There could have been discussion about epistemology and what constitutes justification, consideration of whether we actually all do that to a certain extent, questions as to whether or not we choose our beliefs or many other possibilities.

Unfortunately, however

Do you have a special costume? Wear a cape? Do you use your power to fight crime? Do you have a secret identity? Did your uncle ever tell you that with great power comes great responsibility? Is that why you never use your superpower to discern the winning lotto numbers? I bet that it is. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she ok with all the attention you and your sidekick the Holy Spirit get as crime-fighting superheroes, or is she chill?

Pretty sophisticated stuff. But then who wants complex discussion when you can post about the talking donkey again/?

You conveniently edited out the substance of my response and skipped to the playful closing paragraph.

The poster in question stated that he/she can discern truth without access to sufficient information, and does so by virtue of an association with a Spirit. That claim, like many similar claims made by psychics and mediums, CAN BE TESTED.

The poster clearly stated that through the collaboration of this spirit he was able to discern truth even in circumstances where truth would not be discernable by conventional means. So I asked him to do so. And he failed. Demonstrating that he when he described his abilities, he was making things up.

Do you have the power to discern truth by associations with spirits? If so, how many fingers am I holding up?

Let me guess, your power to discern truth can only be used for truths that cannot be subsequently verified like for example the truht that Noah was 900 years old. How convenient.

Oh, and yes, I'll continue bringing up the most absurd parts of the Bible (the talking donkey, the rain of frogs, the zombie invasion) right until you people admit that they are absurd fairy tales. And the instant you make that admission, I will point out that there is no justification for disbelieving those but believing the virgin birth and resurrection stories, you will have to concede that, and voila' you're no longer a Christian.

Until that happens, I'll be as annoying as a Jahovah's witness, and ruin your sunday mornings with reminders that you believe in fairy tales.

Speaking of which, let me ask you straight up: Do you believe in talking donkeys?

[Divine Insight]

Dogma offends me.

I agree. The Bible is an extremely vile and offensive collection of immoral fables that clearly do not represent any form of intelligence.

The fact that people in the world today still cling to these obviously false superstitious fables is truly sad. The fact that they think it represents morality is scary. And the fact that they expect other people to take it seriously too is indeed offensive.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

Personally, dismissing a lot of common theological arguments is a lot easier than discussing topics that need actual information about the real world, because so many theistic arguments are logically flawed, and you just need to point and name the fallacy.

At worst, you can say "that premise is unjustified", but that's still nothing compared to a full on discussion about the science and evidence. (Not that something similar doesn't result from some discussions of premises)

I don't think I agree.

The problem with theological arguments is that they are not based on anything tangible, and people can make stuff up as they go along.

Somebody makes a theological argument that is logically flawed? No problem, he can just say "This appears to you to be a flaw becuase you see it through the lens of your human imperfection. That which appears illogical in the realm of human understanding, does not necessarily have to be illogical in the hands of an omnipotent God".

It reminds me of when my schoolmates and I in 6th grade would play "rock, paper, scissors". The game is fun enough as is, but anytime we played it, we inevitably wanted to expand and embellish it. So we would add the "tank" which could beat both the "rock" and the "paper" but not the "scissor", the "sword", which could beat the "paper" and the "scissor" but not the "rock", etc.

Pretty soon, somebody would invent something that beat everything else. Then somebody would invent something that would beat nothing except the thing which would beat anything else.

In the end, somebody would invent something that would beat EVERYTHING no matter what.

And by then the game had lost all of its meaning.

That's how theological arguments tend to go. Somebody makes up that an omnipotent God exists and that he created humanity. Then somebody points out that if he was omnipotent he wouldn't have made them imperfect. So then somebody makes up that free will was part of the omnipotent plan. So then we point out that whatever the plan, if he was omnipotent, he could have accomplished in ways that didn't involve drowing the whole of humanity and torturing our souls for eternity. So then somebody makes up that this God is so great that we cannot question his judgement through the imperfect prism of our humanity. So then we ask how are they in a position to make statements about God if the prism through which we judge his actions is intrinsically imperfect. So then they make up that they can thanks to the influence of the Holy Spirit. So we ask how they can tell that it's the holy spirit and not indigestion from those Tacos they ate.... and blah blah blah.

And soon enough, they come up with the ultimate trumpcard/cop out: God works in mysterious ways. The very fact that what we're saying makes no sense, is evidence for the fact that it's true.

Logic is no antidote to theological dogmatism.

If they cared about logic, they wouldn't be theists in the first place.

[atheist buddy]

Dogma offends me.

I agree. The Bible is an extremely vile and offensive collection of immoral fables that clearly do not represent any form of intelligence.

The fact that people in the world today still cling to these obviously false superstitious fables is truly sad. The fact that they think it represents morality is scary. And the fact that they expect other people to take it seriously too is indeed offensive.

It's offensive. It's sad. And it's terrifying. More so than when the same kind of religiosity was displayed in the Middle Ages. It was understandable back then. They didn't know anything. Of course they'd think the black plague was the result of blasphemy! They didn't know what Yersinia Pestis was! But that level of dogmatic superstition today is truly truly scary.

You know how no matter who you are, if you say the N word, or if you say something antisemetic, or if you hit a woman, your career is pretty much over, and you become the laughingstock/pariah of society?

My goal here is to accelerate the process that will inevitably bring us to the day that the same level of permanent ostracization is visited upon anybody who would dare say that another person will go to hell if they don't agree with their fairy tales.

I can't wait for the day that when a Pat Robertson says that Katrina was God's punishment for tolerance of gays, the donations to his stupid show dry up overnight.

I can't wait for the day when anybody who would go on tv and say they believe snakes can talk is immediately relegated to the children's table of society, along with the Westboro Baptist Church crowd.