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?

[Cephus]

I think that's really why I've largely stopped debating theists. There's no point to it. They're not interested in whether their beliefs are true or not, it makes them feel good, therefore they're going to believe it come hell or high water and nothing you say will ever make a difference. To engage in such a session of head-meets-wall-repeatedly makes no sense. They cannot be reasoned with, hence it's best to just go find something actually constructive to do.

[Unhand Me Sir]

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.

Nowhere did that poster claim to be able to tell how many fingers you're holding up or whether you'd put a 10 digit number in a PM. And 2 minutes with Google would suffice to find out a little bit about what the gift of discernment is claimed to be.

You're implying in this thread that other people aren't clever enough to take part in sophisticated arguments but at the same time you persist, either deliberately or through laziness, in misunderstanding stuff that's hardly rocket science.

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.

It is, of course, your right to do that. It's just a little ironic that you're doing it again in a thread which you started called "Is there any point in sophisticated arguments?"

Who are "you people" by the way?

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

No.

[Mithrae]

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?
. . . .

If that's the level of debate someone feels comfortable engaging in, they should by all means do so. But some others do prefer slightly more sophisticated topics, and starting a thread to criticise that preference by referring back to the more simplistic topics doesn't seem particularly productive

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 9 by atheist buddy]

The well educated religious don't think that way; once you say "he's beyond logic and reason" you say "I am illogical and unreasonable for believing in him"; you have 'lost'.

Certainly anyone else interested in the discussion who isn't ultra fundamentalist will recognise that.

[Zzyzx]

.

They cannot be reasoned with, hence it's best to just go find something actually constructive to do.

Would it be constructive to have your points read by hundreds or thousands of people, many of whom may be searching for answers concerning theism?

This thread, for instance, has 138 views in just one day. Some threads go to tens of thousands of views. To me it seems worthwhile to consider readers as your objective and present ideas for them to consider than to expect die-hard religionists to apply reasoning or accept non-religious arguments.

[atheist buddy]

2 minutes with Google would suffice to find out a little bit about what the gift of discernment is claimed to be.

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith [d]by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of [e]healing [f]by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the [g]effecting of [h]miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills". (1 Cor 12)

I'm sorry but this Bible passage reads exactly like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft lore.

The Elven Lord has the Word of Wisdom power. It grants a +5 bonus to Intelligence and +2 to Destiny
The Drwarven Smith has the Word of Knowledge power. It grants a +4 bonus to weapon crafting and +3 to Armor
The Human Priest has the Word of Faith power. It grants a +3 bonus to gullibility and immunity to demonic spells
The Paladin Healer has the Word of Healing power. It grants a +6 health regeneration rate, and the ability to heal a companion for 40 hitpoints
The Nord Wizard has the Word of Miracle power. It grants a +4 bonus to holy spells and the fast mana regeneration perk

and blah blah blah

Give me a break UMS. You cannot possibly try to pass off this nonsense as a serious debate topic. This is not 5th to 10th grade classroom subject matter. This is what 10th graders do in their room if they don't have any friends to play outdoors with.

My point still stands. One cannot have a serious discussion with people who believe they have superpowers.

[atheist buddy]

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?
. . . .

If that's the level of debate someone feels comfortable engaging in, they should by all means do so. But some others do prefer slightly more sophisticated topics

Believe me, I definitely count myself among those who would prefer more sophisticated topics.

My point is that my preference for sophistication unfortunately does not change the fact that a sophisticated debate requires sophistication on both sides, and sophistication is most definitely lacking in a person who's worldview has not evolved one iota from that of a bronze age goatherder.

There's only so much you can discuss about science with a caveman.

Only so much you can discuss about the woes and bliss of getting old with a teenager

Only so much you can discuss about philosophy, logic and theory of knowledge with someone who literally believes that a 900 year old man built a boat and placed a million animals on it.

[Zzyzx]

.

There's only so much you can discuss about science with a caveman.

Only so much you can discuss about the woes and bliss of getting old with a teenager

Only so much you can discuss about philosophy, logic and theory of knowledge with someone who literally believes that a 900 year old man built a boat and placed a million animals on it.

I personally (as one who has studied sciences intensively for a decade and taught university science classes) have no interest in debating science with those whose "knowledge" of scientific subjects comes from bible reading, sermons, creationist websites, television, movies and make believe.

How anyone with that "background" can feel qualified to discuss advanced scientific topics that require years to master is beyond me. Yet quite often the "willfully ignorant" or uninformed seem to feel supremely confident and competent to discuss origin of the universe, beginning of life, evolution, geology, etc as though they actually understood such topics based upon reading the bible, consulting creationist websites, or watching television.



Thus, I do not debate in the Science and Religion sub-forum. Even so, there is often a lot of pseudo-science (junk science) presented in C&A.

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh heck, y'all wantin' the sophisticated, y'all do so much ya wanna get sick.

Me, I see nothing "sophisticated" in the god concept itself, beyond what man has done with it. It's a way of thinking that seems rooted in the ability to make a sort of "snap judgement", where results of that judgement are immediate.


Yet curious thing, survival. Even the lion is in the grass from time to time.

[atheist buddy]

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

No.

Very good.

Next question: 9 months before Jesus was born, did some ejaculate come out of a human penis, enter Mary's vagina and fertilize one of her eggs?

Simple yes or no.