Can we debate respectfully?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

Can we debate respectfully?

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I've listened to this debate several times over the years, it was broadcast by the BBC on radio a great many years ago.

Its a debate on the existence of God between two very respected intellectuals, Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston. Each of these men wrote a comprehensive history of philosophy and were well versed in philosophy, logic, history and so on, they were well matched.

What is striking is that neither party ever gets personal, they focus entirely on their opponents arguments, no petty insinuating, snide remarks or disparaging words.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell

If you prefer to skip the introductions and go right to the debate use this link.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - No Intro

So the question - why do so many debates in the Science and Religion area often end up getting personal and stray away from the pure hard logic of the topic itself?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #61

Post by Diagoras »

Inquirer wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:22 am The number of warnings is a function of (among other things) the number of complainants. In some thread where there are 2 theists and 10 atheists for example a report of a potentially problem post has a higher probability for theists than atheists.
A valid point and a useful reminder, thanks.

I’m still learning the fine art of ‘walking away’ rather than responding when a particular debate gets heated. If it’s one where there’s a group of non-theists ‘piling on’ a single theist, then there are more eyes on the lookout for that person ‘lashing out’, for example.

Moderators here do a great job by and large, and it bears repeating that none of them are actively monitoring threads 24/7, so it’s often impossible to give a more general ‘tone it down, people’ warning before someone transgresses the rules in an obvious way.

We can all play our part in acting to avoid things getting to a ‘pile on’ situation.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #62

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Diagoras in post #61]

Posters are given Warnings/Comments based on the content of the reported post not on whether they are an atheist or a theist. If a poster desires not to receive Warnings/Comments, there is a very simply method to achieve this. Don't include any content in any post that would deserve a Warning/Comment. It is not the fault of the person reporting a post when a poster receives a Warning/Comment. The issue lies with the content of the reported post.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #63

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to Tcg in post #62]

Oh, absolutely - no disagreement with anything you wrote there, Tcg.

I was more reminding myself not to help create any environment where uncivil behaviour could erupt.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #64

Post by Tcg »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:04 pm [Replying to Tcg in post #62]

Oh, absolutely - no disagreement with anything you wrote there, Tcg.

I was more reminding myself not to help create any environment where uncivil behaviour could erupt.
That's a great goal and reminder. If we all kept that in mind, I think the answer to the O.P. would be yes at least a great deal of the time. We'll probably never be able to do it perfectly all the time.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #65

Post by Clownboat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:05 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:02 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:05 am (Bolded is my addition).
I make a lot of atheists uncomfortable on here (I don't see why this would be true. Seems you are just imagining this.), and on a forum filled with the opposing party also acting as the authorities (the moderator ratio is fair), it is only a matter of time before I get MLK'ed, or Jesus Christ'ed.

Thats what happens when you ruffle the wrong feathers.

You get JFK'ed.
You don't say. :shock:

Persectution complex is a real thing.
I hope I don't get JFK'ed for pointing that out!

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.
JFK: Man, I get this strange feeling that because of my positive attitude towards African Americans in this country, along with my objection to intervening in Vietnam...that a lot of the establishment dont like me...including some of the American people.

JFK's circle: Aw man, you are just trippin. Don't talk such foolishness. Everyone loves you.

JFK: I guess you're right. Thank you for the reassurance.

See, we have what was said above^...

And then we have..

November 22 1963
Here is the thing. JFK's fears were not irrational.
Unlike the claim that the moderator balance here is unfairly balanced.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #66

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:19 am
Here is the thing. JFK's fears were not irrational.
Unlike the claim that the moderator balance here is unfairly balanced.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.
No, here is the thing..

If JFK accused his debate opponent of splitting hairs, he wouldn't have been dinged by the press for being uncivil.

The bottom line is, someone got their feelings hurt (and i think i know who) and reported one of my posts to the mods.

And instead of finding the report bogus, the mod ran with it, catering to the beloved accuser's bogus accusation.

Uncivil is an bogus labeling of a splitting hairs accusation...and if the labeling is unfair, then the ding is unfair.

And Inquirer already made a case about the selective warnings/strikes on here..so how fair/balanced can it be?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #67

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:19 am
Here is the thing. JFK's fears were not irrational.
Unlike the claim that the moderator balance here is unfairly balanced.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.
We_Are_Venom wrote:No, here is the thing..
Woops, you forgot to address my post and went off on a tangent instead.

To save time and sanity. Copy/paste:
JFK's fears were not irrational. Unlike the claim that the moderator balance here is unfairly balanced.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

Do you acknowledge that JFK had a rational fear while the claim about moderators being unbalanced was irrational?

Side note: I have been on this site for 14 years and have only reported a post once, which for me, makes these claims irrational.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #68

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:55 pm
Woops, you forgot to address my post and went off on a tangent instead.

To save time and sanity. Copy/paste:
JFK's fears were not irrational. Unlike the claim that the moderator balance here is unfairly balanced.

per·se·cu·tion com·plex
noun
an irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.
Woops, you failed to comprehend that the tangent I went off on was part of my case that the persecution allegations are rational.

If you feel it is irrational, then you and I don't see reality the same.
Do you acknowledge that JFK had a rational fear while the claim about moderators being unbalanced was irrational?
I acknowledge that when you ruffle the wrong feathers, you end up like JFK, MLK, Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln, Malcolm X.

Would you like this list to go on and on and on with people who weren't like by someone and was dealt with accordingly?
Side note: I have been on this site for 14 years and have only reported a post once, which for me, makes these claims irrational.
Guy A: I have lived in Queens for 14 years and I've only been shot at once.

Rapper 50 Cent: Interesting. I had lived in Queens for 25 years when I got shot 9 times during one incident.

In other words, your experience ain't the next man's experience.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #69

Post by William »

Tcg wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:11 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:07 am
That still doesn't explain why I got dinged for accusing someone of splitting hairs.
There is no mystery or conspiracy involved. otseng explained clearly why you received a Moderator Warning.

viewtopic.php?p=1087589#p1087589


Tcg
The comments made were in reply to this:
William wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:58 pm
I walk the Wall between theism and atheism re The Question "Do We Exist Within a Creation?"

Most folk make the mistake of thinking that one has to be either theist or atheist re having a position on The Question.
Agnosticism is mostly understood to be a sub-category of atheism which is not the position I hold on The Question. I am not atheist, agnostic or theist.
Instead of acknowledging my brief explanation re position, my post was simply hand-waved away as "Splitting hairs" with the additional and unnecessary comment that the poster was sorry for even commenting on it - [for in doing so, it gave me the opportunity to explain]

I thought the comments were unnecessary and with that in mind, reported the post as "uncivil" . When I report posts, it isn't necessarily because I want a moderator to agree with me, so much as I want to understand if I am calling it correctly.

From my perspective, since the poster chose to make the comments, rather than simply choosing not to reply at all, I thought that this was uncivil of the poster and reported the post, and - by the moderators own response, I learned that - yes - the poster was being uncivil.

The poster appears not to understand that he/she was being uncivil, and is arguing that he/she has being unfairly reprimanded.
That is simply NOT the case.

As for me, I stand by my understanding that there are more than just the two positions of "Theism" and "Atheism" and I was in no way simply "splitting hairs" about that, in my brief explanation of my position.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Can we debate respectfully?

Post #70

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

Wait a min, so how does an unnecessary comment make it an uncivil comment?

Or maybe we have two different definitions of uncivil.

So basically, my post was reported because a member didn't like the fact that I wasn't going to sit there and have a debate with him about what constitutes his label of himself as an unbeliever.

The explanation that this person gave (his distinction of atheist relative to agnostic) was a small, unnecessary distinction, and in my opinion, splitting hairs.

That is all I had to say on the matter and I kept it moving.

So because of that, feelings were hurt and posts were reported as uncivil..it blows my mind.

It is ridiculous, is what it is...and I seriously have my doubts that if one of the more beloved posters did the same thing, no report would have been made.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply