His comment that you answered was, "My point is that when theists decide to debate they will be exposed to critical thinking that does not support their reasons and purposes for belief." You didn't rebut it or even disagree, so presumably you agree. But your comment suggests that you think that the critical thinker is trying to reason to the faith-based thinker. Maybe you think he is trying to change the mind of somebody willing to hold unjustified beliefs. Not if he's familiar with such discussions. The critical thinker has only evidence and reason to offer, and those are not the currency of thought of many people. That is not what faith-based thinkers use to reach their belief set.
So, if his thinking were really that 'critical', he should be able to recognize that he has nothing to debate with. That, in fact, there is nothing to debate. Faith is a personal, subjective choice based on the personal subjective results that one derives from having made that choice and lived with it a while. What is there to debate? What is there to rebut? Especially when the 'critic' has no similar experience of his own from which to enter what is an essentially subjective dialogue? And the amazing thing, to me, is that these "critical thinkers" never see this most obvious fault. And instead, they just bulldoze onward, insisting on evidence and facts and objective reasons and so on. Oblivious that they are not even within the realm of subject that they think they are rebutting.
Perhaps you don't understand what the critical thinker is doing. For starters, it's not debate unless both participants are critical thinkers that engage in dialectic and attempt to rebut one another. That just doesn't ever happen when in discussion with faith-based thinkers. They don't know how to do that, nor do they know that they should. In fact, one almost never sees a rebuttal from the faith-based thinker. Remember, a rebuttal is not mere dissent, but a particular kind in which a reason is offered for why the other guy's position is not sound, a reason that if correct, means the rebutted comment cannot be correct. When do we ever see that? Only between two critical thinkers. Think of two attorneys debating in front of a jury. The prosecutor makes a case for guilt, say of murder. Suppose it is plausible. The defense must provide a rebuttal - a counterargument that if correct, makes the prosecutor incorrect. If he can't or doesn't he loses the case. Prosecution wins.
An offered alibi would be a rebuttal. If the defendant wasn't near the scene of the crime, he couldn't have committed the crime. Do you see why this is a rebuttal? In these kinds of discussions on RF, the response would be something like, "The defendant is a man of God and just wouldn't do that." That's not a rebuttal, because ever if he were a man of God, he could be guilty of the crime. It is not a comment that if true, makes the allegation of guilt impossible. Prosecution wins again, for lack of a convincing rebuttal.
But an alibi does this. If it is accurate, and the prosecutor cannot discredit the claim, the defense wins. Debate over.
However, the prosecution may be able to rebut the claim of an alibi, but to be a rebuttal, it needs to be a comment that makes the alibi invalid. Cell phone data shows that the defendant was in the vicinity of the crime after all. Alibi rebutted, and if this is not successfully rebutted in return, prosecution wins. And back and forth it goes until the last plausible argument goes unrebutted.
I think of this as similar to a game of ping-pong, with prosecutor and defense attorney rallying for several shots back and forth until finally a shot is made that can't be returned. Debate over. What do we see here instead? Faith-based thinker makes a claim, critical thinker rebuts it, and the server ignores that by not offering a rebuttal, just dissent: "Well you can't prove that there's no God" or "Your claim is absurd. I don't have enough faith to believe everything came from nothing by accident." Not a rebuttal, just mere dissent. He doesn't agree, but can't tell you why you are wrong, can't rebut your conclusion because he doesn't even know what that is or what is expected of him. This is not debate. It's like a ping-pong game where only one player ever returns a shot (rebuts), and then the rally is over, because no counter-rebuttal is offered. Not a debate. Not dialectic.
So, it's incorrect to think of those exchanges as debates. And hopefully, the critical thinker recognizes this. His comments change from an effort at dialectic - an effort to cooperatively resolve differences using the principles of critical thought applied to evidence - to simply commenting about what is happening as I am now. I have no expectation of you rebutting this argument. I make it anyway, assuming that there will be no forward progress from here. When has that ever happened? Never between us. How many times have I bemoaned your habit of not only not rebutting rebuttals made to you, but usually not even acknowledging that you saw them or understood them. Not debate. Not dialectic. It's one serve (the claim), one return (it's rebuttal), and out. Over. Done. There will be no further progress. Nothing will be settled or resolved.
You ask, "what is there to debate" regarding faith, and I agree. There is no debate there. To you, that makes this exercise absurd. What am I trying to do arguing faith with a faith-based thinker? Not what you seem to think. It's this, not debate. It's me making arguments like this one, and you failing to either say that you agree or explain why it's wrong. You won't do that, and I know it. So, I must have a different purpose. And I do. I want to make this argument knowing that it is the end of this subthread - one serve (your quoted comment), one return (my explanation why you are wrong and have misjudged what critical thinkers are doing when in conversation with others that just don't know how to cooperate), then it's over. Whatever your comment, it will not be a rebuttal, therefore, the discussion is over.
The mystery for me, and another point worth making even if it has no impact on you, is why you are going to let me be correct. I don't know why, just that that you will. Is there some kind of cognitive bias preventing you from seeing and understanding what is written? Do you not know what is being asked of you (notice that I explained in sufficient detail that you ought to)? Are you aware that you are being asked to rebut but just won't because you are insecure trying, or don't think you can offer a cogent rebuttal? Who knows? This is part of the problem with you not cooperating in dialectic. If you did, I might be able to address this matter more effectively.
But you don't and so I am left to speculate. I have an opinion, a best guess, but since you don't want to participate in my formulation of that opinion by adding my questions such as this one - why? why won't you even try to participate in dialectic. Look at our two comments above. Your comment above is off the reservation. It doesn't address anything that you read. I wrote, "
But your comment suggests that you think that the critical thinker is trying to reason to the faith-based thinker. Maybe you think he is trying to change the mind of somebody willing to hold unjustified beliefs. Not if he's familiar with such discussions," and rather than address that, all you did was do it again. You made the same mistake thinking that the critical thinker was trying to debate the faith-based based thinker even after being told that that is incorrect, and I have told you that again here. There's no evidence in that response hat you understood those words. In fact, the evidence is that you didn't. I said that it's not a debate, and that the critical thinker doesn't expect to make an impact on the faith-based thinker faith-based thinker, and then you tell me scoffingly that doing so is pointless (you have a bad habit of gratuitously inserting word like stupid, absurd, insane). Yes, I know. I had just told you, and I'm telling you again now. And it is not what I am doing.
You also wrote, "they just bulldoze onward, insisting on evidence and facts and objective reasons and so on." even after me telling you no skeptic is asking you or any other theist for evidence. They know none will be forthcoming. I told you that that should be interpreted as a rhetorical question, since no useful answer is expected. I also told you that I have stopped asking the rhetorical question because of responses like yours. Same problem. There is no value in writing to you if you never assimilate what you read. Once again, my purpose must be something else, even if you never assimilate that idea, either.
Let's see how you respond to this. I'd really like to get through to you. I think these are useful ideas that you would benefit from carefully considering, and engaging in responsive dialog, where we're cooperating to resolve some of these issues. Why do you do what what you do, and is it conducive to your purpose? Why do you never seem interested in such things?
