How do you stop arguing with fundamentalists? Should you?

[George-ananda]

You know, I don't often see blogs that I believe outright made up their content but I honestly believe that Carl Sagan story is 100% fake. Not only is the language of the quotations not anything like his cadence, but his stated claims are different from his own writing (he wasn't a self-proclaimed atheist, he was always a hard agnostic.)

This is my problem with a lot of medium stories and healing and NDE stories: They all rely on testimonial evidence which is tenuous and often (even many believers agree) easily faked.

No, I do not believe the mother is a charlatan as I have read the full story. Erick I believe communicates often and with physical evidence. Now, I also believe that when they conduct an interview with a third party errors and inaccuracies can occur and they tell us that. It is their best honest effort to understand the third party person through the medium and it is never claimed to be without error. It is just your mention of Carl Sagan that made me think of that reading.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, I do not believe the mother is a charlatan as I have read the full story. Erick I believe communicates often and with physical evidence. Now, I also believe that when they conduct an interview with a third party errors and inaccuracies can occur and they tell us that. It is their best honest effort to understand the third party person through the medium and it is never claimed to be without error. It is just your mention of Carl Sagan that made me think of that reading.

With physical evidence that you're reading about third hand on a blog with a clearly faked Sagan interview?
Alright, that's fine. You do you. I'll do me.

 

[George-ananda]

With physical evidence that you're reading about third hand on a blog with a clearly faked Sagan interview?

How is it 'clearly faked'? Not clear or inaccurate possibly but what is the evidence of fakery. (in fact I have noticed detail errors in parts of other interviews that would not have occurred with even simple cheating research; if they were cheating to fool us they would not have made such simple errors one wouldn't think; the medium claims no research into these people; she wasn't clear on who Sagan was if you noticed; obviously a younger person))

Alright, that's fine. You do you. I'll do me.

Let's stick with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Haha, whatever you need to tell yourself I guess? It's not that axioms aren't questioned, anyone can say "A can totally be non A", but it can't actually be shown false. Just when you question "the self exists", you must exist to ask the question in the first place. I think it's probably a new low for a materialist to rely on the idea that axioms are "faith... what you want to believe as true". Hell materialism and science rely on such axioms, so are those just faith as well? If something is not an axiom then it's easy to show that, so why have you not even tried? Instead of this childish crap, why no show how self existence is no self evident, necessary, relies on premises, or can be argued against without it still being required to be true.

Your other ridiculous examples of axioms show you clearly don't understand the concept, so hopefully that simplifies it enough.

The bottom line: when challenged to defend your position, rather than justify it, you give reasons why you think it doesn't need justification. Whether or not this is compelling to you, it sure isn't compelling to me or anyone else who has a firm grasp on logic.

 

[1137]

The bottom line: when challenged to defend your position, rather than justify it, you give reasons why you think it doesn't need justification. Whether or not this is compelling to you, it sure isn't compelling to me or anyone else who has a firm grasp on logic.

I have justified it, are you ****ing kidding?

"Self existence is self evident, necessary, has no simpler premises, and cannot be argued against for it would have to be assumed true to argue at all. These are the characteristics of axioms, and apply to self existence. If you could deny this it would be insanely easy if incorrect: simply show that self existence does not fit these characteristic."

I've given you the reasons over and over and asked you how it is incorrect. This is just laughably pathetic now. Like I said, fundamentalism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fundamentalism is a funny choice of word here.

 

[YmirGF]

What's wrong with wanting to be right? What's wrong with wanting to combat ignorance? There are obviously a lot of things that are uncertain, or even matters of opinion, but there are also plenty of things that we know. If some-one believes, for example, that the earth was created 6000 years ago with the fossils in place, they they are stupid and irrational, and they should not go unchallenged.

I do agree but life is simply too short for some things. If someone hits me with an absurd idea, I will generally conclude that they are the intellectual equivalent of a wilted lettuce leaf. Given their belief it is likely they will be impervious to anything that questions their fragile understanding. An intelligent person must appreciate that there are times and people who simply cannot understand a larger perspective. It's sort of like describing Calculus to a kid who is still learning simple fractions. Good luck on that.

Edit: The other key thing to keep in mind is that many folks will resent your attempt to educate them. They seriously do not want to know more and are quite content in their erroneous assumptions about reality.

If some-one doesn't care what others think, why would they join this board?

I'm just here for the likes.

 

[1137]

I do agree but life is simply too short for some things. If someone hits me with an absurd idea, I will generally conclude that are the intellectual equivalent of a wilted lettuce leaf. Given their belief it is likely they will be impervious to anything that questions their fragile understanding. An intelligent person must appreciate that there are times and people who simply cannot understand a larger perspective. It's sort of like describing Calculus to a kid who is still learning simple fractions. Good luck on that.



I'm just here for the likes.

Perhaps I need to utilize the ignore feature more for those individuals, haha. I mean, there's a reason I don't go into creationist forums!

 

[1137]

Fundamentalism is a funny choice of word here.

If you mean because it tend to denote religion itself, sure. The definition of a fundamentalist seems tied to literal interpretation of scripture. But I think this is outdated.

 

[YmirGF]

Fundamentalism is a funny choice of word here.

Yeah, As much as I love both posters, I simply don't know why they are arguing.

Perhaps I need to utilize the ignore feature more for those individuals, haha. I mean, there's a reason I don't go into creationist forums!

I find both you @1137 and @9-10ths_Penguin to be top notch posters. It's a pity you cannot find some common ground.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics were once 'stupid and irrational' while anyone who doubted Piltdown man, canals on Mars, or global cooling [sic!] were 'deniers of science!'

No, actually. In the scientific community, people realise that there are inevitable conclusions, likely interpretations, plausible ideas, and unlikely speculations. Einstein was dubious about quantum mechanics when it was still a likely interpretation, with no conclusive evidence, but he didn't call those who accepted it stupid. Plate tectonics was considered dubious because no one could see a mechanism.

Young Earth creationism is not my position, but when large numbers of people believe in something that seems stupid and irrational to us, it's usually a red flag that we are missing something.

If the people who believed in it had evidence, however weak, that would be true, but it doesn't even make it into the "unlikely speculation" category. The only thing it shows is how bad education is in some countries and how a few religions teach irrationality.

I agree with Ben Carson, that God could have made a 14 billion yr old universe appear 6000 years ago.. he's God.

That would make your God a deliberate liar. How does that square with the Christian teaching of God's goodness?

 

[viole]

If you mean because it tend to denote religion itself, sure. The definition of a fundamentalist seems tied to literal interpretation of scripture. But I think this is outdated.

Probably. For instance, I am very fundamentalistic that 2 + 2 = 4. Are you not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I remember being a kid first stumbling upon yahoo answers, and slap fighting with the creationists and all that. I used to let myself get stressed over it, frustrated that people just don't listen, etc. Then I just kind of gave up, not even sure what happened. Now I find myself in the same position with atheism and materialism. Sometimes no matter how much logic and evidence you shove in someone's face they still simply won't listen. Again I find myself angry and frustrated, and I want to know how to just let it go.

But then, is letting it go right? Sure you can't change the mind of a fundamentalist denying reason and evidence, but does that mean you just accept it? What about onlookers? What about a simple responsibility to challenge fundamentalism?

Any tips or thoughts?

I'm not sure this is what RF is for.

If you want to be really get into nasty arguments, try Reddit. . . Or maybe you already have, 3 scarabs.

Let it go. You only have so much time to live. . .

 

[1137]

Probably. For instance, I am very fundamentalistic that 2 + 2 = 4. Are you not?

Ciao

- viole

I tend to tie fundamentalism to beliefs without reason or evidence, where the individual refuses to listen or even engage.

 

[1137]

I'm not sure this is what RF is for.

If you want to be really get into nasty arguments, try Reddit. . . Or maybe you already have, 3 scarabs.

Let it go. You only have so much time to live. . .

Haha, yeah that account brings way more anger, though we just got the Setian sub up and running which I hope works out.

 

[1137]

Yeah, As much as I love both posters, I simply don't know why they are arguing.

I find both you @1137 and @9-10ths_Penguin to be top notch posters. It's a pity you cannot find some common ground.

It's hard to find common ground when you say "I believe A because XYZ", and the other person refuses to engage in any way other than screaming you haven't explained yourself.

 

[viole]

I tend to tie fundamentalism to beliefs without reason or evidence, where the individual refuses to listen or even engage.

I promise that I will engage. Bring it on.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

I promise that I will engage. Bring it on.

Ciao

- viole

Um, engage with what, the topic of the thread finally?

 

[viole]

Um, engage with what, the topic of the thread finally?

Nope. The "evidence" you claim to have.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

Nope. The "evidence" you claim to have.

Ciao

- viole

Then I'd suggest you find the proper thread.