Is debating pointless?

[Prometheus85]

Thats abuse? To challenge someone to a debate is abuse? How?

Who said anything about challenging someone to a debate is abuse?

I said debating is pointless if people abuse it to push their own agenda. Are u following what I’m saying?

 

[Prometheus85]

Actually, yea, why not debate how to properly pull a tooth? I mean, why not? Seriously?

Please tell me your being sarcastic?
How many people SERIOUSLY remove their teeth with a string and a door????

This is were debating becomes pointless when someone puts forth that kind of argument.

Becaue it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If anyone chooses not to debate a young earther. Fine. If they do, thats also fine. The freedom of speach is what im talking about.

I thought debating was what we were talking about.

And the only way to show it has no MERIT is to what? Give it a level of platform and refute it.

T.H. Huxley and others did that a century and a half ago. It has been established fact for much longer than either of us has been alive that Young Earth Creationism is a load of nonsense. The fact that some people never got that memo creates no obligation for those who did.

You misunderstand that too. I did not mean respect rediculers.

People who argue ridiculous things should expect to be ridiculed.

Heres the thing: it makes no difference if ken gets media attention through nye or not. Who cares either way? The people who watch the media and hear the debate, they will make up there own mind.

... based partly on Ken Ham riding Bill Nye's coattails toward respectability.

But are you really saying that it's wrong for people to care about the harm Ken Ham can and does do?

 

[Jollybear]

I thought debating was what we were talking about.

We are. Freedom of speach is a part of debate.

T.H. Huxley and others did that a century and a half ago. It has been established fact for much longer than either of us has been alive that Young Earth Creationism is a load of nonsense

Well, apparently the famous young earther proponents found fault with huxley.

Plus, heres the thing, not every lay person is educated as much as the famous young earthers and the famous old earthers. Do the lay people who believe in young earth deserve redicule?

The fact that some people never got that memo creates no obligation for those who did.

So, those that dont get a memo deserve redicule?

People who argue ridiculous things should expect to be ridiculed.

Why? Why redicule and not refute? You wanna know something else, the fact i even have to ask that question to you means ive got to muster every ounce of patience within myself because i think its outright rediculious to redicule vs refuting.

based partly on Ken Ham riding Bill Nye's coattails toward respectability.

But are you really saying that it's wrong for people to care about the harm Ken Ham can and does do?

Let me ask you this: what HARM does ken do by promoting young earthism? What harm is done to lay people who happen to believe the earth is young?

 

[Jollybear]

Please tell me your being sarcastic?
How many people SERIOUSLY remove their teeth with a string and a door????

This is were debating becomes pointless when someone puts forth that kind of argument.

Becaue it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.

And thats the whole point of debate is to show whether the truth lies in the middle or show that one side is completely wrong.

Otherwise your only PREACHING your view is right.

 

[Prometheus85]

And thats the whole point of debate is to show whether the truth lies in the middle or show that one side is completely wrong.

Otherwise your only PREACHING your view is right.

How can u show whether the truth lies in the middle while also arguing your view point is right and the other persons view point wrong???

I think missunderstood me saying saying the truth must lie somewhere in between.

Putting up a rational position against a extreme position has major problems. For instance u ever watch CNN and they have a segment on climate change and they introduce Doctor Joe blow aka professor of nothing as a climate change "expert" against someone with a PHD in science from Princeton who has dedicated their life to the topic, the public now needs an expert to examine credentials before they can examine evidence given by experts. This can lead lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

How can u show whether the truth lies in the middle while also arguing your view point is right and the other persons view point wrong???

I think missunderstood me saying saying the truth must lie somewhere in between.

Putting up a rational position against a extreme position has major problems. For instance u ever watch CNN and they have a segment on climate change and they introduce Doctor Joe blow aka professor of nothing as a climate change "expert" against someone with a PHD in science from Princeton who has dedicated their life to the topic, the public now needs an expert to examine credentials before they can examine evidence given by experts. This can lead lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong.

Its true that one side may be completely wrong. But, proper debate (non redicule) will reveal if its completely wrong, half wrong, or completely right. Debate will reveal that.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

So, is debating pointless? If yes.....why? If no.....why?

I would debate that, but it'd be pointless.

 

[Jollybear]

I would debate that, but it'd be pointless.

So why would it be pointless?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are. Freedom of speach is a part of debate.

Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to any particular debate opponent or platform.

Well, apparently the famous young earther proponents found fault with huxley.

Disagreeing is not the same thing as "finding fault." It really is a settled matter that Young Earth Creationism is not just not supported by the evidence; it's contrary to all the evidence we have.

Plus, heres the thing, not every lay person is educated as much as the famous young earthers and the famous old earthers. Do the lay people who believe in young earth deserve redicule?

I have sympathy for people who have been duped by those who misrepresented the facts to convince them of Young Earth Creationism. I don't ridicule people for misunderstandings they arrived at honestly, unless they themselves misrepresent the facts or their level of knowledge.

This doesn't mean that we need to engage with creationism as if it's a valid scientific hypothesis thar deserves a place in scientific discourse. There's nothing wrong with treating Young Earth Creationism as what it is: a religious belief.

So, those that dont get a memo deserve redicule?

Depends.

If all they've done is believe that Creationism is true, then I'd generally be kind to them. Where we run into issues is typically when they have another belief layered on top, such as:

- "I believe in Young Earth Creationism... and I believe the facts support my position" or
- "I believe in Young Earth Creationism... and I believe I have a better handle on the science than actual experts."

Why? Why redicule and not refute?

A few reasons:

- the beliefs have no merit. Better to use our energies considering claims that have at least a possibility of being correct.

- belief in creationism demonstrates such a lack of knowledge of science that actually refuting the claims would generally involve re-educating the person on so much basic science that it can't be done in a simple discussion or debate... and people generally aren't open to being actually educated by someone they're arguing with anyway. OTOH, if they go through the effort to educate themselves, they'll see how creationism is wrong all on their own.

- for those who do know the science but promote creationism anyway, they've chosen to misrepresent things. It's not as if they'll change their minds by being presented with the right facts; they already know the facts and they've chosen a position in opposition to them.

- people who push for Creationism/ID/other religious beliefs in public schools often do so using the "teach the controversy" tactic: instead of actually arguing that their position is right, they argue that their position is entitled to a place in the scientific dialogue. Engaging with creationist/ID claims serves this purpose and implies that they're something more than what they really are: religious claims and political ploys.

You wanna know something else, the fact i even have to ask that question to you means ive got to muster every ounce of patience within myself because i think its outright rediculious to redicule vs refuting.

So the position you disagree with is worthy of ridicule?

Let me ask you this: what HARM does ken do by promoting young earthism? What harm is done to lay people who happen to believe the earth is young?

The harm is in things like a mistrust of the scientific method and scientific community, which can be translated into anything from climate change denialism to anti-vax views.

It also motivates people to pull their kids out of public schools and deliberately deny them a proper education, and instead give them a sub-standard education at home or in an ideologically-driven religious school.

At the extreme end, it comes as a package deal with the idea that the church is the only purveyor of "real" truth and that what we hear out in the world are lies from Satan. This contributes to all sorts of harm.

 

[Jollybear]

Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to any particular debate opponent or platform.

Your not understanding what im saying. Freedom of speech plays a part in debating. Im not saying that means one person has a right to debate with another, as in the other should he forced to debate. Thats not what im saying.

Disagreeing is not the same thing as "finding fault." It really is a settled matter that Young Earth Creationism is not just not supported by the evidence; it's contrary to all the evidence we have.

Theres thousands of articles, books written by young earthers, im sure they find fault, somewhere.

I have sympathy for people who have been duped by those who misrepresented the facts to convince them of Young Earth Creationism. I don't ridicule people for misunderstandings they arrived at honestly, unless they themselves misrepresent the facts or their level of knowledge.

Fair enough. But, MAKE SURE you KNOW for sure whos dishonest and whos not. Thats not as easy as some people on here tend to think. Really be sure.

This doesn't mean that we need to engage with creationism as if it's a valid scientific hypothesis thar deserves a place in scientific discourse. There's nothing wrong with treating Young Earth Creationism as what it is: a religious belief.

Mayby.

Depends.

If all they've done is believe that Creationism is true, then I'd generally be kind to them. Where we run into issues is typically when they have another belief layered on top, such as:

- "I believe in Young Earth Creationism... and I believe the facts support my position" or
- "I believe in Young Earth Creationism... and I believe I have a better handle on the science than actual experts."

And how would you deal with those people? Redicule them or.......debate them?

A few reasons:

- the beliefs have no merit. Better to use our energies considering claims that have at least a possibility of being correct.

- belief in creationism demonstrates such a lack of knowledge of science that actually refuting the claims would generally involve re-educating the person on so much basic science that it can't be done in a simple discussion or debate... and people generally aren't open to being actually educated by someone they're arguing with anyway. OTOH, if they go through the effort to educate themselves, they'll see how creationism is wrong all on their own.

So, perhaps debate with them on what science is?

for those who do know the science but promote creationism anyway, they've chosen to misrepresent things. It's not as if they'll change their minds by being presented with the right facts; they already know the facts and they've chosen a position in opposition to them.

Why would anyone in there right mind knowingly go against facts?

people who push for Creationism/ID/other religious beliefs in public schools often do so using the "teach the controversy" tactic: instead of actually arguing that their position is right, they argue that their position is entitled to a place in the scientific dialogue. Engaging with creationist/ID claims serves this purpose and implies that they're something more than what they really are: religious claims and political ploys.

Oh wait a minute, you just stuck ID with young earth creationism. No you did not! Ok....the gloves are commin off now! Lol.

ID is NOT YEC. And ID IS a scientific theory. Not only so, but its a BETTER one then the unintelligent natural position.

So the position you disagree with is worthy of ridicule?

The alternative views to ID, i do not redicule, i choose to refute. Debate.

The harm is in things like a mistrust of the scientific method and scientific community, which can be translated into anything from climate change denialism to anti-vax views.

It also motivates people to pull their kids out of public schools and deliberately deny them a proper education, and instead give them a sub-standard education at home or in an ideologically-driven religious school.

At the extreme end, it comes as a package deal with the idea that the church is the only purveyor of "real" truth and that what we hear out in the world are lies from Satan. This contributes to all sorts of harm.

Ok, but what harm is there in believing the earth is 6 thousand years old? Theres actual scientists who invented things who believe in YEC. Yes, there are some.

 

[Purell]

So, is debating pointless? If yes.....why? If no.....why?

No. I was pretty convinced on my own that I was believing a lie, but when I would listen to debates, it only grounded my position even more, and I took the leap of faith out of Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your not understanding what im saying. Freedom of speech plays a part in debating. Im not saying that means one person has a right to debate with another, as in the other should he forced to debate. Thats not what im saying.

So what are you saying?

Theres thousands of articles, books written by young earthers, im sure they find fault, somewhere.

I don't doubt that some people think that. Doesn't change the fact that evolution settled science.

Fair enough. But, MAKE SURE you KNOW for sure whos dishonest and whos not. Thats not as easy as some people on here tend to think. Really be sure.

More often than not with the creationists I deal with here, they're sincere about their belief in Creationism, but they misrepresent the strength of their position or the quality of the research (if any) they did to back it up.

Mayby.

Not "maybe;" it really is a religious belief. Creationists like to make it out as something more in order to try to get it into public schools.

And how would you deal with those people? Redicule them or.......debate them?

Ridicule is one tool in the toolbox, but it wouldn't necessarily be the one I use.

I certainly wouldn't debate them as if their viewpoint had merit. I might try asking them to explore their belief in a Socratic method kind of way if I thought it would help them figure out the problems with their position.

So, perhaps debate with them on what science is?

Educate, maybe, if I feel like putting in the effort and they're willing to listen. Not debate.

Let me put it this way: say your child (or the child you're babysitting, if you don't have a child of your own) announces that they think eating mud for dinner is the best possible option, so that's what you should serve. Do you:

- explain to them why mud isn't food and why it's bad to eat it, or

- let them make their best case for why mud is good to eat and approach the issue with an open mind, open to the possibility that you will serve the child mud for dinner.

Creationists are a similar situation.

Why would anyone in there right mind knowingly go against facts?

Because they're dishonest? Motivated reasoning? A lack of familiarity with the facts they claim to know well? Lots of different reasons.

Why did you reject the things you've read that debunked ID? You'll probably see quite a bit of similarity.

Oh wait a minute, you just stuck ID with young earth creationism. No you did not! Ok....the gloves are commin off now! Lol.

ID is NOT YEC. And ID IS a scientific theory. Not only so, but its a BETTER one then the unintelligent natural position.

ID isn't a scientific theory. It's a political and legal tactic. It's a pared-down version of Creation Science intended to survive the court challenges that Creation Science failed. And Creation Science was a pared-down version of Biblical Creationism intended to survive the court challenges that Creationism failed. That's it.

The alternative views to ID, i do not redicule, i choose to refute. Debate.

Since they're valid science and well-supported, that's good. ID and Young Earth Creationism aren't these things, so a different approach is appropriate.

Ok, but what harm is there in believing the earth is 6 thousand years old? Theres actual scientists who invented things who believe in YEC. Yes, there are some.

As I touched on, most of the harm comes from the conflict between:

- on the one hand, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old (plus all the other YEC claims),
- on the other hand, seeing that the people who ought to be in the best position to know the age of the Earth and the history of life say thay the evidence they have suggests something that's completely incompatible with a YEC position.

How do you resolve this while remaining a YEC? You need to be able to dismiss the entire scientific establishment as wrong somehow. This leads straight into conspiracy-type thinking and automatic cynicism to anything that the scientific community says.

 

[Jollybear]

No. I was pretty convinced on my own that I was believing a lie, but when I would listen to debates, it only grounded my position even more, and I took the leap of faith out of Christianity.

What specifically was the trigger in the debate that led you out of christianity?

 

[Purell]

What specifically was the trigger in the debate that led you out of christianity?

It wasn't one debate. I've listened to MANY. It's the combination of many. However, this one in particular caused me to really think twice about how much longer I was going to spend acting like I was a Christian:

 

[Jollybear]

So what are you saying?

Im saying there should be freedom to debate if people want too. Thats all. If the cretics dont like it, oh well.

I don't doubt that some people think that. Doesn't change the fact that evolution settled science.

Its like a mantra. You evolutionists say it like a mantra. Say it enough and it becomes true i suppose.

More often than not with the creationists I deal with here, they're sincere about their belief in Creationism, but they misrepresent the strength of their position or the quality of the research (if any) they did to back it up.

I see.

Not "maybe;" it really is a religious belief. Creationists like to make it out as something more in order to try to get it into public schools.

Oh yes, the public schools.

Ridicule is one tool in the toolbox, but it wouldn't necessarily be the one I use.

Well thats good. However, i wouldent even call it a tool. Because its useless.

I certainly wouldn't debate them as if their viewpoint had merit. I might try asking them to explore their belief in a Socratic method kind of way if I thought it would help them figure out the problems with their position.

Whether it has merit or not, would you attempt to refute its arguments?

Educate, maybe, if I feel like putting in the effort and they're willing to listen. Not debate.

Ok, not debate. It seams you think debating means you audamatically got to think the opposite position needs to be looked at as worthy. It dont, just debate it.

Let me put it this way: say your child (or the child you're babysitting, if you don't have a child of your own) announces that they think eating mud for dinner is the best possible option, so that's what you should serve. Do you:

- explain to them why mud isn't food and why it's bad to eat it, or

- let them make their best case for why mud is good to eat and approach the issue with an open mind, open to the possibility that you will serve the child mud for dinner.

Creationists are a similar situation.

Ok, heres my answer and im being VERY serious. You explain why mud is bad and then let them explain why its good. You dont have to be open to it being good. Just let them explain, and you explain. Just go through the debate procedure. Thats how i believe in doing it. It dont matter to me if i think the other view is bat**** crazy, lunatic nuts.

Because they're dishonest? Motivated reasoning? A lack of familiarity with the facts they claim to know well? Lots of different reasons.

What would motivate a creationist to be dishonest about the facts? There motivation for believing YEC is the bible right? Well, the same bible says dont lie. So, there gonna believe that too, no?

Why did you reject the things you've read that debunked ID? You'll probably see quite a bit of similarity.

Because it did not truely debunk it.

ID isn't a scientific theory. It's a political and legal tactic.

Thats how i look at evolution. A political thing, not a science thing. ID is science.

It's a pared-down version of Creation Science intended to survive the court challenges that Creation Science failed. And Creation Science was a pared-down version of Biblical Creationism intended to survive the court challenges that Creationism failed. That's it.

Im convinced theres a political egenda against ID. ID is not political in itself. ID is scientific.

Since they're valid science and well-supported, that's good. ID and Young Earth Creationism aren't these things, so a different approach is appropriate.

I think if anyone cannot see how ID is scientific, they have got to be severely mentally blind or ignorant. Im refering to ID, not YEC.

As I touched on, most of the harm comes from the conflict between:

- on the one hand, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old (plus all the other YEC claims),
- on the other hand, seeing that the people who ought to be in the best position to know the age of the Earth and the history of life say thay the evidence they have suggests something that's completely incompatible with a YEC position.

How do you resolve this while remaining a YEC? You need to be able to dismiss the entire scientific establishment as wrong somehow. This leads straight into conspiracy-type thinking and automatic cynicism to anything that the scientific community says.

Dont conspiracies happen in the world?

Also, what if its not conspiracy, what if its stupidity? Yes, stupidity is a very real phenomena in the human race.

 

[Jollybear]

It wasn't one debate. I've listened to MANY. It's the combination of many. However, this one in particular caused me to really think twice about how much longer I was going to spend acting like I was a Christian:

Ive heard him in the past. Some of the things he says i believe are misrepresentations of what the bible teaches. Like eternal torcher.

 

[Vinayaka]

It wasn't one debate. I've listened to MANY. It's the combination of many. However, this one in particular caused me to really think twice about how much longer I was going to spend acting like I was a Christian:

This wasn't a debate, it was a speech. Debates involve 2 people. at least.

 

[Purell]

Ive heard him in the past. Some of the things he says i believe are misrepresentations of what the bible teaches. Like eternal torcher.

Orthodox Christian doctrine is that hell and heaven are eternal.

 

[Purell]

This wasn't a debate, it was a speech. Debates involve 2 people. at least.

Then you obviously have not seen the clip in context. He said this in a debate between him and Dr. William Lane Craig.