This guy has a Youtube channel and he's very good, He doesn't argue or provide contradictory evidence, but just, in a politely relentless way, asks questions to expose the underlying assumptions behind a claim:

This guy is similar. Anthony Magnabosco: https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210

Apropos of nothing; beautiful woman.

Good example of the Socratic method in practice.

She's a towering babeler. And she makes such pretty circles.

Lol!

There is no way I could remain that composed throughout that conversation. I need to work on that.

The definition of just giving someone enough rope.

AFAIK the term street epistemology comes from Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual For Creating Atheists. It's worth a read if you want some tips for one-on-one dialogues with believers of various stripes, intended to promote critical thinking and doubt. The TLDR version: stay impeccably polite (though there are exceptions to this!); build a rapport; frame encounters as dialogues to get at the truth or the facts of the matter, not debates or intellectual gladiatorial combat; don't argue or put forward a case for atheism or any non-ism, and don't outright state that your interlocutor is wrong or failing at reasoning; but persistently and calmly ask pertinent questions that get at the heart of how the irrational belief in question is maintained. The above video is a great example of the techniques advocated in the book. I think they work best when you're face to face with someone, so you can pick up various non-verbal cues, and you can tell when to push or when to let a telling silence linger.

I really like this methodology and I think that it should apply to all types of questions not just religious ones. It should also
apply to oneself as much as anyone else. As no one has a monopoly on wisdom one will be inevitably be wrong about some
things. So learning to be patient with those who think differently to oneself and accepting one is only fallible are strengths
rather than weaknesses towards acquiring greater understanding. If ones world view is grounded in absolute certainty then
one cannot learn anything new. Uncertainty is therefore more desirable and beneficial from an epistemological perspective

I am intrigued by the tower of babel reference. Was something actually found with credible links to the biblical reference, is she just unhinged, or is the "find" on the same level of credibility as the various Noah's Arks that have been laughably announced in the past.

It's a story about a supposedly omnipotent god who is so threatened by his creation's ingenuity and ambition that he destroyed their creation and made them speak any number of languages, ensuring that his creation will forever be confounded, at odds and ultimately war with each other.

Quite the asshole that god.

edit spelling.

I know the story, just another mythical representation of how petty and human they imagined their object of worship was, but that wasn't my question.

I think the answer is simply no.

Great video. I need to acquire those skills.

Or maybe...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/ca ... ower-of-b/

zulumoose wrote:I know the story, just another mythical representation of how petty and human they imagined their object of worship was, but that wasn't my question.

They think it might reference a ziggurat or sammat. But basically, no.

Animavore wrote:I think the answer is simply no.

Great video. I need to acquire those skills.

I prefer the more confrontational style of questioning.

18th minute for Babel.

zulumoose wrote:I am intrigued by the tower of babel reference. Was something actually found with credible links to the biblical reference, is she just unhinged, or is the "find" on the same level of credibility as the various Noah's Arks that have been laughably announced in the past.

The tower of Babel seems to have been inspired by an actual ziggurat built in Mesopotamia.