TopCat wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We dont have to prove anything or respect anything a theist states. They have to produce the evidence of any existence. I have no time for people who cant think. I totally agree with laklak. I dont have to engage with anyone and I just ignore them. They have to engage with good solid evidence.

Thanks for confirming that you're exactly the sort of person that should not engage with theists.

Why should I engage with them? I have nothing in common with myth believers. I dont want them to engage with me and in this country that is hardly going to happen.

You have no time for people who can't think. OK.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

TopCat wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We dont have to prove anything or respect anything a theist states. They have to produce the evidence of any existence. I have no time for people who cant think. I totally agree with laklak. I dont have to engage with anyone and I just ignore them. They have to engage with good solid evidence.

Thanks for confirming that you're exactly the sort of person that should not engage with theists.

Why should I engage with them? I have nothing in common with myth believers. I dont want them to engage with me and in this country that is hardly going to happen.

Erm, did you think I was suggesting you should, because I wasn't.

FTR, mostly I don't have anything in common with myth believers either. However, the case in point is where I'm teaching chemistry to my old friend's daughter, and I'm therefore in a position of slight influence. It may be that I can teach her some elements of critical thinking, which may in time enable her to see things differently from the religious environment in which she finds herself.

Not only that, but actually my friend of over 40 years can think, and he does seek truth. Sadly however, his intellectual honesty has been crippled by looking at reality through the lens of christianity for many decades. Just as, I might add, mine was for a time, some 35 years ago.

I may be able to make a difference... or I may not.

However, the compassionless laklak approach isn't for me.

TopCat wrote:

laklak wrote:There isn't a debate. There's no evidence for the existence of god, evolution it true, creationism and ID are bullshit. Craig can dress up his steaming pile of shit in whatever clothes he chooses, it's still a steaming pile of shit.

I hate this sort of virtue-signalling.

Even though it's true, it's worthless, as the only people who will agree with it are people who are already convinced.

If there's any value in engaging with the WLCs of this world - and if Sean Carroll thinks it's worthwhile going up against him, that's good enough for me - then it needs to be a quality engagement. Not this sort of name-calling crap, nor the ill-prepared feeble attempts that end up with WLC's doubtless somewhat smug victories.

Anyone who would be convinced by his arguments isn't worth bothering with in the first place.

And I very much disagree with this, and despise the contempt it reveals. I have a very old and good friend, who sadly has not yet found his way out of Christianity. And not surprisingly, as he has a lot invested in it all. But he's still a good friend, a seeker after truth, albeit a hamstrung one, and in my not so humble opinion, he damn well is worth it.

Quite simply, the question I ask before I start, is "will this individual abide by the proper rules of discourse?" before starting. The reason being that I've had more than enough experience of supernaturalists who won't.

Now it may be the case, that someone turns up who doesn't actually understand those rules in the first place. If someone has not encountered those rules, and has never been taught them, I'll happily provide an exposition thereof, on the understanding that once said exposition has been provided, those rules hold from that point on in any future discourse, and any failure to abide thereby will be treated accordingly. On the other hand, if someone comes here who does understand the rules of discourse, but duplicitously seeks exemptions for his mythology therefrom as part of his apologetic proselytising, then said individual's output is relegated to the "useful for pedagogical purposes only" category.

Furthermore, anyone committing well-documented abuses of discourse, or bringing well-documented and previously destroyed canards here, can expect to be told straight that this is what he's doing. Likewise, anyone who thinks apologetics enjoys a superior status to empirical science, will be told straight that this is not the case, and if said individual doesn't like it, then tough.

I'm not here to lower my standards to accommodate wishful thinking. My motivation for posting is to encourage development of robust ideas, and in addition to inform anyone that might not be aware of this, that you are not your ideas. Sadly, that last elementary notion is one that's hard for supernaturalists to grasp, but if I exert the effort to educate, I expect at least some effort to be exerted developing an honest understanding of my expositions. Ideological stormtroopers for doctrine, who are simply here to lie for their doctrine, and try and twist my expositions out of all recognition, will be given the treatment they deserve.

Calilasseia wrote:Quite simply, the question I ask before I start, is "will this individual abide by the proper rules of discourse?" before starting. The reason being that I've had more than enough experience of supernaturalists who won't.

Now it may be the case, that someone turns up who doesn't actually understand those rules in the first place.

...other good stuff snipped....

Yes, absolutely.

In the case of my friend, I'd say he doesn't really understand the rules - yet. Rules such as burden of proof, for example. He's still steeped in apologetics, and we all know how corrosive that is.

I may or may not be able to get him to engage in honest discourse; if the barriers are too high I'll give up.

But it's like working with someone with a disability. There's no point being aggressive, or overly demanding, or expecting more than the person is capable of. For instance, I pointed out that he applies a different standard of evidence to the religious claims he makes, than to other things in his life, and this caused him no little difficulty. The cognitive dissonance kicked in quite quickly.

I've been able to get him to read Jerry Coyne's excellent "Why Evolution is true", and he's got far enough through it for me to also point out that the implications of his faith are that God ignored homo sapiens for perhaps 200,000 years, while he lived a wretched, short life, replete with suffering and danger, and only then chose to reveal himself to a bunch of bronze age (iron age?) nomads in the middle of nowhere.

He's honest enough to admit that that does cause him problems.

We'll see. He's an old friend, and (at risk of a false dichotomy) either he's wasting his life on fairy stories, or I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity.

I am not here on this earth to change anyone. If he is unable to see the myths for what they are then good luck and good bye.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I am not here on this earth to change anyone. If he is unable to see the myths for what they are then good luck and good bye.

Yes, I think you've made your position abundantly clear.

You want to argue with theists then argue with theists. It's your nickel, you can spend it wherever you choose. I'm impressed you're trying to help you poor, deluded friend, and his daughter. That's really, you know, virtuous.

Scot Dutchy wrote:We dont have to prove anything or respect anything a theist states. They have to produce the evidence of any existence.

That's certainly one of the battiest things I've seen an atheist say. How could an atheist seriously think that they need evidence for their own existence to be provided for them by a theist?

Moonwatcher wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:The battiest thing I've ever seen from an atheist is that there is any use to trying to reason with a religious person with rationality and evidence.

It worked here with Willhud. :)

That's true. On the rare occasion that someone is facing evidence rather than denying it, it can work.

Yet, for all their attempted intellectual high-grounding, it hasn't worked with any of the free will deniers of this board, as far as I recall.

And if you want undistilled battiness, think about the circumstance that several of these denialists are on record as stating there can be no free will because, if there were, then there would be magic. Can you think of anything battier than an atheist denying that the world is as it demonstrably is, on the strength of a god-of-the-gaps argument?

ughaibu wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We dont have to prove anything or respect anything a theist states. They have to produce the evidence of any existence.

That's certainly one of the battiest things I've seen an atheist say. How could an atheist seriously think that they need evidence for their own existence to be provided for them by a theist?

It has nothing to do with our existence or is that not clear. It is the claims of the theist about the existence of a deity.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:They have to produce the evidence of any existence.

That's certainly one of the battiest things I've seen an atheist say. How could an atheist seriously think that they need evidence for their own existence to be provided for them by a theist?

It has nothing to do with our existence or is that not clear. It is the claims of the theist about the existence of a deity.

Then it's not "any existence", is it? So to claim that it is, is full-blown batty.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I was in the school's debating society and that is very true. You lay traps for your opponents.

Yes and oral debates where people do that have little or no value, because it becomes about point scoring and egos, rather than anyone actually learning anything.

Its why I prefer debates online, because the stupid little traps people use in oral debates are easier to spot and also much less effective and because its easier to hold the other party to account for what they say. Unless, of course, the other party just point blank refuses to answer direct questions or otherwise evades discussion.

Since when do you debate?

Good thread for you to post that in, Scot.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Since when do you debate?

Try not to take things so personally dear chap.

Fallible wrote:Good thread for you to post that in, Scot.

Cheap hits are just that.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Cheap hits are just that.

Indeed. Just like this.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Since when do you debate?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fallible wrote:Good thread for you to post that in, Scot.

Cheap hits are just that.

I refuse to accept that a person can be as totally blind to their own poor behaviour as you indicate you are.