Re: The problem with all these "Debates".


"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrngg1p4n.1m18.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2008-10-23, mike3 <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi.

I've noticed so many of these "debates" on about these "religion vs
science", "creationism vs evolution", and similar things often quickly
degenerate into babyish name-callings, insults, and other uncivilized
tactics. Either someone is saying you're "evil" and you'll "burn in
Hell" and someone else is saying you're a "loony" and "stupid" and
some far more distasteful things.

I'm left wondering what could be more distasteful than "you'll burn in
Hell". Can you provide an example?


Hmm. I think I was meaning, things more distasteful than "loony" and
"stupid".
Dehumanizing type of things is what I had in mind.

Why all this *hate* and *rage* in these debates?

Frankly, I'm angered by stupidity. Mind you, not just the average "I
didn't bother to learn anything in school" stupidity, but rather the
willful rejection of knowledge. It's the source of a great deal of
misery in the world.


So then you proceed to create misery yourself, with anger and rage,
against even those who did _not_ "willfully reject" the knowledge?

Why can't discussions be had where the ideas are freely
shared and explored, with no hate or rage, where the other person is
considered a good human being and not something to be hated just for
their ideas?

Some people deserve your anger and rage.

Why is the goal here apparently not to find out *real*
truth, but rather to force what one believes to be "truth" on their
opponent and to "convert" them?

I don't believe in *real* truth. I believe in what I can support on
the merits of the evidence in favor of it. I could be mistaken, but at
least I'm not building on aether. If you say that there was a global
flood, then I'll believe it when I see evidence of it. If you say that
Christianity makes people behave better, I'll believe it when I see
evidence of that.


The idea though is to find the viewpoint most in line with reality, not the
one
that is ABSOLUTELY correct and beyond ALL doubt (that is not possible).
There are 2 sides (at least), to this, who each think their viewpoint to be
that
one.

Also, does this mean that where you cannot find evidence to support it, nor
can you find evidence against, you'd take an agnostic position that the
truth-value
of the claim cannot be known and be "hands off" holding no beliefs either
way
at all about it?

I've noticed some here: Most of the
participants seem to think they have The Truth(TM), and if that sacred
"Truth" is ever challenged, they will say the other person is one of:
a loon, has some mental disorder, is "evil", is a pawn of Satan, or
all the above.

Sometimes they are.


Just for holding a belief? Doubtful. OBL may be "evil" (he sure did some
things that would be considered quite evil), but that is because of his
deeds,
and I doubt many of the people here are terrorists or militants like that.
GW
Bush may be as well, again because of deeds, not beliefs or opinions.

However the problem here is this: _both_ sides say they are in the right,
and the
other is all in the wrong. Yet both obviously cannot be right entirely at
the same
time, and the reality may be more complex than one or the other side's
beliefs/
views/opinions/etc.

You're not going to get anywhere with that type of attitude.

Don't be silly: of course we are. People who have crazy ideas shouldn't
gain the same respectability as people whose ideas aren't crazy. It's not
a question of censorship: I want these people to keep talking. I just
feel
that it is not only reasonable but in fact mandatory that people raise
their
voice in opposition to lunacy.


Then you counter it with logic. If the belief does not appear to conform to
logic, one counters it with logic. If the logic fails, then the person has
proven
they are not going to concede, and all the rest does is create a general
lack
of peace. All the insults serve to do is create a lack of peace in the
world. They
often don't truly convince the other person of their error, and they
certainly
are not useful to other people who are trying to learn something and
understand
things themslves and to actually understanding why the claim or belief in
question
is wrong. Whereas a logical argument is much more useful to those ends. I
did not
say it was wrong or bad to go and disagree with or produce counter-arguments
or
rebuttals to the belief.

The other problem is this. How does someone's _ideas_ make them an
unrespectable
jerk, esp. when those ideas are of some academic nature, e.g. "I believe in
a gazzolo
particle that nobody can see in their particle detector because it magically
keeps
morphing", no matter how illogical it may be or seem to be? It's just an
academic
belief, it doesn't tell you anything about the goodness of their heart,
which is what
really matters. Whereas, say, a belief like "ooh, I think it's good to pick
people's pockets
and rob my neighbor from time to time" _would_ say quite a bit about the
goodness,
namely the lack thereof, in their heart.

I will _never_, at _any point_, use _insults_ to counter someone's
disagreeable beliefs
in academic subjects.

There is another thing I don't like, perhaps even moreso than insulting, and
that is hypocrisy.
If you grant yourself a right to use insults because you believe the other's
belief is "lunacy"
and must be stopped, you also have to remember that your opponent in these
debates
considers YOUR viewpoint something that must be stopped too, and therefore
you
should also grant them the same "right" to use insults against you and not
to complain
when they do, otherwise you would be being a hypocrite. I don't know if you
personally
do this sort of thing because I have not seen all the discussions you've
been in, but
I have seen people on this group who do do it.

"Free inquiry" is just that: FREEDOM to ask questions and
question beliefs, dogmas, etc. Obviously there is very little of it in
these "debates".

I don't see how any actions of mine have or possibly could limit anyone
else's freedom of expression or inquiry. I have no such power over
anyone. Part of freedom of speech is that we are free to say things which
are unpopular, not that everything we say must be considered with
politeness.

And once those accusations and namecalls start to fly, it seems it
only serves to root the people deeper into their positions.

I'm under no delusion that I'll change anyone's mind. I merely want
idiocy
to be slightly more painful than it currently is.


And do _you_ gain anything, like egotism or pride or vanity, from it?


.

Loading