You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Debate’ tag.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
I get this one, or variations on it on many discussion threads. The confounding of religion and science is all to common as methods used to criticize one are not necessarily suitable for critiquing the other.
Enjoy!
[2] Science is NOT a branch of apologetics.
Science is as far removed from apologetics as it is possible to be. Science exists to subject erected postulates to empirical test with respect to whether or not those postulates are in accord with observational reality. As a consequence, science is in the business of testing assertions and presuppositions to destruction, Those that fail the requisite tests are discarded. Science modifies its theories to fit reality. Apologetics, on the other hand, consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of trying to prop up presuppositions and blind assertions, involves NO empirical testing, and seeks to force-fit reality to the aforementioned presuppositions and blind assertions. Therefore, treating science as if it constitutes a branch of apologetics is dishonest, and those who engage in this pursuit will be regarded with due scorn and derision.
Among the more duplicitous examples of such dishonesty, all too frequently seen here in the past, is quote mining of scientific papers or scientific publications. There are entire websites devoted to the exposure of this particular brand of dishonesty, and anyone making the mistake of erecting quote mines here will have their buttocks handed to them in a sling.
I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
[1] Parroting blind assertions does not constitute “evidence”.
Let’s make this explicit, just so that even the most casual of observers of this thread cannot avoid having noticed it.
Mythology (and I don’t care how precious you consider your “holy books” to be, that is what they contain – mythology) merely erects unsupported blind assertions about the world, and presents those blind assertions as if they constituted “axioms” about the world, to be regarded uncritically as eternally true, and never to be questioned. Well, those who wish to adopt this view will find that they are given short shrift here. Because one of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion. Which means independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration of the validity of that assertion. Without this, any blind assertions, particularly those erected from mythology or mythology-based doctrines, can be dismissed in the same casual manner in which they are tossed into the thread. Failure to provide proper evidential support for blind assertions will result in a poster being regarded as an inconsequential lightweight. Just because you think that mythological blind assertions constitute “axioms” about the world doesn’t mean that everyone else does, and you’ll soon discover the hard way how much firepower is directed toward those who come here expecting the rest of the forum to genuflect before said blind assertions uncritically. Plus, in the case of supernaturalist blind assertions, parroting these and expecting everyone else to accept them uncritically as established fact in the same way that you did, constitutes preaching, and is a violation of forum rules. Learn quickly to qualify assertions properly when erecting them, unless you wish to be regarded as tediously sanctimonious, boring, and boorishly ill-educated into the bargain.
Oh, and while we’re at it, don’t bother trying to assert that your favourite invisible magic man is “necessary” for the biosphere or some other observed entity, until you can provide proper, critically robust evidential support for the postulate that your magic man actually exists. Given that 300 years of continuous scientific endeavour has established that the universe is not only comprehensible without needing magic, but is thus comprehensible in precise quantitative terms, you will be well advised to devote some serious time to providing methodologically rigorous support for all assertions concerning magic supernatural entities, because without it, you’re fucked from the start.
A fantastic start. Just the basics for any rational discussion, you need to back up your assumptions and arguments with verifiable fact. If not, you may as well be asserting that Unicorns and Dragons really DO exist just because you say so.
I think it is about as useful sometimes as attempting to urinate up a rope into the wind when its cold outside. Trying to explain concepts like evolution and abiogenesis to people who are religiously addled is an exercise in frustration.
It is like this, you offer your arguments and conclusions, fact based of course, and all they have in rely is goddidit or He works in mysterious ways and *poof* for them it is the “I WIN” button. If you call them on their feckless handwaving then they attempt to disengage with such disingenuous statements as this:
“it’s written to go from the presence of a foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge”
Seriously?
Bullcoookery does not get any swarmy than this little gem. It is no wonder the dark ages was dominated by the religious because it is obvious they could not and still cannot reason their way out of frakking wet paper bag.
QS makes brillaint videos. Watch now.
Did you ever need a little more information to combat the lunacy of your creationist friends? The poster Calilasseia from RichardDawkins.net provides ample means to diffuse twenty-four common creationist fallacies. It is a long post, but well worth the read. Some highlights include:
In order to deal with several of the canards we see resurrected here with tedious regularity at source, I thought it apposite to launch this topic. Where appropriate canards can be dealt with in one spot, so that future propagandists for reality-denial doctrines arising from mythological blind assertion have no excuse for resurrecting them yet again.
Consequently, I have a message for all creationists visiting this forum. If you think that you possess some startlingly new “wisdom” that you think is going to overturn valid scientific theories, then I have news for you. You don’t. The canards that you and your ilk erect here all too frequently, are well known, well documented, and have been debunked many times before. This post has been erected specifically to provide you with a single point of reference where you can check this, and find out in advance that your canards ARE canards. Now, since I went to the trouble of compiling this post, and exercised much effort in doing so, the least you can do is exercise the mental effort required to read this post in full, and learn in detail why parroting any of the canards contained in this list will lead to you being regarded with at best disdain, at worst contempt. So, before you launch into your posting careers, study the following in detail, and learn that posting previously debunked nonsense without having performed the requisite research beforehand, to determine whether or not said nonsense has been debunked previously, is regarded here as indolent in the extreme.
Can’t you just feel the comeuppance brewing? It gets better.
“Because one of the fundamental rules of proper discourse is that whenever an assertion is erected, no one is obliged to regard it as valid unless proper, critically robust supporting evidence is provided for that assertion. Which means independent corroboration from an outside source, or a direct, methodologically rigorous, repeatable empirical demonstration of the validity of that assertion.”
Ground rules set. Let’s talk about tone: And what a shiny tone of justice dear Calilasseia rings forth.
“Oh, and while we’re at it, don’t bother trying to assert that your favourite invisible magic man is “necessary” for the biosphere or some other observed entity, until you can provide proper, critically robust evidential support for the postulate that your magic man actually exists. Given that 300 years of continuous scientific endeavour has established that the universe is not only comprehensible without needing magic, but is thus comprehensible in precise quantitative terms, you will be well advised to devote some serious time to providing methodologically rigorous support for all assertions concerning magic supernatural entities, because without it, you’re fucked from the start.”
Wow. Just one more quote –
“[21] “The universe is meaningless without my magic man”
To which the short answer is “so fucking what?”
Leaving aside for the moment the total failure of supernaturalists to support the assertion that their particular pet species of magic man actually exists, which also impinges upon [20] above, the idea that the universe needs this entity to impose meaning upon it is a piece of intellectual constipation that I, for one, find mind-numbingly boring, tedious and unimaginative. Douglas Adams said it best – “Isn’t it enough to realise that the garden is beautiful as it is, without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it?”
Likewise, why should the universe be required to genuflect before supernaturalist anthropocentric conceit, and be required to be meaningful only because an invisible magic man that we have invented decrees thus?
We are beings that are capable of eliciting meaning for our own lives, and the world around us, without outside interference. Erecting an imaginary source of outside interference is nothing more than a gargantuan Little Orphan Annie complex, a wish to remain a child with a nice Daddy figure to run the world around us so that we don’t have to get off our arses and expend the effort. This is such an utterly lame stance to adopt. It’s indolent, naive, simplistic and dumb…”
In the ‘gotcha’ world of the internet, specifically the blogosphere, it seem that it is almost a never ending contest of who say their points the loudest. Proper argumentation and facts be damned. Debate is good, of course, but to what end when people involved are unwilling to change their opinions even when clearly they are wrong.
Debate then, rather than being a spirited exchange of ideas, discussion merely becomes yet another seemingly pointless timesink. The effort put into stating your case with the correct amount of profunidity necessary to prove your point becomes almost an odious task, because nothing really changes between you and the person you are debating. It can be very discouraging at times.
It is important to focus on the people who do not comment, so that they might see both sides of an argument and gather more information so they might be able to make an informed decision on the issue at hand. At least, this is what I tell myself.
Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Anne Widdencombe MP speaking for the motion and speaking against the motion, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.
Psst…America look! a civil debate. Try it sometime.
Update: Watch the edited 46 minute version at the Intelligence Squared site.
Update #2 – They went and moved stuff around – The debate in chapter format can be found at the intelligence squared site here.
Update #3 – They went pay site. – Go to ytube from the link and find it there.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…