Why can practical people not handle real debate?

[bobhikes]

When I debate something it is a game. I am trying to prove my point of view. I am not trying to change my point of view. When I run out of idea's my debate ends.

I may learn things from the debate but my view on the debate is that I want others to learn or at least engage me so that there thoughts are growing.

I can debate things I agree with and things I oppose. I want to be challeged and get multiple examples not the same thing over and over again.

This to me is debating.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The Creationist ignores, dismisses, or reinterprets the objective evidence to fit his/her religious views.
Thus making their belief dogmatic and unchanging.
A Rational persons beliefs will change with the objective and empirical evidence.
I know mine have.

And beyond that....what? Nothing? Anything outside rational thought and objective evidence is just...what? Nonsense? Outside normality? Beyond the scope of your thinking? Do you just not look at it? Or do you try to explain EVERYTHING with rational thought and objective evidence?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You can have faith along with reason, as long as your faith does not obscure your reason.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You can have faith along with reason, as long as your faith does not obscure your reason.

So you keep equilibrium by doing nothing?
I do both, in equal amounts. I think you learn better that way.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So you keep equilibrium by doing nothing?
I do both, in equal amounts. I think you learn better that way.

Not sure where you are getting this "doing nothing" thing.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Not sure where you are getting this "doing nothing" thing.

You want for a certain kind of evidence to come to you; 'objective evidence'.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You want for a certain kind of evidence to come to you; 'objective evidence'.

Oh, I don't wait for it. I seek it out. Even if it disproves my previously held beliefs.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Oh, I don't wait for it. I seek it out. Even if it disproves my previously held beliefs.

Okay...
Then how does one know when reason obscures faith? Why is it not 'disproving previously held beliefs' instead? If you actively seek out evidence, whatever kind it may be, then you will not be able to tell the difference.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay...
Then how does one know when reason obscures faith? Why is it not 'disproving previously held beliefs' instead? If you actively seek out evidence, whatever kind it may be, then you will not be able to tell the difference.

I find no difficulty discerning objective evidence from subjective faith.
Nor should anyone who holds known facts above faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

And beyond that....what? Nothing? Anything outside rational thought and objective evidence is just...what? Nonsense? Outside normality? Beyond the scope of your thinking? Do you just not look at it? Or do you try to explain EVERYTHING with rational thought and objective evidence?

Imagination is a fine thing but just because you can imagine something doesn't mean that it is real.
For that you need empirical objective evidence and rational thought.
To quote Tim Minchin: "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic".

The Scientific Method is the singular most powerful and most efficient way of defining reality that we humans have come up with and we should apply it more.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Imagination is a fine thing but just because you can imagine something doesn't mean that it is real.
For that you need empirical objective evidence and rational thought.

Your preoccupation with 'real' is somewhat puzzling to me. What is real, is real. What is not, is not. That will not change, despite any conviction to the contrary.
Personally, what is 'real' is of no concern when religion is concerned. What is, however, is the only concern. For instance, if someone says 'God exists', they mean so in their own terms. In order to understand them, you have to come to their terms, not meet them with your own.

To quote Tim Minchin: "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be...not magic".

The key here is 'every mystery solved'. I don't care about those. They mean little. Mysteries solved are no longer mysteries. What meaning do they have?

The Scientific Method is the singular most powerful and most efficient way of defining reality that we humans have come up with and we should apply it more.

Let us place a 'physical' in front of your 'reality', and subtract the ambiguous 'apply it more'. Then I will agree with you.
The scientific method is a tool, nothing more. Religion is a tool just the same. Taking either to the extreme is reckless and dishonest to yourself.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your preoccupation with 'real' is somewhat puzzling to me. What is real, is real. What is not, is not. That will not change, despite any conviction to the contrary.
Personally, what is 'real' is of no concern when religion is concerned. What is, however, is the only concern. For instance, if someone says 'God exists', they mean so in their own terms. In order to understand them, you have to come to their terms, not meet them with your own.

I care a great deal about what is real and when people say "God exists" they are essentially making a claim about what is real. And claims should be backed up with empirical evidence. There is no "your reality" and "my reality". Reality is what it is and in it gods either exist or they do not. But if someone makes the positive claim that they indeed do exist, the onus is on them to provide evidence to that effect or, perchance, suffer ridicule as the case might be.

The key here is 'every mystery solved'. I don't care about those. They mean little. Mysteries solved are no longer mysteries. What meaning do they have?

So the fact that we have discovered that it is in fact germs that make us sick and not evil spirits is of little meaning? The fact that we have discovered that we can harness electricity for useful purposes rather than assume that it is the result of some angry Norse/Greek god having a fit is of little meaning?
Seriously, that statement does not fly.

Let us place a 'physical' in front of your 'reality', and subtract the ambiguous 'apply it more'. Then I will agree with you.

When you provide evidence that there is a reality that is not physical I'll engage that conversation. Until then all you have is delusion.

The scientific method is a tool, nothing more. Religion is a tool just the same. Taking either to the extreme is reckless and dishonest to yourself.

Well, to follow your analogy, science is a tool that works and gets the job done while religion...not so much.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I care a great deal about what is real and when people say "God exists" they are essentially making a claim about what is real. And claims should be backed up with empirical evidence. There is no "your reality" and "my reality". Reality is what it is and in it gods either exist or they do not. But if someone makes the positive claim that they indeed do exist, the onus is on them to provide evidence to that effect or, perchance, suffer ridicule as the case might be.

Taking science to the extreme, I see. Come to their terms. Stop meeting them with yours.

So the fact that we have discovered that it is in fact germs that make us sick and not evil spirits is of little meaning? The fact that we have discovered that we can harness electricity for useful purposes rather than assume that it is the result of some angry Norse/Greek god having a fit is of little meaning?
Seriously, that statement does not fly.

Again, taking science to the extreme. You're missing my point. If a solved mystery leads to an end, take that end. To do otherwise would be stupid. My point still remains.

When you provide evidence that there is a reality that is not physical I'll engage that conversation. Until then all you have is delusion.

Uh...your consciousness perhaps? Imagination?

Well, to follow your analogy, science is a tool that works and gets the job done while religion...not so much.

You only think that because you've taken science to the extreme. You have not allowed for anything else to become useful.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Taking science to the extreme, I see. Come to their terms. Stop meeting them with yours.

My way works.

Again, taking science to the extreme. You're missing my point. If a solved mystery leads to an end, take that end. To do otherwise would be stupid. My point still remains.

No. If a mystery is solved, take note of the method that solved that mystery. It may come in handy later.

Uh...your consciousness perhaps? Imagination?

My conciousness is an emergent property of the electrochemical reactions that take place in my brain. At least that is where the evidence is pointing.
My imagination is a part of that.
Try again.

You only think that because you've taken science to the extreme. You have not allowed for anything else to become useful.

Again, science works, and for describing reality we have nothing better. Religion, on the other side, has proven to be not only wrong in this respect, but also a direct hindrance to the progress of our knowledge.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

My way works.

I see.

No. If a mystery is solved, take note of the method that solved that mystery. It may come in handy later.

And what, pray tell, do you do when you cannot solve a mystery?

This, perhaps:

My conciousness is an emergent property of the electrochemical reactions that take place in my brain. At least that is where the evidence is pointing.
My imagination is a part of that.
Try again.

Why do you attempt to explain what does not need to be explained?

Again, science works, and for describing reality we have nothing better. Religion, on the other side, has proven to be not only wrong in this respect, but also a direct hindrance to the progress of our knowledge.

I will argue neither point. You seem to have yet again missed mine.

 

[MissAlice]

Religious or not I think some of us are just weak and that area. Debating is more than just backing up your information with facts and statistics.....

Whoops I just realized I'm in the general religious debates thread..

 

[jarofthoughts]

And what, pray tell, do you do when you cannot solve a mystery?

Try again. And again. And again.
What you don't do is accept whatever explanation seems the most comfortable to you despite a complete lack of evidence.

This, perhaps:

Like I said; that is the direction the current neuropsychological evidence is pointing.

Why do you attempt to explain what does not need to be explained?

Everything needs to be explained.

I will argue neither point. You seem to have yet again missed mine.

Perhaps you are being unclear then.

 

[Jeremiah]

The difference is that you think this 'objective evidence' is very similar to the holy grail of 'reality'.
It's very difficult for me to not view this way of thinking...er silly, I guess, when it doesn't really matter how much objective evidence you have. You can give a whole bunch of objective evidence to a die-hard creationist, and they will still spout off bible verses until they're blue in the face.
What makes you think that you're any different?

"What makes you think that you're any different?"

The empirical evidence. See people who want to have a real understanding about how things actually work, have to rely on facts. If you don't care about having a real understanding, then sure make up whatever crap you want. But for people who care about getting at the actual truth of the matter, we need real evidence, not make believe evidence.

 

[Jeremiah]

Your preoccupation with 'real' is somewhat puzzling to me. What is real, is real. What is not, is not. That will not change, despite any conviction to the contrary.
Personally, what is 'real' is of no concern when religion is concerned. What is, however, is the only concern. For instance, if someone says 'God exists', they mean so in their own terms. In order to understand them, you have to come to their terms, not meet them with your own.



The key here is 'every mystery solved'. I don't care about those. They mean little. Mysteries solved are no longer mysteries. What meaning do they have?



Let us place a 'physical' in front of your 'reality', and subtract the ambiguous 'apply it more'. Then I will agree with you.
The scientific method is a tool, nothing more. Religion is a tool just the same. Taking either to the extreme is reckless and dishonest to yourself.

"what is 'real' is of no concern when religion is concerned."

Ain't that the truth.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Try again. And again. And again.
What you don't do is accept whatever explanation seems the most comfortable to you despite a complete lack of evidence.

Then why did you state this:

Everything needs to be explained.

You do not need gravity to be explained to you in order for it to function as it does. Nor electricity, light, sound, quantum mechanics. They all function without you having to understand them. It is useful to know how things work, I would not argue that point. But to say that everything needs to be explained is a overstatement, and a very large one at that.

Perhaps you are being unclear then.

Perhaps. But not speaking clearly and not being heard are two very different things.