Methods of Attack / Defense
Offline I have noticed a trend in both atheist and theist posts on RRS and other debate style forums. People here do more mud slinging and smearing of their opponents than the Bush white house. People don't so much as answer questions posed, as they simply claim everything to be "specious" or "irrational". I believe the solution is to think before you type, just like how people make bad arguments when they don't think before they speak. That and perhaps an effort should be made to not reiterate what the 80 posts above you just said. IE: the seemingly popular "irishfarmer" created thread in this here forum. I'll finish by having a sample debate.
BAD
ThePope posts: I believe in God because the Bible is the irrefutable divinely inspired word of God.
McAtheist posts: Thats specious an irrational you have no proof
**800 other people post the same thing, just paraphrased**
GOOD
ThePope posts: I believe in God because of my family tradition to do just that, the moral values of Christ inspire me to live selflessly and help others and I have faith in something completely intangible but my faith sustains my belief. Why are you guys atheists?
McAtheist posts: I am an atheist because I cannot bring myself to believe in what I cannot see. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I am able to lead a good life without belief in the supernatural. My views are scientifically based, and I believe that the research to date suggests that the universe, namely Earth, was created via happenstance and the life on it has...
see what Im saying here, the bottom one is soooooo much easier on the eyes.
- Login to post comments
I haven't really noticed that. I believe that most the posts made by atheists here are thought out. To come here and accuse the members of this forum of mudslinging more than the Bush administration immediately puts me on defense. I hope you actually go back and read more posts before judging this site so harshly.
That's specious an irrational you have no proof
For the most part, I think the posts are pretty well thought out. Have you read through many of the threads or just a few?
Of course there is an occasional insult hurled from both sides of the fence, it happens.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Guilty.
But sometimes it's fun.
My Artwork
In the aforementioned case of Mr. Irishfarmer, I can think of no one more deserving. His smug bravado far exceeded his ability. I think he may have attended the Kirk Cameron University of Apologetics and Crockaduck Husbandry.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I have seen mud-slinging from both sides, but I don't think it's fair to say that no one thinks out their answers or gives good arguments.
Usually when mud-slinging gets done, it's done to people who keep debating the same points over and over again without really reading the arguments being made against them. The people who demonstrate irrational behavior in their argument style will get a face full of mud almost immediately.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
It should also probably be noted how the mud-slinging really gets started. I've seen a lot of threads (including the one mentioned) where someone posts something, they get a page full of very thorough and well-thought responses, and the original poster refuses to discuss and starts throwing out ad homs and back-handed insults. At that point the ones that made the very detailed responses tend to get a bit irritated and respond in like, although usually along with more detailed responses.
It would be great if those kinds of things didn't happen, but it would take more than explaining to resolve. A lot of times when this happens the original poster simply has no true desire to engage in discussion. While the other participants could potentially choose the diplomatic way, it's not always what works and you can't expect them to do so every time.
The bottom line is that the participants are all human, and will all have human reactions. Trying to make threads all go the same way is doomed to failure from the start. Each new thread will give each participant new ideas on how to approach the next post and the next thread. I think everyone comes to these forums with an idealistic notion of how such discussions should be approached, but things change when you start actually engaging in the discussions. The theory doesn't always fit the practice.
If you see a response that you really think should be elaborated on, you can simply respond to that post asking for further details.
...but that statement is specious, irrational, and without proof. I mean, we're more than willing to elaborate when it comes down to it, but it's not really much of an insult to call a statement specious and irrational when it is, in fact, specious and irrational. It sounds like you basically don't want to get challenged on anything you say, and instead want a forum where everyone sits around circlejerking about their beliefs and not criticizing each other's beliefs and just talking about how great their life is without pointing out the irrationality in Biblical inerrantism.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
I think his point in is that shouting "irrational" etc doesn't really do anything other than insult them. What's the purpose of calling someone irrational? What's trying to be achieved here?
Although I have to disagree with his original post.
His 'debate' had no debate in it.
It was just a "you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, shall we get along?"
I think that we can still severely criticise an opponent's position without attacking them themselves.
I think that's an unfair mischaracterization of both sides. Sure, there are a few crazy people who just post nonsense like this, but this is not the typical case. I question how many threads you have read and understood on these forums.
Yuck. First of all, these discussions can't very easily be this sterile. People care about the issues too much. Second, these two aren't even talking to each other. They might as well be addressing different audiences. This is worse than the first example, because at least in the first example, McAtheist responded to what ThePope said. ThePope's argument is still full of fallacies, and McAtheist's response doesn't even mention them. He just talks about something else entirely. If any progress is going to be made, they need to address each others arguments, and point out fallacies and other weak statements. Otherwise, the whole process is meaningless.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
This man speaks the truth, I was not attempting to troll or broadside the entirety of this forum. I simply found that many arguments made by both sides were very repetetive and sounded like they came out of a "how to talk about religion to your atheist friends" or vice versa manual. I should have been more direct in what I was saying, apologies to the insulted.
maybe we could but the argument styles (kung fu vs judo!!!) to use in real time, I have a date with a church and want as many homens to come with me as I can muster. the thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/10016
oh and just for the record, I think that a theist should be answered in the same way he introduces himself, if they are going to make clames about the end-days being real, then FSM damn-it they ARE being irrational! but if they are polite, then we should be too.
God is as qualified to preach morality as Charles Manson, Hell, he could give Hitler a run for his money!
FSM will meet its doom when Pastafarians come into their fullness.
My Artwork
lies!! the great noodly one will never fall to the pastafarians! his great slimey noodle appendage will descend from the heavens and over cook those heathens! Ramen!!
God is as qualified to preach morality as Charles Manson, Hell, he could give Hitler a run for his money!
And so you believe. The Great Colandarius will drain FSM of all his essential fluids and pour them out upon his followers, a blessing for all ages!
My Artwork