Religulous (or however they spell it)

[Playfishpaste]

I've never really depended on Bill Maher for real, logical arguments for what he says, he is a pundit and comedian after all, and I got that the point of the movie was to simply see what the average joe religious folk thought about and what their views were. However, after the 8 minute anti-theist circle jerk of a finale I got thinking about other propoganda bits and other debates I've had with people and I realized the vast majority of the time many people sometimes will oppose something they know absolutely NOTHING about. While this probably isn't true for everyone, I'm sure to an extent many encounter arguments with people who know very little about the opposing side, or simply not enough. You must understand the issue you are arguing against in order to do so.

That said, one of the guys in there (the Jesus actor guy) didn't even know the arguments for HIS side which does indeed tell me that one of the points of the movie was right, a number of people do not apply critical thinking to their views on religion. Bill had asked him why god, if he is all powerful, wouldn't just destroy satan, and the other guy simply said because satan is transcendental or the old "god works mysteriously" babble. A theologist would have been able to answer this question ridiculously easily. Though I see why bill chose to not have one on.

Aside from those cases, I find that people on both sides just often don't research enough about the other side's perspective, they just shoot things down from their own. If you want to debate against christianity, you better know everything about thomas aquinas, if you want to debate against evolution, you better be able to tell me how natural selection and common ancestry work. If you don't know about the other side, do not attempt to refute it.

Well that was pretty much my first rant here, and I know I'll just get a bunch of people saying "well yeah, I do that". Hope I'm wrong though.

[chriscase]

I've never really depended on Bill Maher for real, logical arguments for what he says, he is a pundit and comedian after all, and I got that the point of the movie was to simply see what the average joe religious folk thought about and what their views were. However, after the 8 minute anti-theist circle jerk of a finale I got thinking about other propoganda bits and other debates I've had with people and I realized the vast majority of the time many people sometimes will oppose something they know absolutely NOTHING about. While this probably isn't true for everyone, I'm sure to an extent many encounter arguments with people who know very little about the opposing side, or simply not enough. You must understand the issue you are arguing against in order to do so.

That said, one of the guys in there (the Jesus actor guy) didn't even know the arguments for HIS side which does indeed tell me that one of the points of the movie was right, a number of people do not apply critical thinking to their views on religion. Bill had asked him why god, if he is all powerful, wouldn't just destroy satan, and the other guy simply said because satan is transcendental or the old "god works mysteriously" babble. A theologist would have been able to answer this question ridiculously easily. Though I see why bill chose to not have one on.

Aside from those cases, I find that people on both sides just often don't research enough about the other side's perspective, they just shoot things down from their own. If you want to debate against christianity, you better know everything about thomas aquinas, if you want to debate against evolution, you better be able to tell me how natural selection and common ancestry work. If you don't know about the other side, do not attempt to refute it.

Well that was pretty much my first rant here, and I know I'll just get a bunch of people saying "well yeah, I do that". Hope I'm wrong though.

I think it's fine to express an opinion on something without really being an "expert" on it, particularly topics that belong in EMM. To paraphrase Howard Zinn, there are no experts on the most important questions - like ethics - or at least there shouldn't be any. We all need to think about the important things and make up our minds for ourselves.

I take your point about attempting to be informed. But your example about Aquinas only points out the difficulty. If you have read Aquinas but not Augustine, are you really prepared to discuss Christianity in detail? Or if you have read both, but not the Bible? When you start a compendium of required reading that spans virtually the entirety of Western Civilization, it becomes a bar to discussion.

I think it's better to enter the debate willing to learn from reliable sources and in full acknowledgement of the limits of one's own knowledge. After all, one of the obvious benefits of debate and discussion is to learn from each other. If one had to be a bone fide expert to enter the debate, it's unlikely any of us would get to play.

[Playfishpaste]

I think it's fine to express an opinion on something without really being an "expert" on it, particularly topics that belong in EMM. To paraphrase Howard Zinn, there are no experts on the most important questions - like ethics - or at least there shouldn't be any. We all need to think about the important things and make up our minds for ourselves.

I take your point about attempting to be informed. But your example about Aquinas only points out the difficulty. If you have read Aquinas but not Augustine, are you really prepared to discuss Christianity in detail? Or if you have read both, but not the Bible? When you start a compendium of required reading that spans virtually the entirety of Western Civilization, it becomes a bar to discussion.

I think it's better to enter the debate willing to learn from reliable sources and in full acknowledgement of the limits of one's own knowledge. After all, one of the obvious benefits of debate and discussion is to learn from each other. If one had to be a bone fide expert to enter the debate, it's unlikely any of us would get to play.

I see your point there, but I'm not saying expertise, I just mean well-versed. Wouldn't it be a lot better if someone had read both Aquinas and the bible and Augustine and maybe a little paul before they entered into a debate about christianity? For either side? It would make the christians less rock solid (as they are aware of the faults in their view) but at the same time present more logical arguments (as they have read up on the other apologists). I'm not going ahead and saying you need to read every philosopher to start talking about "why are we here?". But shouldn't you at least have read up on geology before you go saying "the earth was only here for a couple thousand years"?

However, this is a good medium for learning, and I'm sure no matter how ludicrous most of the threads in the EMM become, somebody learns something, and usually more then one. I certainly do.

[chriscase]

I see your point there, but I'm not saying expertise, I just mean well-versed. Wouldn't it be a lot better if someone had read both Aquinas and the bible and Augustine and maybe a little paul before they entered into a debate about christianity? For either side? It would make the christians less rock solid (as they are aware of the faults in their view) but at the same time present more logical arguments (as they have read up on the other apologists). I'm not going ahead and saying you need to read every philosopher to start talking about "why are we here?". But shouldn't you at least have read up on geology before you go saying "the earth was only here for a couple thousand years"?

I really don't think so, as long as one is willing, in good faith, to go do some reading when the source is brought in. Entry should be open to everyone, but a willingness to expore sources and truly attempt to understand them is needed. If you bring up Aquinas in rebuttal to something I say, I must go read the source or concede the point. That's the motivating aspect of debate.

[Ciabhán]

Bill had asked him why god, if he is all powerful, wouldn't just destroy satan, and the other guy simply said because satan is transcendental or the old "god works mysteriously" babble. A theologist would have been able to answer this question ridiculously easily. Though I see why bill chose to not have one on.

So which theologist is the one who has a direct line to god and could answer that question? A theologist could tell us why HE thinks god doesn't do that, but that is nothing more than the opinion of someone with a fancy title.

[Playfishpaste]

So which theologist is the one who has a direct line to god and could answer that question? A theologist could tell us why HE thinks god doesn't do that, but that is nothing more than the opinion of someone with a fancy title.

No, the theologist would tell bill why that question is idiotic in terms of the god of the christian bible or catholic church and other christian churches. I'm sure bill was already aware of the arguments as to why evil exists and why christianity isn't saying it shouldn't, he just played dumb on it because he knew that guy wouldn't know the answer.

[Playfishpaste]

This is true, though the thing is I rarely ever see sources brought up, though I can see why, a lack of motivation to would prevent one from doing so when the opponent is simply rambling or when you can tell they won't read it. ah well, I guess we could live with it anyway.

[chriscase]

This is true, though the thing is I rarely ever see sources brought up, though I can see why, a lack of motivation to would prevent one from doing so when the opponent is simply rambling or when you can tell they won't read it. ah well, I guess we could live with it anyway.

This feeds into a topic I posted a while back on why we debate. It seems to me that there are too many posts that play to some imagined or irrelevant audience.

I would contend that when we debate, the most important member of the audience - if not the only one who matters - is your opponent. Only your opponent can acknowledge when you have made a good point, or even won the debate. Those standing on the sidelines can make comments, but those comments will rarely be decisive, and the moderators are not here to decide who has "won" a debate.

Do you ever notice how certain dialectical pairs coalesce at the outset of a thread? It's like a dance, with certain people choosing partners. We may not all wish to admit it, but no one really likes being left out of the dance.

So why would someone choose to debate with one person and not another? I would contend it's all about reward. It's not rewarding to debate with someone who agrees with you, because there is no point of contention. When there is a point of contention, we can have negative and positive rewards.

A negative reward is the reward one might feel from infuriating one's opponent, or getting him to lose his temper. Basically, any negative interaction where your opponent lets you know you have gotten under his skin. However, this kind of interaction plays with fire both in terms of the general tone it sets as well as the proper functioning of the forum.

A positive reward is the most gratifying. It's when your opponent debates you in good faith, considers your arguments fairly, and honestly concedes at least some of your points, if not the argument.

If we want to have productive, rewarding debates, we need to attract dialectical partners by showing our willingness to reward them. Someone who debates with the attitude that the debate is a fight to the death will find his dance card empty, or filled with others who have a similar attitude. Such a debater may wonder why no one ever seems to read his posts, and why all his interactions are negative.

I think it's worthwhile to cultivate positive, though certainly competitive and argumentative, debates.

[Playfishpaste]

One of the main issues with that though is simply because people don't take this as their immediate medium, which is understandable, it's a gaming forum. People pretty much make up their minds outside of here mostly and just side with whoever's on their side. The outsiders of said "dance" would anyway. However, I speak in general, and for those on the forums who do actually wish to have a mature, reasonable debate.

For these reasons I can see why the special forums for recognized members were created, I'm sure it's a lot less silly in there, but why can't we simply put forward those standards for all-access sub-boards as well? And have another sub-forum dedicated to rants or discussion of things in an unscholarly fashion or without citation?

[chriscase]

One of the main issues with that though is simply because people don't take this as their immediate medium, which is understandable, it's a gaming forum. People pretty much make up their minds outside of here mostly and just side with whoever's on their side. The outsiders of said "dance" would anyway. However, I speak in general, and for those on the forums who do actually wish to have a mature, reasonable debate.

For these reasons I can see why the special forums for recognized members were created, I'm sure it's a lot less silly in there, but why can't we simply put forward those standards for all-access sub-boards as well? And have another sub-forum dedicated to rants or discussion of things in an unscholarly fashion or without citation?

It seems to happen often enough that sources are required. Failure to provide them seems to be generally understood as failure to back up one's claims, but again it's all about who you are debating with. I see quite a lot of this among the posters in the Discussion and Debate forums. While some may take sides based on prejudice, this alone hardly stifles debate. And you may notice that posters rarely respond to those with whom they agree. They usually respond to someone with whom they disagree.

As far as the Citizen-only forums, I couldn't say whether the debate is really much better there, as I am not a citizen.

[Musashi]

I also see your point about studying before depating. Still the depate itself can be very usefull as a means of study.

Atleast I myself like to visit here and read depates to widen my perspective. I very strongly apresiate a good depate that makes me think differently and alters my view on something.

So in that aspect I don't see it nessesary to read some specific books about some subjeckt. Opinions can be egually important expasially on theological and filosofical things.
Altering the studyed trouth is a different issue.

[Ummon]

This thread's laudable side-argument, would be as far as I can tell, can there be a decent discussion on anything in a public forum?

As far as the Citizen-only forums, I couldn't say whether the debate is really much better there, as I am not a citizen.

There is very little debate there.

[Chaigidel]

I agree with the Op totally; meaningful discussion in my mind can only happen if knowledge of both sides is held by both sides -- otherwise you operate as if your arguing against your own imaginary notions of whatever the other guy believes.

if you dont know, ask ; then argue on those points !