• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hal Bidlack's Lament

Many might read your words and learn something even if you never know about it.

I prefer given the words they want to hear only exaggerated--it's more fun, and you can enjoy the whooshing sound as it flies over their head. Example:

You are so right--I can totally see it now. Even though it really looked like a plane flying into a building it really could be a massive cover up in order to disguise there real truth that United Airlines and Delta and the President of the United States are in league with Al Quada, and there is no actual evidence that buildings implanted with ...

You know--the Stephen Colbert thing. If I stumble across such a response, I will have a spring in my step and a chuckle--and that is worth something isn't it? Plus it blows of steam. Hal is very good speaker with a gift for humor afterall.

A mind taught to spin poop into little sculptures and wrap it in a pretty package is a mind who will always prefer the beliefs they want to have more that the truth that is, of course--especially if they have a strong motive for failing to grasp the truths--(delusions of grandeur, money, sexual conquest).
I think Archie Bunker did more to decrease racism in my father than logic ever did.

And it's good to remind people that evidence is free to all who desire it--no one needs to fancy it up and there are no "higher truths" that someone else can find that you can't also find. And also remind them that "those who find questions arrogant" are those trying to hide something from either you or themselves. We do have lots of proof about how people fool themselve --(logic fallacies, confirmation bias, false memories, etc.) and science is the only thing goint out of it's way to get rid of these pecadillos-

"On the other hand the evidence for "X" is pretty spurious, and so why am I supposed to find it more likely for "x" when there is so much more evidence for the much simpler "Y"? Are all the scientists in the world in collusion too?
And don't you see how it's backward to solve a conundrum with a bigger conundrum?" when science is built up slowly on facts that are so simple for any logical person to check out for herself?"
 
Well, look,

When the irrational run out of logical arguments, they embark in marketing campaigns. If we simply walk out of the discussion at that point, then I think we are to some extent conceding the battle.


Like CFLarsen said, we can't ignore the power of ridicule, especially when it is done properly.

The third video down is Dawkins talking to a Rabbi. Sorry I couldn't link to it directly!

http://tauquil.com/archives/2006/01/12/is-religions-the-root-of-all-evil/

When Dawkins rebukes him on the age of the Earth, the poor rabbi looks like he's been punched. Some people have said that, basically, Dawkins just was not being very nice. I however, think that its important to see, this is what real scientists think of this idea. They think its trash! Not, gosh, its a theory, like evolution is... not, hrmm, we should debate about this, have you read such and such a paper? But simply, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, and its already past noon.

People need to see that.
 
If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.
 
I particularly liked it when Dawkins confronted the guy at Lourdes with hard stats. Very direct, very much to the point. The guy didn't like it one little bit.
 
Rustle said:
If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.
Click to expand...

Is that the one where Shermer says something like "skepticism is science"?

LOL.
 
CFLarsen said:
"by members of skeptical clubs" - attacking a whole group of people without having the guts to name them -
Click to expand...
What about attacking individuals after naming them wrong?

What about the refusal to supply any evidence at all, based on the excuse that the other party won't find the evidence convincing? Is the concession that you have no evidence supposed to be equivalent to conceding the argument - regardless of what the evidence is or is not?

Which is, of course, a classic argument from true believers.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Now, if said poster had no idea what he was talking about - a woo walking in, with no knowledge of critical thinking - then he would be excused. But said poster is perfectly aware what critical thinking means.
Click to expand...
And, as your posts have demonstrated, you are perfectly aware of what evidence is. So why do you continue to not post evidence?

You attacked Huntsman. When I asked why, you called him Hunster. When I pointed out the confusion and asked you for a single peice of evidence to demonstrate you really had identified the correct person, you... ducked.

Thus, we are definitely justified to call that kind of debating dishonest.
Click to expand...
Given that you engage in the tactics above - given the example of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1726884&postcount=108 - how can anyone take your comments on honest debating seriously?

If you are unable to recognize dishonest debate tactics when you employ them, why should your outrage at other people's dishonest debate tactics be considered worthy of discussion?
 
Pyrrho said:
Trade ridicule for ridicule, and that's pretty much all you'll have. At the end of the day, there is no progress, except perhaps in cementing the ideas and opinions of people who agree with the ridicule.

Thoroughly demonstrating the manifest failures of people such as the "Loose Change" group will do more to inform others than mockery will. The former takes a lot more work; the latter is easy.

Ridicule does indeed have powerful uses. Done well, as in well-crafted satire, it is a damaging rhetorical tool. Done poorly, as in shoot-from-the-hip cynicism, it mostly serves to reinforce already-held positions and to alienate people whom we might otherwise be able to reach with reasoned argument.
Click to expand...

well we could hurl rocks and hand grenades--but ridicule should be engaged to it's full extent before then, no?
 
Rustle said:
If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.
Click to expand...

They've been brainwashed since trusting childhood--an no one bothered to tell them how we know "the earth is a sphere" differes from "Santa gives presents to good boys and girls". If they've got religon they've been inoculated with the worst meme of all when it comes to thinking. It looks like this: "Here is your truth--never question, as it is arrogant to do so and you will suffer for all eternity; moreover, faith is a gift (of poop wrapped in a bow it seems)--oh yes, after the fear--sweaten the pot--it's not all bad, afterall--you can still live happily ever after--just convert others--and see how happy you can look with that fab gift of faith--the more you smile when you eat your poop present, the more the lord is pleased. Bend all facts, spin, emotion, knee-jerk offense, judgement etc. so as to fit to the poop truth--and all the rest you must never see because it's only satan trying to get you to take a bite from the tree of knowledge--and eternity is long time to regret thinking to much.

There. Does that explain it. Because it's no new meme-gene dynamic duo. It has had millions of mutations, but the formula all rests on the same "ideal" coupled with "yours is not to reason why; yours is but to do or die"

You are told not to reason--and so you don't. You just lie to yourself and others to believe the truth you want. They come here to preach...but if they stay they could learn far more than they ever could teach anyone else. TSK

Irony--not just for making your clothes less wrinkled
 
To all participants: As always keep in mind that challenging the argument is fine, attacking the Member making the argument is not. If you can't challenge the argument and can only attack the Member then do no post.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
In other words, the James Randi Forum bears no resemblance to James Randi?

Increasingly it seems to me that all forum activity is futilely pointless, so far removed it is from real life discourse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom