Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, before we get started:

Let's not flame. The irony of it will be hilarious.

Now, to begin.

For years, man has argued and discussed. Jack says this, Suzy says that. Tom's an Atheist, Kate's a Christian.

Do you believe that the argument has any positive effect on society?

On one hand, one could say that it is a healthy way to discuss things, and I totally agree.

Unfortunately, Radicalism always rears its ugly head into arguments, and you get something like this.

Tom: I'm right, because of this and that

Joe: No, you're wrong. I'm right and that's that.

Tom: Where's your proof

Joe: I don't need proof, this is what I believe.

And it goes on.

So, how do you feel about the act of discussion.

Such discussion will never yield any result.

Unless , there are some misconception or obvious flaws in the theories used.

However , the discussion usually get very stupid very fast ,
which is why in the other thread as seeing for example .

Only the very stupid 2 are going at it.

To be honest, often both sides of an argument have little evidence to support themselves, which is why religion still exists. Science hasn't pulled out enough proof to show that all the faithful are wrong, so the pointless arguments go on and on forever.

Cryonicleech wrote:Unfortunately, Radicalism always rears its ugly head into arguments, and you get something like this.

Tom: I'm right, because of this and that

Joe: No, you're wrong. I'm right and that's that.

Tom: Where's your proof

Joe: I don't need proof, this is what I believe.

And it goes on.

So, how do you feel about the act of discussion.

So what's the alternative? Abandon the free exchange of ideas? Sure, there a lots of pointless, headbutting arguments where people just repeat their talking points at each other. But there are also Datsuns, and despite that we haven't abandoned the car.

And it's important to remember that just because one person doesn't surrender the argument and admit the other person is completely correct, something useful may still have happened. While someone might still be convinced they're correct, they may develop a better understanding of another POV. Or a third party might follow the conversation and realise one party is full of it (or both parties are full of it). And the exercise of debate can often help you better understand your own POV, so that even if the other person isn't even listening, maybe by the end of the conversation you're a little more able to articulate your own position.

Personally, my own views have changed considerably over the last 10 or 15 years, and while a lot of reading and learning has been involved, a lot of the changes have come from debate. And yeah, I've changed plenty of views as a result of being absolutely stomped in debate by people who knew the subject a lot better than me (though I didn't necessarily admit it at the time). And I understand a lot of other POVs better than I did 15 years ago (I don't necessarily respect them any more than at the start, but at least now I properly understand what's wrong about them).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:To be honest, often both sides of an argument have little evidence to support themselves, which is why religion still exists. Science hasn't pulled out enough proof to show that all the faithful are wrong, so the pointless arguments go on and on forever.

Science doesn't work that way. It's just a process that proposes a hypothesis on how something in nature works, then performs tests to see if that hypothesis works. Science will never answer any question on the supernatural because the supernatural, by definition being beyond nature, is beyond the theories and tests of science.

Nothing so drastic as to that, of course.

Your absolutely right sebster. I guess what I'm saying is how do we keep radicalism out of debates?

Cryonicleech wrote:Nothing so drastic as to that, of course.

Your absolutely right sebster. I guess what I'm saying is how do we keep radicalism out of debates?

I think it's just a case of the people involved in the discussion being disciplined enough to keep their arguments in check, and to criticise others who do become combative and non-constructive. The second part is tricky, because you only need a little intellectual dishonesty and people will condemn arguments as 'radical' whenever someone asks a difficult question.

Thinking about it, it's also tricky because radical arguments aren't necessarily wrong. It's the fallacy of the middle to assume that the compromised centre always represents the best answer... sometimes one side of the argument really is completely wrong and the radical is correct. I guess for me the problematic debaters are the dogmatic ones, the one-note people that aren't uninterested in what other people are saying, who just repeat the same points over and over again.

Discussion is great. Radicalism is not wonderful but has its place. By that I mean that someone who is radical will go to extreme lengths to find "dirt" on the opposing argument. Sometimes it's useful for finding the true center.

Obviously, discussion and debate is pointless without evidence for either side. Discussion is also pointless if its a "i'm going to prove you wrong" discussion. Neither parties are willing to listen the opposing sides issues.

Cheese Elemental wrote:To be honest, often both sides of an argument have little evidence to support themselves, which is why religion still exists. Science hasn't pulled out enough proof to show that all the faithful are wrong, so the pointless arguments go on and on forever.

Religions provide several things.

1. A cosmological framework which explains the way the universe works.
2. A moral framework which shows how to live a good life.
3. They often provide a social framework which supports a particular pecking order of society.

Point 1 has been comprehensively disproved by science, however some religious adherents refuse to believe the evidence. Other religious adherents accept that the cosmology in their religion is wrong, or rather a myth or parable, and they still believe the rest of the religion has value. In which I think they are correct. In fact social and evolutionary science support various aspects of how to live a good life.

Therefore it is simplistic to say that science has not disproved religion.

It is more interesting to ask why some religious people believe in clearly incorrect points while others don't.