ToMeK

As many people surely have noticed, there are some arguments which come up again and again and again. Many of these arguments have been refuted conclusively beforehand and yet they stil come up.

An example that even many theists would agree with is that there is no basis for morality without god. The Euthyphro dilemma in this case refutes this 'theory' and tahts it. Other arguments however require longer explanations as to why they are false.

I was wondering then, is tehre a standard response to arguments which have been refuted already taht helps to avoid a repeat of taht refutation. A common use could be with creationists who just wont cease raising arguments taht are just nonsense and are very conclusively refuted.

I am thinking if such a standard response exists it might just be a word or a descriing word. Lets say it is "refutus' or seomthing liek taht. THen you could say that the divinie command theory is a refutus argument.

Tomek

PS
I guess once could simply say that it has alraedy been refuted. Nevertheless, there still is a problem with people accepting that something has been refuted.. *cough* fundies *cough*

Jinto

DBT

Most of the standard arguements can be covered by at least one of the fallacies in logic.

ToMeK

Thanks for that link. I have read many things on fallacies though each one introduces something new.

I guess I could rephrase my question as, is tehre a fallacy that involves being ignorant to evidence? Or ignorant to conclusive logical proof?

justsumner

When faced with such arguments I ussually ask where their proof is? At which time, without almost any hesitation they respond "Well, where's yours?"

To which I simply say "Hidden away from people like you in the last place you would think to look....in books."

That ussually does it.

Occams_Razor

The problem is that most people who engage in a many-times-debunked-argument are, by virtue of the fact that they are making that argument, ignorant of the logical fallacy(ies) in which they are engaging.

If you just tell them that that argument relies on the no true scotsmen fallacy, that they are begging the question or appealing to authority, etc., they are not going to have a clue as to what you mean. The only way I have seen to point out a flaw so the credible ignorant understand it, is by explaining what the fallacy is, how their argument engages in that fallacy, and why that fallacy is indeed a fallacy. More often than not, this too fails. But I don't think you will get far by simply pointing them to the fallacy and leaving it at that.

You could try keeping a database of links to particular posts where particular arguments have been debunked and then linking to that post in your refutation.

As to your "refutus" idea, would that it were true! I love the idea, but think about the fact that YECs will come here, make some specious argument concerning: "there is no evidence for macro evolution!!!!!!," get forty pages of careful detailed logical refutation of their position including loads of evidence and information refuting their bankrupt assertion, links to numerous places where their argument is debunked, and come away saying "I showed them a thing or two." It is a bit discouraging.

ToMeK

As I posted this topic I kind of foresaw the problem of them not accepting such 'refutus' rebuttals. I was hwoever hoping taht tehre would be some nice responses nonetheless. I really like the one proposed by justsumner. Its very clever And to hear the "That usually does it" part is really encouraging.

Tomek

Mughal

I think we are in a very difficult situation. As people are born ignorant and need to make effort themselves to educate themselves out of all sort of problems and that takes ages because there are many different obtacles in each person's way. This creates a specturm of people from knowing very little to maximum possible for a person.

Since almost all atheists are at the top end of spectrum of knowledgeable and thinking people and they have a range of people to convince to their way of thinking, no wonder that they are having difficulty because the rest are either people of very little knowledge at the bottom end of the spectrum or are semi rational at the top end of the spectrum.

So to part sense depends on how much attention one needs as well as how much attention one can give ie it is a teacher pupil situation.

So explanations written by one person with some one already in mind may not work for everyone. It would be a good idea that people write explanations for same arguments with a range of people in mind and post them on websites so that we could help wider range of people.

Rationality is also like language, maths or physics etc. Just as we cannot discuss with a new born baby the complexities of life so we cannot help people understand things by answering them in simple yes or no.

In matter of learning and teaching, we need to know the capabilities of minds of those who are the supposed learners as well as those who are suppoosed teachers. When both match properly maximum transfer of knowledge would result. That is because to understand more knowledge we need to have some knowledge already within ourselves to understand it. If a child does not know numbers, the teacher cannot teach him how to add them. This is what I mean by creating a matching situation between the learner and his teacher. Likewise is the case with rationality. We first ourselves need to realise whereat are the theists in their stage of learning the knowledge and then we can help them build their knowledge from that point on.

Jobar

A fine post, Mughal. It's been my experience here that the best way to change minds which are committed to a demonstrably false position, is by dialogue. Just giving them a book to read, or a link to follow, may do- but simply conversing, one-to-one, with a reasonable, patient and polite opponent, seems to me to work lots better.

With that said, a good source of refutations for practically every creationist argument ever presented can be found at the talkorigins website. Go to E/C for a link.

ToMeK

I am curious guys, how would your responses apply to educated scholars? These people are eductaed in rationality, debate, history, contradictios etc and yet they still parade as stronger and often superior believers with their PhD waving above their heads.

What makes these people so ignorant?

And yeah Jobar, have you ever actually converted a theist?

Ive gone far with one but he resorts to claiming taht square circle isnt a contradiction because triangles and circles are used together to explain trigonometry. Go figure....