Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 10-12-2006, 05:07 PM

And some people are experts at the sort of rhetorical tactics that jayh has described; creationist Duane Gish is known for his "Gish Gallop" of "facts" that evolution is allegedly unable to explain.

GenesisNemesis · 10-15-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Atheists should pick their fights wisely. religionists use emotions to win even if they intellectually lose. For Dawkins to talk to him could backfire. Dawkins too easily lose temper and get very angry. People don't like such lack of control. atheists comes through as angry grumpy old men. We lose instead of win cause the religionists have a double agenda. Selling emotions using intellectual smokescreens as front.

This is especially true when I listened to a Dan Barker/"religoon" (I made up that word) debate podcast, and the religoon ended up saying "Jesus WANTS YOU!" and crap like that.

doubtingt · 10-19-2006, 09:28 AM

Theology and theistic belief are grounded in and cannot survive without pervasive intellectual dishonesty. There is no point in public debate with people unwilling to abide by the principles of rational thought. Just look at political debates where neither party is interested in honest rational discourse. How often is the percieved "winner" by the public, the person who presents the most cogent and well supported argument? Almost never.

Religion and faith generally win the battle for the public mind, precisely because they have no intellectual ethics or honesty and employ rhetorical and emotionally manipulative tactics to undermine the audience's reasoning.

Unless both parties in a debate engage in a principled committment to honest, rational discourse, public debate has no positive value since its perceived "victor" will have little to do with the quality of argument and evidence provided.
This is also why debate among scientists is often useful and progressive, while debate among theologians has about as much value and utility as two people arguing over whether chocolate or vanilla is objectively better tasting.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2006, 05:07 PM	#41
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	And some people are experts at the sort of rhetorical tactics that jayh has described; creationist Duane Gish is known for his "Gish Gallop" of "facts" that evolution is allegedly unable to explain.

10-19-2006, 09:28 AM	#43
doubtingt Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: USA Posts: 4,635	Theology and theistic belief are grounded in and cannot survive without pervasive intellectual dishonesty. There is no point in public debate with people unwilling to abide by the principles of rational thought. Just look at political debates where neither party is interested in honest rational discourse. How often is the percieved "winner" by the public, the person who presents the most cogent and well supported argument? Almost never. Religion and faith generally win the battle for the public mind, precisely because they have no intellectual ethics or honesty and employ rhetorical and emotionally manipulative tactics to undermine the audience's reasoning. Unless both parties in a debate engage in a principled committment to honest, rational discourse, public debate has no positive value since its perceived "victor" will have little to do with the quality of argument and evidence provided. This is also why debate among scientists is often useful and progressive, while debate among theologians has about as much value and utility as two people arguing over whether chocolate or vanilla is objectively better tasting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.