The Pathway Machine

[Tiberius]

We keep disagreeing on the free speech matter Adrian (which is OK by me). Can the refutation of arguments be validated objectively? Do some posting on a theist forum and you'll know. And decency is a rather soft criterion. All those left here must be really decent girls and boys then? Have we responded decent each time? By whose definition?

What I meant was, we listen to argument from theists about various thing to do with creation science. I have no problems listening to them, as it is well within their freedom of speech to say such things. We likewise have the right to correct them with the actual science that has been observed, tested, etc. If they continue to make the same statements about creation science without trying to refute our corrections, then they cannot expect to continue with the debate unless they admit their views are wrong. Debates do not function if one side simply keeps insisting a point and does nothing to counter the points raised by the other. If a person cannot refute the points, they have lost the debate, and should acknowledge it.

Two great examples of this are CoxRox and Daystar. Whilst Daystar simply ignored all attempts to explain Evolution to him and show evidence, and repeatedly called us "religious" for believing in a theory he knew nothing about, CoxRox listened to our points, admitted she didn't know much about the subject, and bought several books on the subject.

She hasn't said anything on whether she believes Evolution, but she has made attempts to critically analyze her beliefs. Likewise, I think most of us did the same analysis when Daystar brought up his "Hell" posts, and I think most of us have changed the opinion of what the Bible actually says about certain things.

Intellectual honesty is all we are asking for. Being able to say that you were wrong or didn't properly understand allows for proper debates, otherwise things break down. We're not going to ban people for being idiots, or for being uneducated, but we are going to ban people who constantly (note the bolding) refuse the acknowledge anything they have said that was plainly wrong.

[Purple Rabbit]

We keep disagreeing on the free speech matter Adrian (which is OK by me). Can the refutation of arguments be validated objectively? Do some posting on a theist forum and you'll know. And decency is a rather soft criterion. All those left here must be really decent girls and boys then? Have we responded decent each time? By whose definition?

What I meant was, we listen to argument from theists about various thing to do with creation science. I have no problems listening to them, as it is well within their freedom of speech to say such things. We likewise have the right to correct them with the actual science that has been observed, tested, etc. If they continue to make the same statements about creation science without trying to refute our corrections, then they cannot expect to continue with the debate unless they admit their views are wrong. Debates do not function if one side simply keeps insisting a point and does nothing to counter the points raised by the other. If a person cannot refute the points, they have lost the debate, and should acknowledge it.

Two great examples of this are CoxRox and Daystar. Whilst Daystar simply ignored all attempts to explain Evolution to him and show evidence, and repeatedly called us "religious" for believing in a theory he knew nothing about, CoxRox listened to our points, admitted she didn't know much about the subject, and bought several books on the subject.

She hasn't said anything on whether she believes Evolution, but she has made attempts to critically analyze her beliefs. Likewise, I think most of us did the same analysis when Daystar brought up his "Hell" posts, and I think most of us have changed the opinion of what the Bible actually says about certain things.

Intellectual honesty is all we are asking for. Being able to say that you were wrong or didn't properly understand allows for proper debates, otherwise things break down. We're not going to ban people for being idiots, or for being uneducated, but we are going to ban people who constantly (note the bolding) refuse the acknowledge anything they have said that was plainly wrong.

Yeah, yeah, you already made your point clear. In my words: to you decent behaviour is ultimately recognizable in surrender to your reasoning. As for me, you miss out on the emotional impact of defeat, the right to disagree and the difference between winning a debate as a mission and debating as a path to awareness. Let's leave it at that because otherwise someone might feel compelled to bow for rationalized feelings once again.

[Edwardo Piet]

Maybe winning debates and a path to awareness can be in harmony? Depends whether you think its better to go more softly-softly like Dan Dennett or more militant in your face like from Harris and Dawkins to Hitchens perhaps?
Perhaps?
Perhaps its better to be softer at times and more militant at other times? Depends who you are debating with?
Evf.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, yeah, you already made your point clear. In my words: to you decent behaviour is ultimately recognizable in surrender to your reasoning. As for me, you miss out on the emotional impact of defeat, the right to disagree and the difference between winning a debate as a mission and debating as a path to awareness. Let's leave it at that because otherwise someone might feel compelled to bow for rationalized feelings once again.

No, to me decent behaviour is surrender to a point which has been demonstrated as false. In most topics, this will never happen because we talk about philosophy more than anything, but for instance, in a conversation about Evolution, we can use accurate science to show that the evidence is conclusive. If the person refuses to accept the evidence, then there is no point in continuing the debate with them, as they have shown a complete unwillingness to consider evidence to the contrary of their position.

Daystar was an example of this, as he constantly argued against Evolution without actually understanding the subject, and ignoring all the reports we showed to him. This is completely different to when he argued against our positions as atheists, as this is a philosophical issue, and as such cannot have an absolute answer.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well put.
And also, I like debates but I also like to try and raise awareness (if I can) - why can't both be done PR?
Evf

[Purple Rabbit]

No, to me decent behaviour is surrender to a point which has been demonstrated as false. In most topics, this will never happen because we talk about philosophy more than anything, but for instance, in a conversation about Evolution, we can use accurate science to show that the evidence is conclusive. If the person refuses to accept the evidence, then there is no point in continuing the debate with them, as they have shown a complete unwillingness to consider evidence to the contrary of their position.

There are no absolutes in human understanding. Even science isn't absolute in it's conclusions. Science is about the most probable. I agree it's an awful good probable in most cases, but don't make a religion from science. And by now must know that from my pen as a strong defender of science and a scepticist about just about everything, this isn't in defense of theism or relativism but in defense of the scientific method itself.

The dichotomy you assume between philosophy and science is artificial. Philosophy arguably is a part of science, especially in the hypothesizing phase at the start of scientific endeauvour and in the end phase of interpretation and cross connecting of sceintific results.

Having no reason to debate with someone is not the same as shutting someone out from the possibility to debate.

---

Well put.
And also, I like debates but I also like to try and raise awareness (if I can) - why can't both be done PR?
Evf

I didn't stop you at awareness raising, did I? Does awareness raising require shutting people out from the possibility to take part in debate? Of course not. The awareness raising is done in direct confrontation that is plain to see for all passers by. The conscious raising done now is that the site is being suspect of shutting out believers for the content of their argument. And that indeed is fairly common practice on theistic sites. Not a practice I'd expect on a free thinking community.

There are, I think, reasons of shutting out though: when personal attacks become dominant and potentially damaging to other participants (not the case here I believe, there have been strong personal attacks from both sides) and taking on multiple identities on the forum (which IS the case here).

[Eilonnwy]

Reading his post I want to burst out laughing. The ego he must have is quite amazing. He must think himself so clever. I almost want to see his forum...almost.

[Tiberius]

There are no absolutes in human understanding. Even science isn't absolute in it's conclusions. Science is about the most probable. I agree it's an awful good probable in most cases, but don't make a religion from science. And by now must know that from my pen as a strong defender of science and a scepticist about just about everything, this isn't in defense of theism or relativism but in defense of the scientific method itself.

The dichotomy you assume between philosophy and science is artificial. Philosophy arguably is a part of science, especially in the hypothesizing phase at the start of scientific endeauvour and in the end phase of interpretation and cross connecting of sceintific results.

Having no reason to debate with someone is not the same as shutting someone out from the possibility to debate.

Yes, but what I am talking about is the evidence. When people say "there is no evidence of evolution", I want to be able to turn around to them, show them Richard Lenski's studies, various fossils, genetic similarities, etc. For them to still say there is no "evidence" for Evolution would be counter to all possible reason. They can accept this evidence and then say "Well it's also evidence for creation"; I have no problems with them doing that,, as long as they admit that their previous notion concerning the lack of evidence was wrong. We would show Daystar countless pieces of evidence, and he would simply reject them and make up stuff. I don't want that happening in what is supposed to be a debate, and I don't think you would either.

Philosophy is not a part of science; Philosophy is to logic what science is to nature. Yes, you can use Philosophy within science (to answer questions about ethics, existence, etc) but it is wrong to say that philosophy is a part of science. There are many philosophies that have nothing to do with science. Whilst science relies on experiments and observations, philosophy relies on rational arguments and reasoning. Science might contribute a few things to philosophical thinking (such as equality of the sexes being a part of ethics), but that doesn't make them the same.

By the way, this debate we are having here is a perfect example of how things should be done. You are putting forward your points, and I am either commenting or attempting to refute them, and raising counter points. If I were to suddenly start shouting "PHILOSOPHY IS NOT SCIENCE" in every single post, I would have to warn myself

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes, but what I am talking about is the evidence.

Acceptance of evidence as valid material in debate presupposes reason. When the debater rejects any evidence, he rejects reason. To have a debater openly reject reason is the ultimate you can ask for in debate. So what's your problem.

When people say "there is no evidence of evolution", I want to be able to turn around to them, show them Richard Lenski's studies, various fossils, genetic similarities, etc. For them to still say there is no "evidence" for Evolution would be counter to all possible reason.

So what, let them counter reason with lack of reason. And let this become clear in debate. What more can you be after? Let opponents have the right to disagree contrary to all evidence. Faith does not suppose reason. You wanna reason faith away. You wanna be in control of the mind of the believer. Science is not dogma.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't stop you at awareness raising, did I? Does awareness raising require shutting people out from the possibility to take part in debate? Of course not. The awareness raising is done in direct confrontation that is plain to see for all passers by. The conscious raising done now is that the site is being suspect of shutting out believers for the content of their argument. And that indeed is fairly common practice on theistic sites. Not a practice I'd expect on a free thinking community.

There are, I think, reasons of shutting out though: when personal attacks become dominant and potentially damaging to other participants (not the case here I believe, there have been strong personal attacks from both sides) and taking on multiple identities on the forum (which IS the case here).

Well my point is that Daystar did a lot more harm than good in the end. He was a trouble maker. And its NOT like he admitted he didn't have evidence! That would be fine! Indeed! The problem was he pretended to have evidence while simultaneously refusing to give any.
But the main problem was the arrogance and flaming of course! But they were often expressed in his arguments where he digressed, wasted time and kept pretending he had evidence but never gave any.
And then when he went undercover as that other guy, what he did then was sick.
Futhermore, once I was having a discussion with him and in the end he basically said "Yeah, I know you're right about this really, I was just trying to annoy you".
Pity he failed, I told him. He didn't annoy me. But he was certainly petty and wasted my time.
What's the point of being on a forum if all you do is disrupt the discussion and waste people's time if you get impatient and fed up with discussing with them. Because they won't do it your way?
Why would just plain disruption and annoyance be any good? Freedom of speech doesn't mean say whatever the f**k you like and in whatever way you want of course.
P.S: Oh, just so you know PR, I'm not against you. I'm just discussing with you.
I think you're a great debater. I respect your opinion and the point your makes are great - and straight to the point. I just don't agree with them all.
And the thing is - I wasn't even against Daystar himself its his behavior and arrogance I was against. And his trouble making and disruption. All which tend to be expressed through his arguments.