Reasoning with one who protests reason

[scorpion9]

Jude was the only one who "got" what Jesus was about - in order to free Jesus' soul from the "prison of the flesh", he had to "betray" him,

But why does jesus say this

"But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

This doesnt seem fair in any case :S


Judas really "getting" the point, would however be more believable, since they also knew that according to the prophecy, one of them had to betray jesus, and this was supposed to be. Then, it would make sense of one(or all) of them to think, that they are the ones who will have to do it.(as a favor, since they dont know, if others will, and without them, the prophecy may be not fulfilled)

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Jude was the only one who "got" what Jesus was about - in order to free Jesus' soul from the "prison of the flesh", he had to "betray" him,

But why does jesus say this

"But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

This doesnt seem fair in any case :S

This is likely a edit in keeping with the "story" the Church wished to promote.

This is why I commented about the irony of it.

Think a moment: here's the Church's story for the past 2,000 years, that Judas was the traitor - when, in fact, Jesus (God!) told him to do it!!

Judas really "getting" the point, would however be more believable, since they also knew that according to the prophecy, one of them had to betray jesus, and this was supposed to be. Then, it would make sense of one(or all) of them to think, that they are the ones who will have to do it.(as a favor, since they dont know, if others will, and without them, the prophecy may be not fulfilled)

According to Jude's gospel, Jesus had spoken to him a week before the last supper, specifically asking him to betray Jesus.

It wasn't a case of the disciples wondering who - because Jesus and Judas knew.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[bluejatheist]

In the end, whether you thrust the 'red pill' in someones face, or offer it tactfully, only that particular individual can choose take it. It's often repeated that belief is not a choice, which is the main reason it's highly doubtful Ra will make progress with this guy either way, since he's been raised to be comfortable with the 'blue pill'. Faith has a nasty habit of hard wiring itself in peoples heads. But like I said this is more about the fence-sitter.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

In the end, whether you thrust the 'red pill' in someones face, or offer it tactfully, only that particular individual can choose take it. It's often repeated that belief is not a choice, which is the main reason it's highly doubtful Ra will make progress with this guy either way, since he's been raised to be comfortable with the 'blue pill'. Faith has a nasty habit of hard wiring itself in peoples heads. But like I said this is more about the fence-sitter.

What is there to lose, then, with treating him like an adult in discussion instead of a child who just stole a cookie from the cookie jar?

:|

If he's completely lost to words, then yelling at him accomplishes nothing except hardening his faith, and he won't forfeit to reason anyways. However, if he's willing to listen, the time wasted in both endeavors is null and you still have a greater chance for a pleasant and positive outcome in the education/exchange of knowledge.

 

[bluejatheist]

What is there to lose, then, with treating him like an adult in discussion instead of a child who just stole a cookie from the cookie jar?

:|

If he's completely lost to words, then yelling at him accomplishes nothing except hardening his faith, and he won't forfeit to reason anyways. However, if he's willing to listen, the time wasted in both endeavors is null and you still have a greater chance for a pleasant and positive outcome in the education/exchange of knowledge.

I'm too much of a cynic to expect that this is anything more than vain, but as I said I can't say much to defend Ra's approach. I don't know what exactly he's going for here, it comes off like they have history that has him up in arms, maybe Aron has been dealing with such a volume of the aggressive variety of believer that he's treating all believers he talks to as if they're Ray Comfort. Only he can say why he's taking the strong approach, till then this is all just speculating.

 

[AronRa]

This is the most cordial coddling I've ever done with anyone on the other side of reason, and yet everyone tells me I'm taking a strong offensive. I don't get it. I'm being as nice as I can be to this kid. If I can ever get him to quit posturing and puffing up, then once we get into the discussion, all I intend to do is to calmly challenge all his preconceptions, expectations, and erroneous information by trying to get him to think about things from a perspective wherein accuracy and accountability matter. I intend to explain therein that I don't expect him to convert that day, but rather that the seeds of that one discussion will have wrought my expected result within a few months' time. I suspect that he already knows that I'm going to take his precious fable away, and that the only way he can keep it is to chant his mantras over my reasoning. I'm not going to allow that. That's why he's trying to contoct excuses now. It's the same reason he dodged all my questions before. He knows he is only pretending, and he wants to preserve his delusion at all costs.

 

[bluejatheist]

This is the most cordial coddling I've ever done with anyone on the other side of reason, and yet everyone tells me I'm taking a strong offensive. I don't get it. I'm being as nice as I can be to this kid. If I can ever get him to quit posturing and puffing up, then once we get into the discussion, all I intend to do is to calmly challenge all his preconceptions, expectations, and erroneous information by trying to get him to think about things from a perspective wherein accuracy and accountability matter. I intend to explain therein that I don't expect him to convert that day, but rather that the seeds of that one discussion will have wrought my expected result within a few months' time. I suspect that he already knows that I'm going to take his precious fable away, and that the only way he can keep it is to chant his mantras over my reasoning. I'm not going to allow that. That's why he's trying to contoct excuses now. It's the same reason he dodged all my questions before. He knows he is only pretending, and he wants to preserve his delusion at all costs.

I think people are put off by the diction you're using and the direct addressing of his position. Maybe its just different perceptions of what's the best approach

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Here's my advice: Don't tell him that religion is bad; If all goes well he will come to that conclusion by himself. Other than that I have no criticisms. I like what you're doing Aron, and I wish you success in your efforts.

 

[AronRa]

Kent and Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort are fine, God fearing men and they are wise., Accrding to the Bible you athiests are not wise. You all need to see your need for a Saviour. You MUST realize you have sinned againts a Holy, God and broken His law. Have you always kept God first? Or ever used His name in vain (blashpemy)? Or coveting? Or lying? Or stealing or adultery?You need a saviour, God provded you a Saviour. His son Jesus died on the cross and took God's wrath for YOU.

Cameron, Comfort, Ham, and the Hovinds are frauds, cons, and charlatans. The point of this discussion is to prove that your satisfaction, remember? I intend to show you that everything these crooks ever told you about God is unsupported assertion, and that everything they said about evolution was a lie. I intend to reveal that to you in such a way that you will know it for certain and by admission without any possibility of doubt. They are liars; I am not, and you will know that by, the end.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This is the most cordial coddling I've ever done with anyone on the other side of reason, and yet everyone tells me I'm taking a strong offensive. I don't get it. I'm being as nice as I can be to this kid. If I can ever get him to quit posturing and puffing up, then once we get into the discussion, all I intend to do is to calmly challenge all his preconceptions, expectations, and erroneous information by trying to get him to think about things from a perspective wherein accuracy and accountability matter. I intend to explain therein that I don't expect him to convert that day, but rather that the seeds of that one discussion will have wrought my expected result within a few months' time. I suspect that he already knows that I'm going to take his precious fable away, and that the only way he can keep it is to chant his mantras over my reasoning. I'm not going to allow that. That's why he's trying to contoct excuses now. It's the same reason he dodged all my questions before. He knows he is only pretending, and he wants to preserve his delusion at all costs.

It's perceived aggression towards what could be argued as a nonviolent party in terms of religious beliefs.

Rereading your words in a different and more calm tone - perhaps imagining you as a soft-spoken hippie - I can grasp it. But the first impression imagery for your direct assault of his position without conceivable notion or background seems a bit harsh and more hurtful than helpful.

When people read words, they personify them with whatever nature they perceive based upon their past experience (this is why you read shit in someone's voice if you know the person who wrote it by habit). Your nature is normally a striking tone, so your entire stance and approach does seem to come off as a bit abrasive without intentionally imagining a wise old man saying it.

Remember: It's not what you mean. It's what the audience perceives. If we, knowing you, perceive that you're being a dick imagine what the guy you're actually talking to is feeling as he reads it. >.>
Literature 101, man.

 

[bluejatheist]

This thread has been hard on my brain.
I both agree and disagree to the fullest and have had to try to turn this into an intelligible written statement.


Aron: I think it's VERY wishful thinking to expect any kind of conversion. Has this approach been successful for you before? It honestly comes off as almost an intentionally preachy approach and at best I would argue that your goal should be to make this discussion a learning experience only, without any reference to conversion, as this current approach seems vain.

On the other hand, this guy has no excuse to be so ignorant and really, you might as well be straightforward and direct because after so many years of this mind numbing struggle to make people understand simple scientific concepts that are right in front of them, you really shouldn't have to start from square one, and screw them for having the nerve to email you just to quote the bible and give you Ray Comfort arguments. You, with your entire video series focusing on the foundational falsehoods of creationism, your face to face discussions with countless other people of various religions, and properly cited rebuttals to the core 'arguments' against evolution and etc, and this little whelp of an apologist wants to have question time, because he thinks he has groundbreaking hot shit that gives science a run for its money. I'm not even giving a suggestion on where to go from here, all I can do is try to communicate my exasperation and take some medicine.

 

[AronRa]

I forgot to add this side-note that I posted about a week ago.

Imagine trying to teach sex education to one who insists that obstetricians are amoral conspirators against the stork. That person refuses to learn about procreation unless we pretend that storkism has equal merit, and we have to give the guy equal time to present his case., That is how absurd your objection is. The only difference between my example and your actual position is that creationism has had 150 years to build up a cache of false claims and pseudoscience obfuscations.

What I intend to do -seriously- is to get this boy to think. I'm going to try a tack I have never tried before, and which will only work in a one-on-one discussion. I'm going to try to get this boy to think about things the way I have to, and hopefully he'll understand why I cannot make-believe something else the way he does. There are a number of other subtleties involved, and I'm generally not good with subtleties, so it will take me some time to work these out effectively. I have a helluva lot on my plate at the moment, and can barely do anything for a while. That's why everything has to be postponed.

 

[AronRa]

And this:

Kent and Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort are fine, God fearing men and they are wise., Accrding to the Bible you athiests are not wise. You all need to see your need for a Saviour. You MUST realize you have sinned againts a Holy, God and broken His law. Have you always kept God first? Or ever used His name in vain (blashpemy)? Or coveting? Or lying? Or stealing or adultery?You need a saviour, God provded you a Saviour. His son Jesus died on the cross and took God's wrath for YOU.

According to many dictionaries, and the common vernacular, a fool is one who is easily duped because he readily believes improbable claims without sufficient evidence. Not surprisingly, the Bible -which seeks to dupe gullible people- defines a fool as one who is NOT easily duped because he does NOT readily believe improbable claims without sufficient evidence. Why is there such a discrepancy here?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I understand what you're trying to do, Aron, and support it - just concerned that the approach may be more difficult than it needs to be.

Your comment about not being good at subtleties, however, gives credence to our concerns about your approach.

It's your own "debate", of course, though I'd approach it by asking him the questions I mentioned in my earlier post - to get him to relax and open up and tell you his understanding of things, rather than preach what the Bible says.

Then I'd deal with those answers as I outlined in the same post.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You see, Arthur, I think the point is that you've convinced yourself that what you read into Aron's words [(antagonism and contempt) is what is visible to most of us. It is not.

Y u so mean Aron?

What? This is me being nice.

It is quite visible to most the people here. I'm just surprised that no-one is following the obvious attribution for the cause.

 

[Noth]

Don't project, Arthur It's not becoming.

what you read =/= what we read

antagonism and contempt =/= not the type of tact we'd personally choose

 

[bluejatheist]

Aron is a bigot for this reason, that reason and this one.

No, Aron isn't a bigot, each of your points is demonstrably misleading or just plain wrong.

*A day later, ignoring the 2-3 lengthy rebuttals that kick my arguments ass, which I wont reply to because on top of being wrong, I don't have the courtesy to acknowledge criticism that people took the time to write out, I'd rather just keep bitching instead*

Maybe if I start over, but with a different yet still utterly incorrect and inane approach, people will think I'm right!
...Or at least clever?

 

[DepricatedZero]

This is the most cordial coddling I've ever done with anyone on the other side of reason, and yet everyone tells me I'm taking a strong offensive. I don't get it. I'm being as nice as I can be to this kid. If I can ever get him to quit posturing and puffing up, then once we get into the discussion, all I intend to do is to calmly challenge all his preconceptions, expectations, and erroneous information by trying to get him to think about things from a perspective wherein accuracy and accountability matter. I intend to explain therein that I don't expect him to convert that day, but rather that the seeds of that one discussion will have wrought my expected result within a few months' time. I suspect that he already knows that I'm going to take his precious fable away, and that the only way he can keep it is to chant his mantras over my reasoning. I'm not going to allow that. That's why he's trying to contoct excuses now. It's the same reason he dodged all my questions before. He knows he is only pretending, and he wants to preserve his delusion at all costs.

The term "cordial coddling" made me laugh, I like that.

When I read your replies, it's in the same voice and tone you deliver most of your videos in, in my head. You are taking a strong offensive, and there's nothing wrong with that on its own. I can't speak for everyone, but my primary concern is that you're just going to drive him deeper into his shell.

I have a pet hedgehog, and one thing I've learned from it is patience and control. Not in an argument, as such, but hedgehogs are ridiculously timid creatures by nature. At least mine is, anyway. But socializing him wasn't an overnight process. I couldn't just say "play, damn you! it's perfectly safe!" I had to demonstrate that it was safe over a period of time. I had to let him come out, explore, get accustomed to the idea of his play area. If I got loud, unruly, anything at all he would ball up and wait until he knew it was safe to run back into his hat (his home is a fedora). After a few months of calmly sitting with him, letting him come to me, and assuring him it was safe, he's now perfectly comfortable with me and his play area.

The relevant part here being approach. I think trying to hold him accountable immediately is a step far. I think telling him outright that you're going to shatter his delusions, is counterproductive. Don't say it, do it.

He'll protest reason, as you put it, if you tell him that's your line of attack and telegraph the punch, so to speak. Creationists are more concerned with "winning" their argument than with being right. So don't let him know he's fighting. Instead, invite him to discussion. Talk with him, let him come to you (as he first did), answer his questions and pose questions that challenge his position. Engage him in a dialectic, and he'll ask the questions that bring him around to understanding reality - and in so doing, he'll be far more ready to accept it.

I admire what you're trying for, and by all means do what works best for you - this is simply how I would go about it.

 

[scorpion9]

Well, id say that Aron's tactic may seem a bit too straight forward, but...given that deconverting/explaining science is a longer process, i can understand the need to shorten it by skipping the part where you listen to the same old preaching, and present your case straight forward.


I would , instead skip any further chit-chat and start by showing why kent hovind's and camerons presentations are full of lies.
In your next message, just skip everything else, and take e.g hovinds slides, point by point, and give scientific reasons why they are false.

He will then have to respond somehow. He will need a way to refute your scientific papers, and information.....which he cant do.

You could also start by asking him to see the crock'o'duck video, explain in simple terms how evolution works, and that finding crockoduck would Disprove evolution, not prove it, as cameron claims. Its as simple as that.

Then ask him, why was it necessary for cameron to make up that crockoduck, and tell us that this is what evolutionists are looking for, while in reality it would disprove evolution pretty much instantly.


I still have a conversation history with a sincere believer , that you may find interesting to read.
Its written in very informal language, and is full of mistakes on both parts.
She did deconvert eventually, and i suspect that my conversation with her, may have had a role in it.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hlrV683fszDzpVv2wSM1JcJjJq-T-xoGzhNiqDh1pbU/edit

 

[AronRa]

Last week, Randy was supposed to ask me a half dozen questions over the course of an hour, but we argued for an hour-and-a-half over my first answer, because it wasn't the one he was told to expect, and he couldn't do anything with it.

How do you know what the truth is?

Truth is determined by whatever can be verfified to actually be true.

Aren't you using reasoning to justify your reasoning?

No, because I'm using evidence for objective verification, so that I'm not just relying on my own reasoning.

I never heard the other five questions, because he didn't know what to do with the first one. So after the show, he refused to speak to me again unless his behind-the-scenes-coach, Sye Ten Bruggencate could be on the show with him, to do all his speaking for him, and prevent me from reasoning with Randy.

So I wrote him back:

Many times believers in some random religion have told me they can prove that theirs is the one true faith. In each case, the tactic is the same. They attack some concept of science they don't understand, and they assume that no one else does either -as if it mattered either way. Then they offer logical fallacies and unverifiable anecdotes leading to unsupported assumptions and non-sequitors. Then they quote from whichever book of fables most appeals to them. I have had these discussions with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and others, so the story books change with the claimant. Yet every time someone says they can prove their point, I welcome the attempt,even when I know already what to expect, and am only ever disappointed to see those same foibles repeated again.

However whenever I have made the challenge to prove my position, my opponent has usually refused and fled. Sometimes they'll disappear from a particular blog, change their name, or take the whole discussion board offline. On rare occasions, they'll admit that they don't care what facts are; that they would rather 'take a bullet in the ear' than to find out the truth about what they believe, which is one of the reasons why faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. There have been very few exceptions to this, where someone stood their ground and heard me out. Each of those people invariably accepted evolution even if they never rejected all their supernatural beliefs, which is fine with me.

I draw huge distinctions between general theism and creationism specifically. Vague impressions of undefined ethereal djinni-like things are both unsupported and untestable, and if it isn't indicated by evidence, then it doesn't warrant serious consideration. If there is no way to confirm whether any aspect of these is true or false, or to what degree in any case, then there's no point in discussing them either, especially when there is no way to quantify nor qualify them, nor even any way to distinguish them from the illusions of delusion. So I prefer to deal only with things I can vindicate or disprove, things I can therefore honestly say that I know. Creationism and evolution both fall into those categories because each makes testable claims. So when I present my case for evolution, I will be able to show that my position really does count as knowledge of actual fact, and not any mere belief based on faith instead.

Everyone who comes out of the delusion you now hold is ashamed of having once been the way you are. That's just how it always is. So I offered to do you a favor, something you will thank me for. I offered to save you from being fooled forever by known frauds and con men. The challenge is that I convince you of the truth -to your satisfaction. All you need do is admit when you accept that or pretend that you don't. Obviously there can be no 'equal time' because the onus is entirely on me, and only you decide whether I have achieved my goal or not. The fact that you cower from that is deeply disappointing.

When Sye Ten was on our show, he became enraged at us, yelling "You're trying to REASON with me!" -in what was probably the funniest single moment of that whole episode, especially according to those on the chatboard. He is deliberately obtuse, obstinate, and oblivious. His whole shtick is to make unwarranted assumptions and to be unreasonable where they are concerned. Therefore there can be no point in involving him in any discussion. Let him call me a chicken. He can't bring anything I could ever fear. His only purpose would be to prevent me from reasoning with you. So if you insist on including him, it is you who is the chicken, and I think you already know that. Let me know if you're going to man-up for this. I'll need to know how to log our encounter otherwise.

My wife says you should be able to bring a friend if you want, but that it can't be Sye or Eric,for reasons which should be obvious. It really won't matter though, because whatever you do, I will talk only to you, and I will accept answers only from you,even if you confer with them first every time. It won't matter who tries to help you then. If you have questions for me, be ready to explain why each one matters to you, rather than to whomever fed the question to you.

I am not willing to debate tommorrow night. I am not willing to take the time out of my busy shedule. But I apreciate your willlingness to take out the time. I pray you would repent of your blasphemy and outright foolishness and trust in the precious Lord Jesus, the One who died to save sinners. I will be in contact with you about another debate. For a God who you "dont beleive" in you re certainly excuding alot of energy to disprove Him.

Read what I just wrote to you again. You should notice where I said that I waste no effort trying to disprove unwarranted assumptions that were never indicated in the first place. Also notice this is not a debate. This is me showing you real verifiable truth, and showing you how to know -and show- where your mentors have definitely lied to you. You are the one who is being fooled, and I can prove it.

That was a couple days ago. I haven't heard anything since.