-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Reasoning with one who protests reason
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
AronRa
Administrator
I should add that during our two-hour discussion, there were several moments where Randy seemed lost. Then you could see him reading something on-screen, gain confidence, and recite typical tag lines from Sye Ten Bruggencate.AronRa said:
After the discussion was over, Randy dragged Sye Ten into the Skype call. He wanted to continue pointless bickering that I see no reason to make time for -especially after 10:00pm when I have to be up at 5:00am and I still have two hours worth of work to do on other things. I told him I wouldn't waste any more time on someone who's only talent was being unreasonable. So Sye Ten called me a chicken. Yes, he really did. I told him that the fact that he couldn't argue beyond the playground-level was another reason he wouldn't be worth talking to, and he called me a chicken. That's about when I logged off.
Inferno said:
It's literally incredible.
He basically makes you say that if you don't believe in absolute morality, you believe child rape is ok. Is he serious?? Is it worth asking if those priests who practised child rape if they believed in absolute morality?
So far he looks like a joke, like AronRa pointed out, he seems to argue on the playground level.
By the way AronRa, I know you have received some criticism about your choice of "tact" with Randy, but I really enjoyed your last post. If he doesn't respond positively to that then I think he is too far gone for reasoning with.
nudger1964
New Member
AronRa said:
which is what you should have done when you dedicated a two hour show to him and hovind - which was not your finest hour
The Felonius Pope
New Member
I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I think AronRa should give up at this point. It's not a total loss, though. Two days ago I had my Christian brother watch the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. To my surprise he watched every video in the series. Now, two days later, he is calling himself an agnostic. I'd count that as a win.
Frenger said:
I don't think anyone is beyond being reasoned with. The barrier isn't reason, but honesty. This guy needs taking out of his comfort zone where he relies on the dishonesty of his creationist advisors to answer the questions for him. This'll force him to think for himself for a change and the lies he's been conned into believing will be filtered out instead of being buffered.
So for me, Aron shouldn't give up on this as he can knock down the wall that harbours reason. The key however, is to remove those who keep reinforcing it.
Go4th&X said:
Perhaps I said that wrong, I suppose what I meant was that it looks like he doesn't want to be reasoned with. I have a colleague who is a Muslim and also a creationist and recently I have been trying to teach her evolution. The only reason she agreed to this is that she wanted to prove me wrong about evolution and actually try and convince me it was flawed, of course that didn't work, but what was interesting was the fact I actually got her to admit evolution was true, I just had to define it without using the word evolution. As soon as I said that it was evolution she changed her mind, said it wasn't true and that she didn't believe it.
The point is she doesn't want to know, she is happy thinking we are the product of a gods pottery class and not the results of biological descent. In addition to that it's interesting to know that she only agreed because she wanted to prove me wrong, how can we be sure that Randy doesn't have that agenda and all he is really doing is trying to be the guy who takes down AronRa. I personally don't think he is but you can never really tell.
People are very resilient when it comes to their faith and it can't be shook no matter what you show them and I'd hate to see AronRa wasting his time so uselessly when I'm sure he has a lot more interesting things to do.
Frenger said:
Yes, I take your point. However, you did manage to reason with your colleague upto a point, regardless of her original motive. Only when you mentioned the taboo word "evolution" did the shutters come up and the fingers enter the ears. Of course I can't possibly know, but this is where her dishonesty comes to end reason. To understand and accept the explanation, and then completely dismiss it because of the label attached to it, can't be anything more than dishonest.
It would be interesting to see Aron persue it, but as you say it's getting past that built up resilience and having the time and patience.
Go4th&X said:
The barrier is cognitve dissonance.
They are utterly certain their beliefs are true. Anything that casts doubt on them causes mental discomfort (Monty Python: my brain hurts) which is resolved by making it disappear, inventing "reasons" why people say what they do, etc.
Which is why they ignore so much.
They don't even realise they're doing this.
gwr3440 said:
Yes, that's a much better description of what goes on. They don't realise they're being dishonest because their reason for repelling conflicting information is because of the conviction of their beliefs: "I don't need to hear this because I've already got the truth".
AronRa
Administrator
I finally uploaded video of our discussion and posted a blog about it. I also encouraged Randy to read the comments therein, not just because of how he has been fooled by others, nor how he chose to deceive himself, but because of how he intends to mislead his own innocent and impressionable children too.
AronRa said:
Excellent choice of beer.
Anyway, just watched the first video and some way through the second one now. Although I thought you were slightly tough on him at the beginning it does seem to be working. He started by continually talking over you and asking you the same question over and over again but now, he seems to be fairly quiet and is really listening. It's paining him to listen but he's listening.
I do feel quite sorry for him, I don't think he expected this at all.
That was pretty good discussion.
At first, he had absolutely no intention to listen, it was clear the way he talked. Aron gave a long detailed speech, and his only point was one irrelevant question about truth, reasoning. (and that question wasn't his either, it was spoonfed to him. It wasnt a genuine question with a hope to get an answer.)
It was funny that he didnt realize that his argument cuts both ways.
He is using reasoning to validate his personal experience and bible.
e.g you could ask
Randy, what reasons do you have to believe in biblical god
and if he said
I had personal experience + biblical account
then the next question would be "is that your reason to believe"
And if he doesnt have a reason to believe, will he be willing to say that his belief is unreasonable.
Also Aron should have repeated his point about not only using his own reason, but other peoples reason(objectivity) more. I think he missed that, and it was really important. Randy himself could use his reasoning to confirm evolution and that the bible is wrong.
Pick one specific point about bible's errors or evolution, and go from start to finish with explaining it.
For example, ask him, why did cameron and ray tell their audience that evolution is about crockoduck's and other riddiculous things like that. Since crockoduck would disprove(falsify) evolution, instead of proving it, it is obvious that those creationsits are presenting a deliberate strawman lie, something that randy can confirm himself.
Tell him how evolution works, and ask him, if that crockoduck analogy was in any way correct?
He has no other choice but to say "no".
From that , id ask
"why was it necessary for them to lie and turn evolution into an opposite of what it is, if their position is true and evolution is a lie ?"
If evolution, from their point of view is a lie, then explaining it to their flock as it is, would be the best approach....then they too would see that it is a lie.
Why is it necessary to distort it...unless its true, and you need to flip it into an opposite.
It seemed that he was pretty shellshocked and confused all the time.
At first, he had absolutely no intention to listen, it was clear the way he talked. Aron gave a long detailed speech, and his only point was one irrelevant question about truth, reasoning. (and that question wasn't his either, it was spoonfed to him. It wasnt a genuine question with a hope to get an answer.)
It was funny that he didnt realize that his argument cuts both ways.
He is using reasoning to validate his personal experience and bible.
e.g you could ask
Randy, what reasons do you have to believe in biblical god
and if he said
I had personal experience + biblical account
then the next question would be "is that your reason to believe"
And if he doesnt have a reason to believe, will he be willing to say that his belief is unreasonable.
Also Aron should have repeated his point about not only using his own reason, but other peoples reason(objectivity) more. I think he missed that, and it was really important. Randy himself could use his reasoning to confirm evolution and that the bible is wrong.
Pick one specific point about bible's errors or evolution, and go from start to finish with explaining it.
For example, ask him, why did cameron and ray tell their audience that evolution is about crockoduck's and other riddiculous things like that. Since crockoduck would disprove(falsify) evolution, instead of proving it, it is obvious that those creationsits are presenting a deliberate strawman lie, something that randy can confirm himself.
Tell him how evolution works, and ask him, if that crockoduck analogy was in any way correct?
He has no other choice but to say "no".
From that , id ask
"why was it necessary for them to lie and turn evolution into an opposite of what it is, if their position is true and evolution is a lie ?"
If evolution, from their point of view is a lie, then explaining it to their flock as it is, would be the best approach....then they too would see that it is a lie.
Why is it necessary to distort it...unless its true, and you need to flip it into an opposite.
It seemed that he was pretty shellshocked and confused all the time.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
I hope you invited Randy Nelson to join this forum as well as reading the comments from your blog.
In addition, after watching both videos, I have to say that you came off as a boar. You were upset that Randy never went passed his first question but you did talk for ~80% of the airtime. DPRJones also seemed upset that you would not allow Randy Nelson to answer. Sometimes one needs to let the apologist hang themselves with their own rope. I understand that Randy Nelson was not answering the right question, but what you should have done was allowed him to answer, than point out that he did not answer the right question and ask it again. I think this might have allowed the discussion to progress. Your constant interruptions of him did not shine a positive light on you.
There were a few great points in the discussion, such as when you pointed out how Ray Comfort lied about Darwin and when Randy Nelson admitted he supported slavery because it was in the bible. I wish the discussion went more like this. More examples of people he trusted shown to have lied to him and more examples of how he has a better moral compass than the bible would have went a long way in seeding doubt in his mind.
I was also advocating that this discussion take place on a forum instead of live on air, but after watching the videos and seeing that Randy Nelson was coached through it leads me to believe that if there were a forum debate, AronRa would have ended up debating Sye Ten dressed in Randy Nelson's user name.
In addition, after watching both videos, I have to say that you came off as a boar. You were upset that Randy never went passed his first question but you did talk for ~80% of the airtime. DPRJones also seemed upset that you would not allow Randy Nelson to answer. Sometimes one needs to let the apologist hang themselves with their own rope. I understand that Randy Nelson was not answering the right question, but what you should have done was allowed him to answer, than point out that he did not answer the right question and ask it again. I think this might have allowed the discussion to progress. Your constant interruptions of him did not shine a positive light on you.
There were a few great points in the discussion, such as when you pointed out how Ray Comfort lied about Darwin and when Randy Nelson admitted he supported slavery because it was in the bible. I wish the discussion went more like this. More examples of people he trusted shown to have lied to him and more examples of how he has a better moral compass than the bible would have went a long way in seeding doubt in his mind.
I was also advocating that this discussion take place on a forum instead of live on air, but after watching the videos and seeing that Randy Nelson was coached through it leads me to believe that if there were a forum debate, AronRa would have ended up debating Sye Ten dressed in Randy Nelson's user name.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
ImprobableJoe said:
That rules me out... :lol:
AronRa
Administrator
I appreciate everyone's criticism. The consensus is that I talked too much and don't allow my quary to entrap themselves. Granted, you're right, and I will attempt to halter myself next time. I'm also not likely to have a moderator other than for purposes of recording and monitoring -as the most maddening thing for me was when DPR kept interrupting what I felt to be a systematic interrogation. It's far worse when Thunderf00t and I are on together.
Dustnite
New Member
AronRa said:
I think initially he was trying to stop you so Randy could hang himself with his own words, but ended up getting totally frustrated by the entire conversation. I was feeling his and your pain the entire time listening to that exchange... Personally, I like having DPR there to moderate discussions but if he's assigned as the monitor he does need to back away from the discussion and only interject to "referee" the exchange.