Reasoning with one who protests reason

[AronRa]

I think it is a good idea to document all my prolonged encounters with creationists. The interactions are all over the place, and hard to follow otherwise. That's why I use this forum.

This time, the encounter was at the Reason Rally. I had VIP seating for the speakers, but it didn't feel right just sitting quietly. So I chose to mix it up with the protesters. I mentioned to one of those guys that the only indication we had that a god even existed were the unsupported ravings of people who's testable claims always always only ever turned out to be wrong. Then Randy and Tyler jumped in -charged up like they actually had something. They said, "absolute failure? You must be talking about evolutionists".

That was the beginning of this conversation:


Now Tyler struck me as openly inscrupulous as any evangelist, but Randy seemed as though he had been so sheltered that he had never heard any part of the scientific or skeptical perspective. Everything I told him was brand new and confusing for him. So I was delighted when he contacted me a couple weeks later.

Hey Aronra, I am the tall guy from the vidoe Reason Rally Ra Rant. We "argued" at the reason rally along with my friend Ty. Thanks for putting up this video and keeping so much in it. I apreciate your honesty and I genuinely hope you will come to know the Lord one day. Please at least condsider the possibility there is a God. I'd love to have a genuine follow up debate with you sometime. -Randy

This was posted as a comment on my channel rather than a message that I might click 'reply' to. It seems that Randy just joined YouTube after our encounter at the National Mall. Judging by his handle, he really is every bit as sheltered as I thought he was, having no web identity outside of promoting Ray Comfort's propaganda film. So I wrote him back:

Are you ready to awaken?

Thanks for contacting me. I was hoping you would. As I said on the Magic Sandwich Show last week, you will shake my hand again -within one year, when you are no longer a believer.

One could say that there is an absurdly remote possibility that a deistic deity could -at least hypothetically- exist, however the notion is so ridiculous that it is beneath serious consideration. Anything that is not supported by evidence is an unwarranted speculation that should never be assumed anyway.

More importantly, there is no possibility that the god of the Bible exists. That matters because you don't worship a god; you worship a book, and it's not a good book either. It is a repugnant testament to the very worst that men can be.

The problem with your belief system, (apart from the fact that you've allowed yourself to be deceived by frauds and con-men) is that we can prove -for absolutely certain- that the most memorable fables in the Bible, (the flood, the tower, both creation myths, Jacob's wrestling match, etc) are adaptations of earlier Semitic and Sumerian polytheism, and did not happen, at least not as described. Even rabbinical scholars now admit (for example) that the exodus didn't really happen either. Once you begin to think about it, and seriously reflect on these things, you'll realize all that on your own -even if you don't study anything more about it. But I can help you know these things, not just 'believe' them.

Remember anything that requires faith may as well be labeled as a lie -because faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. That is why there has never been a single credible proponent of any form of creationism anywhere ever.

BTW, Kent Hovind is not a doctor. He never had a real PhD, and never submitted the necessary thesis required to obtain one. He's not even a college graduate. He never taught high school either, and he never knew anything about science -or the Bible. He is a snake-oil salesman without accountability or compunction. He is where his ilk belongs, and his son (who lied about me at the Reason Rally) is as despicable as his dad.

Everything your religious mentors have ever told you about evolution, science, nature, history, and the Bible is a lie, and I can prove it -even to your satisfaction and admission! THEN you will experience a truly life-changing 180 -from which you will never turn, because you will be a smarter, happier, and a much better person for it.

Remember most of the people at the Reason Rally used to believe as you do, and are ashamed and disgusted by that now, Several have posted feeling sorry for you because they can remember when they were where you are. You have not yet come out of the lies and into the light.

I'm extremely busy at the moment; there is so much going on right now. But I will contact you in May and see if you're ready to find out how to know what truth really is.

Aronra,

Thanks for your willingness to respond to me. I apreciate your kindness and patience. It was a pleasure to meet you at the Reason Rally.

I would like to hear from you again. I have been a Christian for 5 years and have no plan of changing that, in fact the Bible says no one can lose mthier salvation. In my opinion, the poeple at the rally were "false converts" not real Cristians.

Anyway, there's no reason we can't all live in peace. However, sonce I believe the Bible and in a real Hell I can't help but tell people about how to avoid Hell (Jesus Christ).

But I need to remember to be loving and patient. Kent Hovind seems ligitimate to me, I really love his vidoes. But I apreciate the information you provided and plan on researching it.

I live in Maryland and the weather certianly is good here.. i hope its nice wherever you are.

Thanks so much!

-Randy

OK, the last couple months were crazy busy, but a whole lot of fun too. Now I have a chance to breath before the next event three weeks from now. Well, not really; I still have several hundred unread emails, but I'll make time for this.

> the Bible says no one can lose mthier salvation.

You never had salvation. There was nothing to be 'saved' from. The ignorant primitive racist sexist superstitious savages who wrote the various fables now compiled in the Bible had no idea what they were talking about -ever.


> In my opinion, the poeple at the rally were "false converts" not real Cristians.

Your opinion is mistaken. Many of the world's leading atheists were long-time missionaries, ministers, and seminary theologians. Atheists typically know a lot more about the Bible and Christian belief and history than Christians do. That's why they're atheists now.

> Anyway, there's no reason we can't all live in peace.

Peace is not possible in the shadow of religion. Christianity and Islam are dominionist, and each one promotes heinous criminality. That's one of the reasons that all the Abrahamic religions have been at war with each other, each since their inception. That's also why the central god in each case commands adherents to "kill the infidel". Irrational belief systems obviously cannot be reasoned with, and must resort to forced control. Each of these belief systems is a matter of pretend, and it is a desperately maintained delusion. That's why they're so reactionary. That's why they all rely on emotional pleas and paranoid propaganda. That's why each one promises unimaginable rewards -which no one will ever see- only to gullible believers. That is why they wield the threat of a fate worse than death to all those who ask too many questions trying to understand. Like all bad cons, the religious lie has both a carrot and a stick to insure your deception.

Remember that your god will forgive every sin except disbelief, and no good deed can ever go unpunished if you can't make believe things which you know cannot really be true. That's why the priests selling this nonsense tell you that God will punish you without mercy forever -if you don't believe what they tell you. It is a con. That's all. Does it bother you that your god allegedly tortures innocent people mercilessly for eternity simply because they're not gullible enough to make-believe impossible nonsense for no good reason?

> Kent Hovind seems ligitimate to me,

A convicted fraud seems legitimate to you?

> I really love his vidoes.

Does it bother you that absolutely every single claim he has ever made has been proven wrong? I mean seriously, that lying crook never spoke truth in his whole life. Name one thing Kent Hovind ever said that was actually true.

Think about this question seriously: Don't you find it aggravating when people lie? Even if they're not lying to you?


> But I apreciate the information you provided and plan on researching it.

Since my last note to you, have you yet discovered that Mr. Kent Hovind lied about being a doctor? Look up the word, 'charlatan'. The simplest definition is a fraud who pretends to be a doctor. Kent never had a PhD. When he found out he was supposed to have a prerequisite thesis, he first lied about it being private. When he was informed that a doctoral thesis was a matter of public record, he made one up after the fact. You should read it. It's written at a 5th grade level and full of misspellings. Do you know what a thesis is? Look that up too, and get back to me.

The most important thing is this: Which is more important?

(a) To believe whatever you want to believe -even if it's apparently not true?
or
(b) would you rather understand how true things really are, even when the truth hurts?

How you answer that question will decide whether we continue this conversation. And if we continue this conversation, you will give up believing in the Bible.

Randy didn't answer that question at all. Nor did he address anything else I put to him either. Instead, he dodged all my challenges, points, and queries, and posted this video:



So I replied:


In the comments of that video, the conversation returns to text:

Hey AronRa,
I apreciate the video and the invite. Let's do it sometime. I'd be much more prone to take part in this if it is well organized and not just a bunch of shoutinjg. So, I humbly accept and I will persnally message you and we'll work out the details. During the debate/discussion I would apreciate your patience as I process each question and answer accordingly.
Thank you.

This won't be a debate, nor a shouting match. This will be a discussion wherein I'm simply going to try and reason with you. I expect a mutual interrogatory wherein I will tell you things about science, the Bible, and your incredulous mentors that you don't know about, but can verify, so that you will know for certain which side has any truth to it all, and which side has definitely and deliberately deceived you. My only issue is time; I won't have any until around mid-June. I'll be in touch.

Ok, mid June sounds good to me. I'm planning on getting together a group of questions I'd like to ask you and then you can me questions and I'll answer. Does that sound ok to you? I'd like the discussion not to be the evolutionist looking down on the creationsist but both of us standing on equal ground and discussing the topics that will covered.

If you want, we can add another hour for your questions. But make no mistake; we are not on equal ground. My position has all the facts; yours is naught but lies. That's the way it is, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise. All the substance is mine. Whatever I tell you, you can test, and confirm. Whatever you tell me will either be unsupported, illogical, and untestable, or if it is testable, it will already be proven wrong. The purpose of this discussion will be to show you that.

I will continue to update this forum with any more 'behind-the-scenes' conversations that might unfold.

 

[Inferno]

While I absolutely agree that your position, Aron, has "has all the facts" while his is "naught but lies", I doubt that it's a good strategy to post/say that.
The reason is quite a simple one: If you disregard their position from the outset, call them or their mentors liars, then they won't very likely be convinced. That's my experience, at least. I'd be surprised if your experience were any different, though.

Looking forward to it nevertheless, as I assume it will be posted somewhere.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ra,

If I go to the Reason Rally next year, or whenever, I'd love to sit down and have a chat with you. And anyone else in the League Of Reason who happen to be going. It would be a wonderful experience for all involved.

There wouldn't be ranting nor raving, and I wouldn't be protesting, but I disagree with you on a good number of generalisations and I was wondering if they were down-to-Earth in their making.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I agree with the points you've made, Aron, but the message you sent him seems rather provocative. Back when I was Christian I wouldn't have bothered reading the rest after this:

More importantly, there is no possibility that the god of the Bible exists. That matters because you don't worship a god; you worship a book, and it's not a good book either. It is a repugnant testament to the very worst that men can be.

You have to remember that this guy is brainwashed. By dismissing his position before the debate has even begun you are only going to make him angry.

 

[nudger1964]

Im really glad the guy contacted you.
I like him...i think he is a good guy and should give himself the credit for that rather than think its programmed onto his heart.

From what i have read in this thread, this guy so need the gentle touch - im not sure if Aron is good at that - maybe this is his chance to give it a shot.
Telling him the people he looks up to are crooks and liars is going to put a wall between you.
Point out where they are wrong, why they are wrong and how he can demonstrate to himself that they are wrong ... but dont tell him everything in his life is a sham...let him work that out for himself.
Infact, with this guy i think thats the only way you can bring him around - he needs to be given the information to work it out for himself.
In this case, its not about winning an argument. its about giving this guy a way he can question what he holds true in a way that is palatable to him

 

[scorpion9]

Ive deconverted(or had a big part) in deconverting one person who was completely indoctrinated, and my approach was to take one point at a time, and consentrate on it, not to let go of it until the other party has either admitted that he was wrong, or....given a good and valid argument in defense.

Usually they try to avoid giving answers, and put lots of arguments on the table at once, ignore your answers, and put some more arguments.

Just ask him to give you one ...of his best arguments that he is sure is valid, and if you disprove that, he will acknowledge that his position is not as rock solid as he thought.

One point at a time


As many others, i agree, one day he will be an atheist, and probably an outspoken one.

In his video, he looks kind of desperate too.

 

[AronRa]

I do not want to take part in a discusiion like that. If I want to learn about evolution or about problems of the Bible I can go to any secular college and be taught (indicotrinated) about all such topics. You ask me to come with an open mind and you refuse to? No sir, it will be equal ground and equal time for each person to speak or no deal. I really want this discussion but I do not, like the way you're making it sound.... I'd be happy to have an hour of questions.

I'm open to anything you want to present, but we can't pretend to be on equal ground. I have facts in evidence; you don't. There are hundreds of things I can prove are really true about evolution. There is NOTHING you can prove to be true about creationism. You can't name one, evolutionary scientist who lied in the promotion of evolution over creationism. Neither can you cite one creationist who did NOT lie in their defense of the opposing position. Consider that part of the challenge.

Can you believe this? He wants me to pretend that his position has equal merit, he equivocates eduction with indoctrination, and admits -albeit unwittingly- that he is hiding from the facts. Thus he is hiding from truth, and he is already aware of that. We haven't even begun yet!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You should have a written discussion here. A live discussion with this person seems fruitless.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Judging by his handle, he really is every bit as sheltered as I thought he was, having no web identity outside of promoting Ray Comfort's propaganda film.

:lol:

Perhaps you should remind him that "180" has been debunked (Oh and i know for a fact Ray Comfort himself has read my critique )

 

[The Felonius Pope]

You should have a written discussion here. A live discussion with this person seems fruitless.

I agree. With a written debate there isn't any shouting or interruptions. I just hope this guy isn't as stubborn as Bob Enyart...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Can you believe this? He wants me to pretend that his position has equal merit, he equivocates eduction with indoctrination, and admits -albeit unwittingly- that he is hiding from the facts. Thus he is hiding from truth, and he is already aware of that. We haven't even begun yet!

Perhaps he's genuinely a newb, as he admitted, to the scientific processes and evidences.
If you keep pressing, he'll draw a Martyr complex early into the discussion. At that point, nothing in his mindset will change.

Protip: Don't toss aside the chance to make people grasp rationality in place of attempting to "Crush out religion" from him. You might not believe it, but it's possible to be a Christian and to accept science.

 

[Inferno]

I do not want to take part in a discusiion like that. If I want to learn about evolution or about problems of the Bible I can go to any secular college and be taught (indicotrinated) about all such topics. You ask me to come with an open mind and you refuse to? No sir, it will be equal ground and equal time for each person to speak or no deal. I really want this discussion but I do not, like the way you're making it sound.... I'd be happy to have an hour of questions.

I'm open to anything you want to present, but we can't pretend to be on equal ground. I have facts in evidence; you don't. There are hundreds of things I can prove are really true about evolution. There is NOTHING you can prove to be true about creationism. You can't name one, evolutionary scientist who lied in the promotion of evolution over creationism. Neither can you cite one creationist who did NOT lie in their defense of the opposing position. Consider that part of the challenge.

Can you believe this? He wants me to pretend that his position has equal merit, he equivocates eduction with indoctrination, and admits -albeit unwittingly- that he is hiding from the facts. Thus he is hiding from truth, and he is already aware of that. We haven't even begun yet!

That proves my above point:

While I absolutely agree that your position, Aron, has "has all the facts" while his is "naught but lies", I doubt that it's a good strategy to post/say that.
The reason is quite a simple one: If you disregard their position from the outset, call them or their mentors liars, then they won't very likely be convinced. That's my experience, at least. I'd be surprised if your experience were any different, though.

 

[nudger1964]

The harsh reality here is that if he is not in a place (of the mind) where he is able to examine if what he believes is true, then this converstation will have zero effect. It will be white noise to him just like theists quoting the bible is to an Atheist.

 

[Visaki]

@Inferno:



More or less your point?

I tend to agree. I suppose it's a matter of which do you want more; to use a talk with the other person for the purpose of getting your message out to the public and showing how, why, and where he's wrong, or to open the other persons mind to rationality and sceptism. I really don't think the opening salvo should be for proving his God non-existent but simply a much harder thing; to teach him to think scepticly and reationally. If he gets that he might discard his belief in God but more importantly he will start experiencing and accepting reality.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I do not want to take part in a discusiion like that. If I want to learn about evolution or about problems of the Bible I can go to any secular college and be taught (indicotrinated) about all such topics. You ask me to come with an open mind and you refuse to? No sir, it will be equal ground and equal time for each person to speak or no deal. I really want this discussion but I do not, like the way you're making it sound.... I'd be happy to have an hour of questions.

I'm open to anything you want to present, but we can't pretend to be on equal ground. I have facts in evidence; you don't. There are hundreds of things I can prove are really true about evolution. There is NOTHING you can prove to be true about creationism. You can't name one, evolutionary scientist who lied in the promotion of evolution over creationism. Neither can you cite one creationist who did NOT lie in their defense of the opposing position. Consider that part of the challenge.

Can you believe this? He wants me to pretend that his position has equal merit, he equivocates eduction with indoctrination, and admits -albeit unwittingly- that he is hiding from the facts. Thus he is hiding from truth, and he is already aware of that. We haven't even begun yet!

I do believe it and I honestly don't understand why you fail to. Have you been debating the religious so vehemently for so long that you can no longer relate to your opponents?

The main source of the conflict between you and Randy is that you two have a different opinion on epistemology. You follow very strict and rigorous rules on what qualifies as knowledge and indicators of truth while he... doesn't. That's how you get statements like "other ways of knowing." As long as these two things are true, you're going to disagree...

I'm willing to bet that he doesn't actually believe that science is critical (as in self questioning) inquiry. He probably believes that scientists work hard to reinforce their theories (what he would consider beliefs) because that's how his religion works and he knows nothing else. That's why he calls secular education "indoctrination." Pure, text book projection on his part...

I suspect that he's dodging your questions because he's never seen a refutation of, for example, Kent Hovind's claims and he knows that, as long as he's never seen any, there's no reason for him to believe they're false...

I'm guessing that he has a high need for cognitive closure (not to be confused with the unrelated philosophical idea of the same name) which would, at least partially, explain his need for his religious claims and their protection.

All this, coupled with the strong possibility that he's not too bright and rather brainwashed, and you have someone that will be very difficult to reason with. Frankly, I don't think he's really any more honest than his friend Tyler. He merely has a gentler demeanor...

Will you do me the favor of asking him if he's open to the possibility that all these atheists who were former Christians were real Christians while they believed? If he cannot then you can say that you'll enter the discussion with the same "open" mind that he will...

Remember, he thinks he has as much evidence as you do. That's why he finds your attitude patronizing.




Incidentally, AnticitizenX was on Mormon Stories for five whole episodes showing a long list of psychological experiments that can explain how religious beliefs can start and how tenacious they can be. The part about the need for cognitive closure is here. The rest of the videos can be found here.

Thank you...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

tl;dr

Aron,
you're treating the guy like he's actively deceiving thousands of people intentionally - like Bob - and not like, what he has admitted to being, a total newb to science and critical thought.

A man's mind is his refuge. He's going to kick out anyone and anything that comes in and starts breaking the glasses, insulting his couches, and spilling wine on his carpet. No matter how objectively ugly the carpet was, or how useless those glasses were, or how dime-store the couches were, it's not the place to start throwing a fit.
There's a difference between someone who legitimately doesn't know and is interested in engaging in discussion, and someone who does know, has already made up their mind, and is actively lying/denying facts for a purpose.

You're a smart man, but you have the conversational tact of masturbating with sandpaper from the presentation in this post.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I can't believe I'm saying this... but maybe the situation calls for a little more finesse, and a little less napalm?

 

[nudger1964]

a question for you,
do think think he is interested in hearing of another perspective, one that is new to him and he wishes to try to understand why it conflicts with his concept of reality
or
do you think he sees this as an opportunity to do Gods work, preach passages of the bible and ingratiate himself further into his peer group

or another reason altogether

to clarify, im trying to understand if he really is willing to listen to the case for evolution for the first time, and its Arons style he is retaliating against. Having never been a Theist, i dont think im in a position to judge - but his messages seem to suggest he has a different agenda for wanting the conversation - just like his motive for attending the reason rally wasnt to broaden his mind

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

a question for you,
do think think he is interested in hearing of another perspective, one that is new to him and he wishes to try to understand why it conflicts with his concept of reality
or
do you think he sees this as an opportunity to do Gods work, preach passages of the bible and ingratiate himself further into his peer group

or another reason altogether

to clarify, im trying to understand if he really is willing to listen to the case for evolution for the first time, and its Arons style he is retaliating against. Having never been a Theist, i dont think im in a position to judge - but his messages seem to suggest he has a different agenda for wanting the conversation - just like his motive for attending the reason rally wasnt to broaden his mind

I'll consult my local psychic, since we're trying to read his mind and all. Until then, he should go under the best possible option that doesn't involve pressing him into a complete shutout immediately.

 

[nudger1964]

i was asking for opinion, based on what we have heard from him, as a point of interest for me...if thats ok with you