Please ignore dogmatic "debaters".

[Jubatus]

I frequently check up on the thread subjects in these, the Senate Chambers and for quite a while now I havn't found anything interesting enough in which to join, but I am fed up with the wasted energies used on attempting to refute religious dogma.

 

Twice before have I implored, nay, begged the rational and logical parties in the senate to ignore dogmatic debaters. It simply is truly futile to discuss against it, for whatever rational and logical argument you can present against religion you can and most often will be countered with ignorance and the often unspoken:

 

"Anything you say against my religious convictions, nomatter how logical, is for naught, for you are the temptatious voice of the enemy and must by dogmatic default pass unheeded!"

 

This means that your rational and cold hard logical arguments are never even met with reflective contemplations; they simply pass by virtually unnoticed save for paste/copying for dogmatic refutal.

 

So once again I ask of you to please stop arguing against dogma, for it is the invincible superbeast of a child's mind; whatever you throw at it, it adapts and survive without logic.

 

Please, use your energies for debates of matters more relevant.

 

EDIT: That one little typo kept sticking out like a sour thumb - now it has been rectified.

[El Sitherino]

true indeed. Perhaps I just have grown restless waiting for a true debate, and have become a bottle of anxiety, causing a few scenes. I've started to stop "debating" with these dogmatic posters. Perhaps the senate will return to it's former glory in the future.

 

nice thread.

[Breton]

I don't really have a problem with that. They're fun (and relatively simple) to debate against, and when they have lost completely with their attempts on "proving" religion by logic, they fall back to the good old religious "holier-than-thou" arguments. And that's when you sit back and giggle.

[kailaurius]

I agree with Breton. For a lot of people it's fun and entertaining to talk about. However some people get really upset over the discussion of poltics and religion. I'm not sure why. It must be some deeper personal issue these people can't deal with or some sort of insecurity with themselves and/or beliefs. Heh oh well. I say lets create more of these topics. I always have fun talking about this sort of stuff.

[SkinWalker]

Actually, I rather enjoy my debates with religious nutters. Any paranormal/pseudoscience nutter, actually. I've been taking my rants to the Pseudoscience sections of boards like sciforums.com lately, just to get it out of my system.

 

I think the only problem I have with them is that they'll put up a fight like they have something, but they'll always end up with the same old arguements for abandoning the debate: "I don't know why we're debating! None of us will change our minds anyway!"

 

But what gets disregarded are those that lurk and don't have a deeply seated position. These guys are the ones that benefit in the end.

 

I just wish LucasForums had google crawlers archiving the forums the way other boards do. That way, the debates would become a matter of record.

 

Go to google and type (or copy/paste): skinwalker site:http://www.lucasforums.com

 

Now do the same with: skinwalker site:http://www.sciforums.com

 

On the latter forum, anybody searching google for something that I've debated there, like the Noah's Ark expedition, Atlantis expeditions, the image of Our Lady Guadalupe, or "crater chains evidence for war" would find sound arguments against these pseudoscientific principles and ideas.

[yaebginn]

glad to see I'm a nutter, now. The last post I posted in the reublicans come here thread was valid. its tunred int o anon-debate anymore. now its just dumb, not even entertaining. theres no debating at all, just, ' I'm right,' no, ' your wrong' there is no fact nymore. I miss the thrill of the dance. maybe I'll go to scififorums just to mess with you.

[wassup]

Originally posted by yaebginn

glad to see I'm a nutter, now. The last post I posted in the reublicans come here thread was valid. its tunred int o anon-debate anymore. now its just dumb, not even entertaining. theres no debating at all, just, ' I'm right,' no, ' your wrong' there is no fact nymore. I miss the thrill of the dance. maybe I'll go to scififorums just to mess with you.

 

Nobody specifically said that you were a nutter, but if you think of yourself as one, well, then suit yourself.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

maybe I'll go to scififorums just to mess with you.

 

heh... I'd go read some of it first. Those are the big boys there. I'm a small fish in that pond.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Breton

.....they fall back to the good old religious "holier-than-thou" arguments. And that's when you sit back and giggle.

 

And that is exactly where I cannot simply giggle, for I see the inherent dangers of religion despite religion being a mere symptom. I'm tempted to elaborate but I do not wish this thread turned into another futile debate against the religious.

 

Originally posted by kailaurius

For a lot of people it's fun and entertaining to talk about. However some people get really upset over the discussion of poltics and religion. I'm not sure why.

 

While I do see arguing against religious dogma as being a somewhat acceptable form of training for real discussions, it is exactly when you allow yourself to get emotionally caught up in an endless ping-pong of futile retorts with the dogmatic types that I see nothing but wasted energies that could serve much better in a rationale debate. Now, I say somewhat acceptable because as easy as religious dogma is to refute (though unheeded by the religious) as little benefit does it do to prepare you for real debates, where you really have to think things through before presenting an argument.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

But what gets disregarded are those that lurk and don't have a deeply seated position. These guys are the ones that benefit in the end.

 

There is that, and that alone should be reason enough for me to tolerate these discussions (maybe even join in again if I can find the proper amount of self-control); that even one person may gain the insight, the strength and the courage to avoid that perilous road of religion. We can but hope.

 

Indeed a very valid point SkinWalker. One I was blind to because of my insufferable intolerance towards the religious. How quaint really, that defiance against religion would keep me ignorant of those that can be saved from it - a grand irony, no?

 

EDIT: Add-on; after having done a little reconnaissance over at sciforums I can't help but wonder how the Senate would fare if ever gendanken and Dr Lou Natic were to enter.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Jubatus

I frequently check up on the thread subjects in these, the Senate Chambers and for quite a while now I havn't found anything interesting enough in which to join, but I am fed up with the wasted energies used on attempting to refute religious dogma.

 

You forget the lurkers... For their benefit, we must not let dogmatism go unnoticed. We quite probably will not convince the dogmatic person, but we can put his ridiculous dogmatism up for public amusement.

 

And then there is the fact that the posters on this board have very little in common, so debates tend to become very broad and general, which isn't favorable to rational discussion.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

You forget the lurkers... For their benefit, we must not let dogmatism go unnoticed. We quite probably will not convince the dogmatic person, but we can put his ridiculous dogmatism up for public amusement.

 

Quite right, and I have already addressed this issue when it was presented by SkinWalker earlier in the thread.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

And then there is the fact that the posters on this board have very little in common, so debates tend to become very broad and general, which isn't favorable to rational discussion.

 

True, it is inconvenient using vast amounts of time and energy having to settle the broad strokes of a picture of discussion between 2 or more partners before you can delve into the finer details - if you can at all.

 

So indeed, and in accordance with the small epiphany meantioned in my earlier post, I yield; let the endless war against dogma march on, their mortality being the only true weapon against them.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Jubatus

Quite right, and I have already addressed this issue when it was presented by SkinWalker earlier in the thread.

 

Me bad. I must confess to not reading the thread before posting.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Me bad. I must confess to not reading the thread before posting.

 

Uhh, a capital crime indeed when it comes to discussions - You are forgiven, child

 

And since I am spamming I must question the lack of participation of the dogmatic debaters in this thread? Do they not recognize themselves or am I the ultimate devil not to be granted even the slightest of consideration?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Jubatus

And since I am spamming I must question the lack of participation of the dogmatic debaters in this thread? Do they not recognize themselves or am I the ultimate devil not to be granted even the slightest of consideration?

 

Maybe they do, but figure that they have no desire to participate in a discussion where they are referred to in third person. 'Tis rather tasteless, though I acknowledge the need for this thread.

[Master_Keralys]

"Anything you say against my religious convictions, nomatter how logical, is for naught, for you are the temptatious voice of the enemy and must by dogmatic default pass unheeded!"

 

"Anything you say against my liberal convictions, nomatter how logical, is for naught, for you are the temptatious voice of the enemy and must by dogmatic default pass unheeded!"

 

Same diff. That's the only problem I have. I've been called dogmatic by some, but I've also had some really good discussion around here (as with CTBD - is he still around, or did he give up?). But the thing is, most if not all of you guys arguing from the other end get dogmatic, too, arguing that when someone is a Christian, they're stupid. You've often posed the "Did you stop beating your wife" question of these kinds of debates: "What, are you so stupid that you're a Christian?"

 

And that really isn't good debating; in fact, it's argumentum ad baculum (I think I got that right). In other words, "argument to the stick" - you slam people for disagreeing with your "more informed" views instead of actually reasoning with them.

 

Now, trust me, nobody understands better than I how frustrating people are - particularly Christians - who simply like to ignore evidence and say "I'm going to believe what I believe even if it can be completely proven wrong". That's the worst thing Christians can do, and it happens all too often. Which is very unfortunate. I've given up on those kinds of people, I don't even bother posting in their threads or as replies to them. I'd rather debate with SkinWalker, because I know that even though he is about as dogmatic as I am (which is to say that both of us are firmly set in our positions unless given radically new evidence, but are at the same time willing to have a good discussion about something) he'll also actually think about what both arguments are before he makes his comments.

 

But dogma, unfortunately, is pervasive in modern society. Everyone has their own, too, which makes everything more complicated.

 

But in the final response to your original post that started this thread, I can think of at least one time where everyone in here (including you) has been dogmatic. Therefore, we should all ignore everyone in here including ourselves. Not a good idea. Instead, ignore dogmatic posting. Even there, though, you'll get a good idea every once in a while.

[Kain]

Well, atleast logical debaters (not saying religous ones aren't logical, I'm just using logical instead of scientific) don't close threads because they start getting mad that there are so many 'heathens' around here...*cough*reelguy*cough*

 

 

Expand your Imagi-Nation

[Master_Keralys]

Very true. And the use of logical versus scientific is actually appreciated. It's possible to be logical w/o being scientific and vice versa. The problem, as I see it, is that modern societies have adopted science as their gospel; to some people science is as much a religion as any other "normal" religion (think the late Carl Sagan here).

 

Any time somebody closes down debate just because there are those who disagree with them, it's a loss. I don't care how much I disagree with you; I like hearing the other side. Funny, in a way, but two of my closest friends last year (who ended up moving) were actually totally opposite me in terms of political opinion and whatnot. But it was okay, because we could have a good time debating - even being a little dogmatic - without hating each other. That's what I like seeing here, and what I miss when it disappears as it sometimes does: that friendly camaraderie even between mortal enemies in politics.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

But the thing is, most if not all of you guys arguing from the other end get dogmatic, too, arguing that when someone is a Christian, they're stupid. You've often posed the "Did you stop beating your wife" question of these kinds of debates: "What, are you so stupid that you're a Christian?"

 

Indeed, dogmatism is to be found in the non-religious too, but it's far easier to have a person rethink his dogmas when these dogmas do not stem from religion than the opposite.

 

And the "You" in the latter half of the above quote, do you apply that to me?

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

... - you slam people for disagreeing with your "more informed" views instead of actually reasoning with them.

 

That is exactly the point; they cannot be reasoned with.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Now, trust me, nobody understands better than I how frustrating people are - particularly Christians - who simply like to ignore evidence and say "I'm going to believe what I believe even if it can be completely proven wrong". That's the worst thing Christians can do, and it happens all too often. Which is very unfortunate. I've given up on those kinds of people, I don't even bother posting in their threads or as replies to them. I'd rather debate with SkinWalker, because I know that even though he is about as dogmatic as I am (which is to say that both of us are firmly set in our positions unless given radically new evidence, but are at the same time willing to have a good discussion about something) he'll also actually think about what both arguments are before he makes his comments.

 

And that point of view is exactly what I started out advocating.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

But dogma, unfortunately, is pervasive in modern society. Everyone has their own, too, which makes everything more complicated.

 

Alas, this is too true; it must be some need for truths to adhere to, a need so strong that we settle for one or several truths without even questioning them, believing in them simply because we've been told them again and again by figures of authority, be they parents, teachers, priests, books, graffiti, television etc., etc.

 

But you can strive to keeping a critical mind and from time to time take out our convictions, put them under the lamp of logical scrutiny and see if they survive a test against rationality.

 

Now, I am not a saint in this area, but I do try.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

But in the final response to your original post that started this thread, I can think of at least one time where everyone in here (including you) has been dogmatic. Therefore, we should all ignore everyone in here including ourselves. Not a good idea. Instead, ignore dogmatic posting. Even there, though, you'll get a good idea every once in a while.

 

I'm not even going to demand proof of your claim of my dogma, for I'm sure it's there somewhere.

 

As for the odd idea derived from reading dogmatic postings, I concede that it can happen, yes, but as I stated in the original post I regard the struggle against dogma as a terrible waste of argumentative energy.

 

Furthermore, you'll notice that I have already yielded consent to the everlasting war on religious dogma prior to your entering due to the hope that some may be deterred from that road most dire.

 

-------Now jumping to your next post-------

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

The problem, as I see it, is that modern societies have adopted science as their gospel; to some people science is as much a religion as any other "normal" religion

 

While some people do cling to science like they were religious fanatics, science do have a healthy portion of logic and rationale to back it up; in fact science cannot do without. A rather crucial difference from religion.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

..... I don't care how much I disagree with you; I like hearing the other side......

 

I like hearing the other side, too, when the other side is presented with logical and rational argument and not in the form of the invincible superbeast of a child's mind.

[lukeskywalker1]

Originally posted by Kain

Well, atleast logical debaters (not saying religous ones aren't logical, I'm just using logical instead of scientific) don't close threads because they start getting mad that there are so many 'heathens' around here...*cough*reelguy*cough*

 

I see what your saying, but give him a break, the guy is kinda new around here. Thats not a real excuse, but I see that he hasn't really figured out the way the whole "debating-system" works, if thats what you want to call it.

 

And since I am spamming I must question the lack of participation of the dogmatic debaters in this thread? Do they not recognize themselves or am I the ultimate devil not to be granted even the slightest of consideration?

 

I was going to post, but like you said, I can't figure out who these "Dogmatic Debaters" are. Also, you are the ultimate devil not to be granted the slightest consideration. Im joking! :-p

 

No really, I just figured (you sort of made it clear) that I was to be ignored so... why post? Of course, considering your later posts, I don't see the point in saying what I was going to say.