ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

Question: what are your science qualifications ?
Reply:
First: I have no formal scientific training. I am a layman. The knowledge or undestanding of someone is not measured by the formal science qualifications, degrees or titles. Today, information is ready at hand through books, and in special through the internet.
If someone is willing to get educated, it can be by different means.
Secondly: Someone can be part of the highest ranks of the scientific establishment, and have an enormous wealth of scientific knowledge, but still making unsound inferences based on the evidence. Often
scientists are bad philosophers, and philoophers are bad scientists.  
Third: In an origins debate, asking the qualifications of someone is usually a strategy adopted to distract from the real issues in question: How can we best explain our existence ?

What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion.
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )  
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better  world view.  

What not to do:
1. attack my knowledge
2. attack my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. )
3. attack  my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the 4. natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described)
5. argue  that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on 6. the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
7. argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
8. ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?  
9. argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite )
10. attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible )
11. make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you  (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor 12. does it make naturalism become more compelling )
13. acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
14. call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
15. suggest to peer review my inferences. The premises upon which i base my inferences are based on science papers published in well known science journals.
16. acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof  of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

I am not always being called a troll. kicked out of a group., being blocked, hear complains that I copy/pasted, or being questioned about my knowledge, or the legitimacy of my source, or called out that I supposedly do not understand what I post, or that my arguments are based on gaps of knowledge, or being called a liar. But when I am, its a good indication, I was right, and they couldn't handle it.  

If you argue that macro-evolution and abiogenesis are claims based on faith, and not solid science, based on empirical data, and do it through your own words and write-up, the opponents ask: " Where is the peer review ? ".
If you, however, provide links and data from peer-reviewed science sources and papers, the complaint is: " I'm curious, do you actually engage in discussion or is it always just a massive document dump? "

One thing that I really can't stand, is anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism can take several different forms. Among atheists, the most common tell-tale marks of an anti-intellectual include:

* He is intellectually proud and believes he has nothing to learn from those who disagree with him.
* He is usually ignorant of philosophy, theology, and science (beyond a layman's knowledge).
* He always expects a Christian to reinvent the wheel just for him.
* He says "there's no evidence" when a more refined thinker would say "there is insufficient evidence".
* He repeats all the usual objections, expecting the Christian every time to start from scratch as if these issues have never been dealt with before.
* He makes no effort to inform himself about the pre-existing answers.
* He is lacking in intellectual depth, has only read people on his own side of the discussion, but tries to make up for it with rhetoric and personal slanders.

Such individuals do not contribute to a constructive dialogue. Jonathan McLatchie

most of the objections made by nonbelievers here, and elsewhere, I have already dealt with. There is no reason for me to write down everything, which I have already investigated, and formulated my views on it. If you come up with something, that i did not investigate yet, then I might make the effort to write a specific response. Otherwise, I see no reason for your complaint. Rather, why do you not give an honest examination of my responses in an unbiased manner, and actually check, if my inferences might not make more sense than explanations based on no intelligent causal agency?


Complaining about copy/paste 
First of all, there is no problem to cite, copy/paste external sources in a debate about origins. All inferences at my virtual library, are based on evidence from peer reviewed papers from respected Science journals. When you ask me to write down what I have already researched, I would repeat and waste time rewriting what I have ready at hand. What I copy, is the result of considerable investigation and time spending. If you were arguing that my copy/past does not address the precisely the issue in question, or superficial drivel and nonsense, your complaint would be granted. But I try to respond in an as much as possible specific way, addressing the specific questions, and what I copy, is the BEST and in-depth answer I am able to come up with. If you want to engage, value the time i have spend and which i am using now to provide you relevant information, and take your time and investigate if what I post is sound, reasonable, compelling, and if it makes more sense than anything that philosophical materialism provides. if you comprehend, i appreciate, and i am sure, if you take your time to read my responses, you will see there is some "meat"....

Complaining about an apologetic source
Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on peer-reviewed science papers and I provide the links to the sources. The premises and evidence are solid science. What can be discussed is if the inferences that are drawn are sound or not. My inference is that we do know how to recognize the action of intelligence, and can, therefore, make solid scientific predictions based on intelligent design, and test if they apply to natural phenomena, and if that is not the case, we can apply the method of Bayesian probability, and figure out what explanation is the most adequate, based on reasonable logical principles. 

What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion. 
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )  
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation 
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or 
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well. 
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better  world view.  

If you want to provide better explanations of origins than a proponent of intelligent design like me, here a suggestion : 

Do not : try to attack my knowledge
Do not : try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. )  or ask for my credentials 
Do not : try to attack  my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described) 
Do not argue  that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
Do not  argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
Do not  ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?  
Do not  argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite ) 
Do not : try to  attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible ) 
Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you  (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling ) 
- Nor acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too ) 
Do not  call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing ) 
Do not   suggest to peer review my point ( the hostility of the scientific establishment towards intelligent design is well known ) 
Do not  acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof  of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )

Namecalling
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Namecalling is the lowest form of discoure, the last refuge of those who cannot disprove an opposing point of view. The Internet is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.    Usually, the tool of the loser of a debate will resort to insulting, [Arostotle]  Basic rule of thumb: When someone with opposite views starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The  proponent of intelligent design / creationism  just won the debate.  Namecalling serves no useful purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explicit adhom, calling me names, like a troll, stupid, idiot, religious nutter etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Do also not  try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. )  or ask for my credentials.  It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling. 


"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward." - Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
"Personal insults are the last resort of exhausted minds". - Pat Buchanan
"Insults are the last resort of insecure people trying to appear confident in their weak position." - Pastor Rick Warren
"Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued." - Unknown
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Anonymous

What to do:
1.Study if the premise is true. Take your time to actually understand what is presented to you. 
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists 
3. Analyse if intelligent design is not a better explanation 
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or 
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well. 
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view. 
 
Attacking your character rather than the argument
If they can portray you as mean and evil then they never have to interact with you because, the premise is, you never have to interact with mean and evil people. Avoid toxic relationships. Never give a Nazi air time. So they don't have to make their case- they just have to attack your character. This is the quickest, safest, most effective route for them. And character is easy to attack. For one, everyone is a hypocrite at some level. Everyone is inconsistent on how they live. And who wants to subject themselves to criticism. It's one thing to be shown your views are wrong, but quite another to be told you're evil, despicable, mean, toxic, etc. This mindset starts even with books written for four year olds. Even if you watch presidential debates in the states, you'll see that the focus is normally on character rather than policy. Identity politics exists for a reason- it works. They don't have to prove you're a slime-ball- they just have to make you look like one.

Accusing the opponent of dishonesty & lying. 
One thing that I really can't stand is to be called intellectually dishonest, or when I am explicitly out called as a liar, but my opponent uses that tactic just to hide his incompetence to deal with the issues raised in a grown-up manner, as an adult. If my opponent feels I lied, he should first quote the sentence where he feels i was dishonest, and then clearly outline why he felt it was a lie. Unless he does this, i call such accusations coward and anti-intellectual. 

Dembsky: We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based on our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probability could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form, and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost an infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, the design is a better explanation. 

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin

Do not argue  that i copied the argument from a " nonscience " site, like reasonandscience forum , or somewhere else.  Reasonandscience is for instance my personal virtual library, and its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific or philosophical  debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most if not all my arguments and inferences are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific , often peer reviewed papers. So if you disagree with my inferences, provide more compelling ones, and we talk...... 

My worldview is composed on my thoughts, but mostly on outside information. There is no problem to copy past answers , when i have dealt with a specific question previously. I do not have to spend my time to write down when i have an answer ready at hand. Most arguments made by atheists, i have dealt with already. So unless an atheist comes up with a new argument, i see no reason why i should spend efforts and time to re write what i have already ready at hand to anser. 

Critizism about the opponent's knowledge
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2114-personal-attacks#3759

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, But a man of understanding remains silent.-Proverbs 11:12

Criticizing the opponent's knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like You need a basic understanding of science, you don't understand evolution nor biology,  take a science class, where is your published work, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject,  you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule with contempt are not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the opponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their opponent's knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on a specific topic.   Fact is, even IF their opponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their views become more credible or correct. That's a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themselves about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn, provide a better explanation based on their views.

The truth about origins, and about who proposes it

Some of the most common questions of atheists are about the education of the one that makes a case, or if his evidence was peer-reviewed.

The best explanation of the mechanism of origins remains the best explanation, no matter if the proponent is educated in astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology if he has a PHD, a doctorate, a formal education of any degree, or no formal degree at all. Anyone, independent of its formal education, can educate himself about science related to origins. Ignorance is a free choice in the age of information. It is easy and freely available on the internet, or books. All someone has to do, is to spend time, and understand the evidence, and draw logical compelling inferences based on the observation.

It's also irrelevant if the source of the information is a peer reviewed scientific article or not. All that is required, is that the premise and the observed evidence in the natural world are correctly described and characterized. Some of the most influential scientific papers were rejected during the peer review process.

Good Science without Peer-Review
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1919-good-science-without-peer-review

Atheists commonly call theists trolls. A troll is someone who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. The Atheists behavior of calling a Theist a troll is not uncommon, and in most cases due to the fact that they cannot refute the theists claim, and as such, sidestep, and in order not to admit defiance, start name calling, amongst which calling the opponent a troll is a preferably used tactic. By doing so, they declare defeat of their world-view, but are unwilling to admit it in a fair manner.

Just postin links:
If you truly want to convince anyone of anything, posting a link with no explanation is not the way to do it. When a person posts a link and refuses to point out the important part of the article, I am forced to assume that person is pretending to know things that they don't know. Gonna post a link to a study but you can't even tell me what the study says? Then I am forced to assume you've never read the study. "Do your own research" is something people say when they have no research of their own to share, but they still want to look like a part of the conversation.

The process of troll evolution:
1) Troll sould immediately begin by mocking intelligence or education of opponent and boldly assert opponent is wrong.
2) If troll is confronted with facts that contradict his or her claim, troll will claim said facts are irrelevant.
3) If troll is reminded of why provided facts are relevant, troll will immediately place a finger in each ear and repeat steps 1 and 2.
A very simplistic process, I know, but trolls are not very complex creatures. Now, let's watch the process at work.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xSTYYHcV0c5wje/giphy.gif



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Jun 12, 2022 10:30 am; edited 95 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

http://www.nature.com/news/paper-that-says-human-hand-was-designed-by-creator-sparks-concern-1.19499



The PLOS ONE staff may not have acknowledged yet, but ID theory is gaining ground in the last 3 decades:

Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles 

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2282-intelligent-design-theories-gaining-steam-in-scientific-circles

The scientific endaveour has not brought us the ample and wide confirmation of Darwins theory of evolution, nor to the overwhelming conclusion that natural forces alone explain our existence. Rather than that, the gap is widening more the more time pasts, and rather than explaining natural phenomenas through naturalism, the end of the road is a big question mark, and unanswered questions. 

Open questions in biology, biochemistry, and evolution

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2299-open-questions-in-biology-biochemistry-and-evolution

A reflection of the foundation of what science is, and what propositions should be permitted, and which not, may be well applied. 

http://www.ise.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/9512/naturalism_science_supernatural.pdf

There is overwhelming agreement amongst naturalists that a naturalistic ontology should not allow for the possibility of supernatural entities. I argue, against this prevailing consensus, that naturalists have no proper basis to oppose the existence of supernatural entities. Naturalism is characterized, following Leiter and Rea, as a position which involves a primary commitment to scientific methodology and it is argued that any naturalistic ontological commitments must be compatible with this primary commitment. It is further argued that properly applied scientific method has warranted the acceptance of the existence of supernatural entities in the past and that it is plausible to think that it will do so again in the future. So naturalists should allow for the possibility of supernatural entities.

I might add that i personally would not go that far. I would imho rather point out that there is no reason to permit only natural explanations into scientific publications :

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

There are two possible causal agents for natural phenomena, that is , a intelligent agency, and a " natural " agency. There is no justification to apply a pressupositional stance that only natural mechanisms should be permitted, and design inferences excluded a priori. 

I encourage the PLOS ONE stuff to think about the situation , and pioneer a healthy debate about the foundation of modern science.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Here a collection of the most heard answers coming from the naturalism/atheist/skeptic camp when a case for intelligent design/creationism is made:



I suspect that's largely because you lack an understanding of the subjects you attempt to debate.

You don't understand the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it  attacks my knowledge

You are making a foll of yourself and you even don't know it

Yeah, religious forums are not convincing evidence. Try harder. attacks the source

it tells us that your argument is "I don't know how life works therefore Jesus" says its a argument from ignorance

Article shows ignorance of evolution science & biochem pathways in particular. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS PSEUDOSCIENCE.  says ID is pseudoscience

But the site is called HeavenForum! Totally not biased!  There isn't software to a cell. It wasn't programmed  attacks the source

We don't need you bronze age book of myth to explain reality.   attacks the bible

BULLSHIT asshole, which God, because you are not the only one moron!  explicit adhom

Yeah, I don't get the point of sending me the link to an obviously biased site   attacks the source

if you disagree, you are ignorant superstitious wildling.  personal attack

Eh When you produce unbiased, purely scientific, peer reviewed evidence rather that a blog I'd be more open  attacks the source

You suffer from classic confirmation bias. Your argument is far from logical/reasonable  argues that i am biased

You are not mentally prepared to accept the possibility you could be wrong.Polar opposite to scientist mind.    personal attack

because you're an IDiot  explicit adhom

Until you can provide a link to a peer-reviewed publication of this hypothesis, not interested. attacks the source

im sorry but your source is not a reliable or REAL one. please provide the evidence i ask for or ill assume u have 0  attacks the source

@Otangelo  You’re apparently uneducated. #block morons personal attack

I've seen enough of your nonsense, you lying, delusional fuck. Your god is an imaginary construct, just like an invisible pink unicorn, you delusional fuck. personal attack

please shut the fuck up about magic.  It's too early for childish bullshit  Calls my inference magic. 

If you can disprove evolution, then you should write your proof, submit it for peer review from a credible organization, publish your paper in a credible science journal and collect your Nobel prize.  suggests to peer review it. 

Yeah right. How much of your so called 'science' has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals Angelo?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Think you have a valid argument that challenges real science? Get it published in a real scientific journal.   suggests to peer review it. 


May as well cite AIG or ICR as William Psychopath Craig and his band of lunatics. Attacks the source

Still citing that band of liars? Acuses my source or me to be lying



Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.  Argume10



The moral ? No one actually attacked the presented science, or the validity of the inference. So, dear proponent of atheism :



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

1. I regard my timeline as MY HOUSE. 
2. As such, they are invited to be my FB friends and debate various issues. 
3. That does not give them the right, if they disagree with me, to name call me, disrespect me, or anything of the sort. 
4. I do not tolerate by no means memes that make fun of the God I believe in. 
5. I usually ask them to delete their comments where they either name call me or post undesired things. 
6. If they don't, I ask them to leave the house and stop to post. 
7. I warn them: If they disrespect my wish in this regard too, and keep posting at my timeline, I block them. 
8. These rules are the same for anyone, also theists. 
9. Anyone that feels disrespected, can report to me.

thanks.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Namecalling & anti-intellectualism
One thing that I really can't stand, is anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism can take several
different forms. Among atheists, the most common tell-tale marks of an anti-intellectual include:

* He is intellectually proud and believes he has nothing to learn from those who disagree with him.
* He is usually ignorant of philosophy, theology, and science (beyond a layman's knowledge).
* He always expects a Christian to reinvent the wheel just for him.
* He says "there's no evidence" when a more refined thinker would say "there is insufficient evidence".
* He repeats all the usual objections, expecting the Christian every time to start from scratch as if
these issues have never been dealt with before.
* He makes no effort to inform himself about the pre-existing answers.
* He is lacking in intellectual depth, has only read people on his own side of the discussion, but tries
to make up for it with rhetoric and personal slanders.

Namecalling is the last refuge of those who cannot disprove an opposing point of view. The Internet
is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the repetitious,
the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.    Usually, the tool of the loser
of a debate will resort to insulting, [Arostotle]  Basic rule of thumb: When someone with opposite views
starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means:
The proponent of intelligent design/creationism just won the debate.  Namecalling serves no useful
purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explicit ad hominem, calling me names,
like a troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. - Do also not try to
attack my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. )  or ask for my
credentials.  It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling. 

What to do:
1. Study if the premise is true. Take your time to actually understand what is presented to you. 
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists 
3. Analyse if intelligent design is not a better explanation 
4. If in your view, atheism has better explanations, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to

their answers, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard to other issues
as well. 
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your worldview. 



Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.  Argume10



Last edited by Admin on Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:57 am; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Critic/belittling the opponent's knowledge

Whoever belittles his neighbour lacks sense, But a man of understanding remains silent.-Proverbs 11:12

Criticizing the opponent's knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point.
I hear often critiques like You need a basic understanding of science, you don't understand evolution,
take a science class, where is your published work, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance
of the subject,  you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision,
you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms
and degrees. Mock and ridicule with contempt are not new to me. That are responses put forward
frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather
than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their
own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the opponent. Not only does
it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their opponent's knowledge
and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on a specific topic.   Fact
is, even IF their opponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their views become more
credible or correct. That's a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought
forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themselves about the issue in question, and 
2. if they disagree with the inference drawn, provide a better explanation based on their views.


Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills.  26gTvtt

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

When a theist throughout debunks atheist claims, the usual answer is: " Gish gallop, god of the gaps, special pleading, argument from incredulity, Its honest to say we don't know yet, , science is working on it, large number fallacy, you are an idiot "

Complaint: You are cherry-picking articles from a biased homepage!!
Reply: Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on peer-reviewed science papers and I provide the links to the sources. The premises and evidence are solid science. What can be discussed is if the inferences that are drawn are sound or not. My inference is that we do know how to recognize the action of intelligence, and can, therefore, make solid scientific predictions based on intelligent design, and test if they apply to natural phenomena, and if that is not the case, we can apply the method of Bayesian probability, and figure out what explanation is the most adequate, based on reasonable logical principles.

Complaint:Theists always think that a god is responsible for things humans don't yet understand.
Reply: The argument that God is a gap filler is really boring, a beaten horse ad nauseam. Its invoked in almost every theist-atheist debate when atheists are unable to successfully refute a theist claim. No, God is NOT a gap filler. God is a logical inference based on the evidence observed in the natural world. If a theist would say, ''We don't know what caused 'x', therefore, God.'', it would be indeed a 'God of the gaps' fallacy. What we say, IMHO is: ''Based on current knowledge, an intelligent creative agency is a better explanation than materialistic naturalism."  If one is not arguing from ignorance, but rather reasoning from the available evidence to the best explanation, is it not rather ludicrous to accuse them of launching a 'god of the gaps argument'?  Randomness is a hugely overplayed idea in modern science, a desperate attempt to fill a shrinking corner for materialist reductionism, just as the ‘God of the Gaps' is derided by said materialists as the alleged last resort of Intelligent Design proponents.

Complaint:Humans stopped believing in fire gods and sun and moon gods when humans gained the understanding that they were not controlled by a conscious being.
Reply: What does that even have to do with my replies, and substantiated explanations ?

Assertion: The same will happen to God, if or when we can demonstrate abioiogenesis.
Reply: So you are using the materialism of the gaps reply, while accusing me of doing this. Remarkable. There is NO evidence that the abiogenesis problem might be solved one day.  Some of the worlds leading scientists in the field of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and computational biology, like James Tour, Graham Cairns-Smith, Eugene Koonin and Steve Benner have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, that abiogenesis research is a failure, and the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general.

Assertion:We know life has evolved on Earth over billions of years.
Reply: This is an unwarranted claim and disproven by science.

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-evolution-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

Claim: But abiogenesis is much more plausible an answer than a god did it.
Reply:  This is a claim based on incredulity and blind faith. Steve Benner:

Paradoxes in the origin of life. 2015 Jan 22 Benner SA1.
http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25608919

Steve Benner is the founder and president of the Westheimer Corporation, a private research organization, and a prior Harvard University professor. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on abiogenesis. This is his evaluation of what he has observed:  Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

We are now 60 years into the modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which “molecules that look like biology” might arise from “molecules that do not look like biology” …. For the most part, these papers report “success” in the sense that those papers define the term…. And yet, the problem remains unsolved.

The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things.  What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.

You are a dishonest disrespectful liar, which makes unfounded accusations against me. Shame on you. God will judge you unless you repent. Revelation 21. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters AND ALL LIARS—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum