Recently I attempted to debate a Christian on someone else's blog. I'll say attempted because there was no format of actual debate. He commented some dimwitted nonsense on the blog to which I offered a comment in rebuttal. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought that he may have just skimmed the blog post or missed a particular part of it because his initial comments demonstrated that he hadn't quite gotten the gist of the post. Once I offered my rebuttal, he demonstrated for a second time that he was unable to comprehend what he had read because his reply to me didn't even make sense in the context of what I had written. I replied to him several more times, each time restating my point to him in a way I thought he might be able to understand (interspersed with an insult at his mental capacity here and there) and he still never got it. How is one to have patience with people like this? If they can't even understand the simplest of arguments.
I was also debating another Christian recently over facebook. He was actually fairly intelligent. It was a strange debate, though because he agreed with most of my logic, but DESPITE the fact that he agreed with it, still remained a Christian. How does that work, exactly? I wonder. Maybe he is more on the fence about it than he is willing to acknowledge? We are in the Bible Belt and he does seem to be close to his family. Maybe he's too afraid of the consequences of taking stock in views that actually make sense as opposed to religious nonsense.
I must say, though, that I prefer to debate with the latter. Even if I never convince him, at least there's an actual conversation taking place rather than me beating my head against a wall. I suppose that's why I'm polite to DR. Even if he's a lying, manipulative guy he at least gives something that you can respond to. I suppose being exposed to the clearwooters and the jimmys of the world makes me more grateful for the DRs and the Johns of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Jimmy is like that, I'm afraid. If he gets a question he doesn't like he tends to ignore it or talk around it (he once answered a question of mine with a poem). Then when you press him, he says that he's already answered it.
In his defence, he does come out with the occasional salient, debate-provoking comment, and I don't think he dodges the issue deliberately. I certainly wouldn't put him in the same class as Wooter.
I like having him and the other religious contributors on my blog because otherwise I worry it might end up turning into a place for atheists to sit around and bash religion. And another viewpoint is always nice.
Quetzathan,
I'll continue to beat my head against a wall in hopes that Jimmy will eventually get my point, but I still think he may be a wooter. You see, I don't think wooter's first language is English, but he and Jimmy both just say the same things over and over again. Granted, I've had much less contact and experience with Jimmy than I have had with wooter, so I could be judging Jimmy too quickly.
I definitely wouldn't mind having a religious person to comment on my blog for the same reasons you stated. It is nice to have a different perspective as well as someone to debate with.
Hope I haven't been to harsh on Jimmy in your blog. I guess calling him illiterate was a little bit mean...
While I think of it, do you mind if I add your blog to my "Links of Interest" on my blog page?
Nope, go for it.
Link added. And don't worry about calling Jimmy illiterate, I'm sure he didn't take it to heart.
Is Quetzathan going to be your permanent way of addressing me now?
Thanks!
I quite like Quetzathan if that's alright with you.
No problem. I only asked because I said it as a joke, never thought it would catch on! :)
Obviously, I thought it was catchy. ;-)
Hope I haven't been to harsh on Jimmy in your blog. I guess calling him illiterate was a little bit mean...
That's OK, he didn't get it :-)
Are there debates on Facebook?
There are debates on facebook. The particular debate I was having was over private messages, but there's a group called "Debate Islam" if you want to debate about that. I don't know enough about Islam to join, so I haven't.
The particular debate I was having was over private messages, but there's a group called "Debate Islam" if you want to debate about that. I don't know enough about Islam to join, so I haven't.
Me neither, other than the fact Mohammed was a paedophile. I dont think that would go down like a jobby in a watershortage
Hello anna banana,
Hope I haven't been to harsh on Jimmy in your blog. I guess calling him illiterate was a little bit mean...
You should read what Billy says about Jimmy on the blog.
Though to be fair, Jimmy brings it on himself.
He got very confused with the Mohammed "thing"...
Billy wrote:
I dont think that would go down like a jobby in a watershortage
Jobby... always makes me laugh that word.
Lee
Lee,
I did see where Billy was encouraging Jimmy to drink cyanide...but you know, I'm just a sweet little southern belle (ok, not really), I try to be polite.
It was odd, though, that even though Billy spelled cyanide correctly, Jimmy kept managing to spell it "syanide". What a moron.
"but you know, I'm just a sweet little southern belle"
Pah! I'm afraid that nobody is fooled by the oh-so-innocent smile on your picture. ;-)
Quetzathan,
You're right of course. If there were a handbook on how to be a southern belle, I'm sure that I would have violated it quite a few times. At the top of the list would most likely be my atheism. But I can pretend every now and then, right?
Jimmy kept managing to spell it "syanide". What a moron.
Its a miracle, Jesus has turned it into something non poisonous. I'm a believer!
Jimmy is an interesting mix. He takes the bible as the ultimate authority on things, yet holds that muslims are closer to god than he is. I think he believes because he needs to feel purpose - it does seem that he hasn't had the best of lifes.
The interesting thing though, is that when you forget about how frustrating he can be, it helps you see how worthless faith is, and how irrational it is too.
I cant actually work out if he likes a bit of banter or if he is serious about his ad Homs. Bruce seems to think it is banter - although he doesnt know him.
Hey Anna!
Jimmy, I actually like the guy, he does provoke good discussion sometimes and despite my differences with his views, I think he does provide a unique perspective on his version of his religion.
I admit I have laid into him a few times as I don't understand the reason why he has to beat the crap out of himself in order to feel good about believing in his God. But nonetheless, he is no Wooter or Robertson and for that I will always be happy to chat to him.
I guess debating with religious folk can be difficult, I remember the debate with Mark Taunton on RD,net, even after all we discussed he kind of messed it up in the end by saying that we hadn't even dented his reading of religion. I think that is the most frustrating part is you can provide all the evidence you want and Godidit, Jesusprobablydidit and ScienceiswronghowdoyouknowHEdidn'tdoitis the normal answer!
But, I know it works, I have managed to get a few people reading a few other books other than the bible and they seem happier for it. I also wouldn't do it if I didn't learn stuff from it either, so there is some point to having patience with the incompetant I assure you! :)
Cheers
Philip
Anna wrote:
I did see where Billy was encouraging Jimmy to drink cyanide...
Actually I think Billy was merely suggesting Jimmy should test his faith and what was stated in the bible.
You have to be cruel to be kind and all that...
Jimmy seems a harmless soul, but I do feel sorry for him that the brainwashing has meant he is closed to thinking about science and evolution.
I was watching the BBC documentary yesterday called "war on science" and it had a priest stating that people who reject evolution are ignoring God and his creation - that accepting evolution makes his faith in God stronger.
Oh course I've no idea how this faith in evolution works (God knows how faith works) but I don't understand why God, if he existed, would want someone to reject the evidence for his creation.
The problem I have with the "Jimmy-types" then is their inconsistencies and not being prepared to take the logic to the natural conclusions.
Lee
Hi Lee,
I just dont get how anyone can claim that there is evidence that god uses evolution. The last pope even stated that the soul entered man when two ancestral chromosomes fused to form our no. 2. WTF??????
Billy and Lee,
I don't necessarily think that it makes sense to believe that God "started" evolution or something along those lines, but if you're going to believe in God I'd say that that's the preferable route. I think it's what more moderate Christians believe. And it makes a lot more sense than denying all the evidence and believing the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. The former takes less mental acrobatics than the latter.
Philip,
Thanks for commenting! I'm glad to have you on my blog! I'll try to be nice to Jimmy. ;)
I often think that Christians who believe evolution was "God's way of doing things" are copping out in a sense. It got so that the weight of evidence was so great that they realised denying it would make themselves look stupid (something the creationists have not yet picked up on). But they don't seem to acknowledge that evolution is a really bad way for a God to bring us about!
Quetzathan,
I agree that evolution would have been a bad way for a god to have brought us about, especially since we're still evolving and are not going to be the same species somewhere down the road. However, in a practical sense, it is much more useful and tolerable to have Christians who at least espouse evolution. Pretty much all of my friends from college are Christian, but they all trust in evolution which makes me rest a lot easier at night than I would had we gone through the same classes as biology majors and they still decided to deny it. It doesn't have to make sense for it to be practical.
I agree with you about the practical side of it. Most of my Christian friends would probably laugh at someone who claimed the Earth was only 6000 years old. It's just be nice if a few of them realised the problems with the notion of God being behind evolution and went from there.
Quetzathan,
It certainly would be nice if people could come to the logical conclusion that evolution and God are not compatible and therefore there probably isn't a god, but I think that's probably a long way off, so in the meantime, I'm ok with people who believe in God AND evolution.
But they don't seem to acknowledge that evolution is a really bad way for a God to bring us about!
Yeah, there is absolutly no evidence that mutations are directed for example. Some bits of DNA are more readily mutated though - usually due to proof reading errors during replication. This often leads to "poly cysteine diseases" such as Huntingdon's disease - which is the other problem, most mutations are either neutral or detrimental
Billy-
plus the idea that evolution happened with us in mind is plainly ridiculous, when you consider all the animal species that are far better adapted to conditions on this planet than we are. The notion of us being in some sense the "pinnacle of evolution" is laughable.
Quetzathan,
when you consider all the animal species that are far better adapted to conditions on this planet than we are. The notion of us being in some sense the "pinnacle of evolution" is laughable.
There may be species that are better evolved to live in certain environments like the organisms known as extremophiles, but I would argue that because of the incredible tool-making abilities of humans, we are better evolved to live in more environments. However, this doesn't mean that humans don't have their share of evolutionary issues such as structural issues. Since we evolved from quadrapeds we have the tendency towards back problems and things like that. I think Neil Shubin's book You Inner Fish probably delineates this well, although I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Sorry to be so pedantic. ;-)
Anyway, your point still stands that we are certainly not a perfect species by any stretch of the imagination.
I meant that humans essentially evolved to live on the African savannah. Without tool-making and clothes, our bodies are too frail to survive cold winters. Other animals can survive in hot and cold climates. But you're right, tool-making gives us the edge.
The notion of us being in some sense the "pinnacle of evolution" is laughable.
I would say that every species in existence today is a "pinnacle" of evolution, as it's lineage has survived for about 3.5 billion years - clearly they are the latest in a long line of survivors. Also, every species is still subject to natural selection, so I would say that ultimately there is no pinnacle, just a position on a progressing time line
Billy wrote:
I just dont get how anyone can claim that there is evidence that god uses evolution.
Me neither, but it is a step in the right direction. At least such theists accept the evidence for evolution. It gives us something to work with if they accept evidence.
The next problem is to remove the “pseudo noise” they put behind evolution – but one step at a time.
I heard an interview with Francis Collins on point of inquiry podcast a while back – if he is an good example of a theist believing in evolution, then the theist still have mental hoops they jump through to maintain the illusion, so it is still a long journey for some. (The man is just dishonest and too blind to see it)
Lee
Lee-
with Francis Collins, the "three waterfall" story of his conversion makes it painfully obvious that he jumps through all kinds of mental hoops.
Hi Lee,
I have just been informed that mathias of expelled infamy has declared Ken miller (a theistic evoutionist) to not be a real catholic.
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394
,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page21#159743
Post a Comment