Been hanging around here 7 months or so. I’ve learned a lot and had some fun. I’ve been forced into a couple of 180 degree turns in things I thought were true… but weren’t.
On the other hand, have we ever had one creationist recant? “Well gee, DavidB in the face of that overwhelming evidence I guess you might have a point. Evolution does make sense.”
If it was proved definitively that God didn’t exist, had never existed would that cause his followers to stop believing?
If God came down bodily and visited one of our atheists, parted some water resurrected a few dead guys and such would they beleive, or would they point to the possibility of tides and identical twins?
If independently several Libertarian states arose spontaneously around the world, and they all promptly collapsed into anarchy would Libertarian admit he was wrong and become a totalitarianist.
Identities become ideals. And it seems that many equate questioning those ideals as undesirable as death. Indeed the identity becomes so bound up and the ego so enthralled that to release those ideals would be a kind of death.
It just aint gonna happen.
So, are accomplishing anything, or just playing with ourselves?
I’m sure * somebody * has changed their mind. I think I once believed that world was flat…wait…no…that was the flat-earthers. Oh, nevermind, I’ll just go back to mental masturbation. Mmmm, mental masturbation…
Even if nobody changes their position on whatever the debate is about, it still might be useful: we might learn why someone else holds a different opinion - cultural difference, personal experiences, etc. Consider why someone might be a creationist, beyond just thinking “they’re stupid”, and you might begin to find a way to help them see why they are wrong.
Eh, I don’t see that changing someone’s mind about something is the same thing as fighting ignorance. That would seem to imply that either atheists or Christians were ignoramuses who needed to have their ignorance enlightened. And as the debates roll on (and on, and on, and on), important information about both atheism and Christianity is posted, to the benefit of all.
So, no, I don’t think we’re just spinning our wheels.
Are we feeling just a teensy bit cranky this evening?
Actualy… after spending 4 years in a luthren college and listining to, and particpating in, various debates I came to the conclusion that they’re both pretty much wrong anyways. Or at least equaly wrong.
Oddly enough it was all those very good arguments that convinced me in how wrong they are. I began to look at more of “why” the people were saying it, and less of what they were saying. What it came down to is looking at the systems that they base their beliefs and arguments on… and oddly enough, it seems to me anyways, that each system is equaly valid in it’s own right. HOWEVER one might actualy have the Truth… which is why I tend not to go with realtivism either =]
Oh well… just wanted to mention that at least one person had their views changed because of the arguments.
Plus, we get people like Joel, who come away from the discussion with a new reading list. I don’t expect anyone’s mind to be changed as the result of a brief discussion, but at least Joel (to his credit) decided that he needed to study the question more, and he got some suggestions for good sources of information.
I have followed some of the creationist debates and I learned something valuable to me. I was under the impression that evolution was only a theory and now I understand that it is a fact. The theories concern how exactly it works.
This cured a small bit of my ignorance and for this I am grateful.
This is just 1 small item of knowledge that I have gained here.
Fighting ignorance is not the same as debating. Fighting ignorance is more along the lines of GQ’s question-and-answer format, where specific questions are addressed with specific information. Very cut-and-dried in most cases unless the reference works are flaky or contradictory, or someone comes up with some odd bit of knowledge that flies in the face of a previous answer. Manhattan has made it quite clear that GQ is not the place for lengthy debates. Bottom line: fighting ignorance does not challenge core beliefs. Challenging core beliefs is what GD is for. (I am very aware that I just failed to address the OP in a meaningful way based on Scylla’s use of the phrase ‘fighting ignorance’. I just wanted to address Scylla’s misuse of the phrase.)
Myrr21, have I ever mentioned how hilarious you are?
And Scylla, it’s not up to us to make people change their minds…it’s up to us to try and provide the most accurate information possible and let people decide what they believe. That’s our role in fighting ignorance.
My take on the matter is this: these Great Debates serve two purposes. One is to actually ‘enlighten’ others, perhaps allowing them to see a viewpoint they had not previously seen, to learn something they had not previously known. Another is to allow everyone to sharpen their debating skills. This is one reason why I feel the ‘evolution vs. creation’ debates, at least, are so frustrating; most creationists simply don’t know how to argue their case! As a result, they basically become chum. Of course, this happens in just about any debate on this forum; if someone makes a post which has not been clearly thought out, which contains half-truths, mis-truths, no ‘back-up’, etc., they get jumped on. This is a learning experience of sorts for them (at least, I would hope so). Next time, they may make the effort to research the topic (preferably, both sides), and post more sensibly in the future. This, I believe, is the primary ignorance we fight against in Great Debates: that falsehoods and generalizations do not a good argument make.
All I know is that if anyone provided some evidence that the Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer, I’d probably change my mind on that all-important issue.
Finding out why people think the way they do, and using this information to learn why YOU think the way you do, is combatting your own ignorance.
I will never be swayed to become pro-life. But I have been forced to think as to why I believe the way I do on this issue and come up with logical ways to make it work for me personally. This way, I can defend my unchanged beliefs better - to challengers as well as to myself.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, 5 hours, 45 minutes and 3 seconds.
4889 cigarettes not smoked, saving $611.20.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 23 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
I would have thought that the mental masturbation part comes with the joy of fighting ignorance. Whether you are the one who gets enlightened or the one doing the convincing, it still leads to mental stimulation.
HIJACK
I am more curious how every one finds time. I’ve tried joining a few discussions, but I find it extremely time consuming. Alas, my work seems to get in the way. Does it mean that SDMBers have to have too much free time on their hands?
UNJACK
This idea that someone’s gonna read a post on the SDMB, slap themselves on the forehead, and promptly abandon years of religious indoctrination or socialization or life experience or whatever is totally Hollywood and bears no resmblance to reality.
Just 'cause no one’s having a conversion experience on the spot doesn’t mean that over time the general attempt to “fight ignorance” doesn’t have an impact.
I always argue for the lurkers. When two people are having a full fledged debate it is unlikely that either will change their mind–they are fully commited to one position, and have likely heard all the arguements before. (In the creation debates, it can almost be like everyone is reading a script). However, the people that are not commited to a view point usually dont say anything, so we dont even know they are there. They are there to listen, not argue. Presenting the best possible case for THOSE people is the reason I bother. And I know they exisit, becausr I have been in that position many times myself. Many of my opinions are based in part on arguements i have read on message boards.
I also think that when someone does see the light in an arguement they likely don’t mention it, they just stop posting. Also, I know that with many poeple (including myself)they can get in a big arguement, get bombarded with new perspectives, new information, and they need a week or a month or a year or a decade to carefully process all that and arrive at new conclusions.
(Heck, when you said, “We’ve never seen the Enterprise move at warp speed while shooting at sublight targets, so therefore the Enterprise either won’t or can’t do this,” I was tempted to compare your argument to the standard Creationist line of “We’ve never seen one species evolve into another.”)
