Another infidel joins the fray

[TheoCurious]

Hello, DCR forum members. I'm a longtime skeptic, and I just happened upon this forum yesterday. Having spent most of my online discussion time in skeptics' forums, I am tired of the same old debates. I'm here looking for exposure to a broader range of opinions about the whole "truth" thing. For instance, it would be nice to use the word "truth" in a sentence without someone always replying with a link to the "Loose Change" video on YouTube. In return, I will do my best to offer original ideas and challenges, which I realize can be difficult to do when engaging in one of the longest-raging debates in human history.

Most skeptics take pride in saying they are open to changing their opinions if the opposing argument is sufficiently compelling and persuasive. Most of them are lying. I'll try to be more honest and say that, while I don't expect to change my opinions, I sincerely believe engaging in discussion and debate with people of differing viewpoints enriches all participants. I'm just not sure why. Maybe I'll find out here.

[Zzyzx]

.

Unlike you, I do not see them seeking much of any evidence of anything. To seek you need an open mind. The talking snake has snapped shut over theirs and closed all arguments. When faced with logic they retaliate in various ugly forms that invariably see me in Hell. Thank God Hell does not exist.

Perhaps we are talking past each other.

I interpret "them" as you use the term above to indicate fundamentalists (the talking snake believers). Is that correct?

In spite of how it might appear, I am NOT addressing such people (other than nominally "for sake of argument"). Instead, I address "readers" – which implies (in my thinking) all who read the threads. This particular discussion, for instance, has had seventy "views" (and could go into hundreds). I am confident that at least some of those readers ARE capable of understanding and evaluating ideas that counter fundamentalist dogma and propaganda.

Even though these readers have been subjected to religious (or fundamentalist) proselytization since childhood, not all are locked into dogmatic thinking. I reach this conclusion based partially upon experience teaching college courses which often involved a measure of helping people overcome the blinders imposed by organized, commercial religion upon their thought process.

Seeing people "get it" – and realize that they are NOT compelled to limit their thinking as directed by self-appointed "prophets" and "priests" – is inspiring. In a way, I seek to continue that experience of encouraging people to THINK and make decisions based upon reasoned evaluation of the evidence available (not upon the opinions, emotions, conjectures and legends which they have been taught to rely upon / trust / believe implicitly).

In these debates it is appropriate to respond those who argue for the talking snake and who become retaliatory and ugly. However, such people are NOT my intended audience. They are nothing more than an inert "wall" from which the ideas bounce in more productive directions.

Kapish?

[OnceConvinced]

Welcome Theo! Glad to have you with us.

[Greatest I Am]

Zzyzx

"I interpret "them" as you use the term above to indicate fundamentalists (the talking snake believers). Is that correct?"

Yes.

Have you ever had success with one of those that believe in talking snake?
If yes, what was your point that stuck?

Regards
DL

[Zzyzx]

.

Have you ever had success with one of those that believe in talking snake? If yes, what was your point that stuck?

DL, I have absolutely no indication that I have ever affected the thinking of a "talking snake believer" – partially, at least, because that is of no concern to me and is not among my objectives.

I do not devote time and energy to attempting to convert or convince anyone of anything. Instead, I present ideas that people are free to evaluate and to use, reject, ignore (or make into paper airplanes for all I care). I have no investment in seeking change of the views of ANY person – particularly fundamentalists. Each person's views are their own business (and are no more my concern than their sexual preferences or personal grooming).

In debate, however, I seek to present ideas that counter flagrant irrationality and incredible claims characteristic of fundamental / literal literature and dogma. I do NOT care whether my "opponent" ever understands what I present – because I focus on the readers – many of whom I credit with ability to evaluate the merits of what is said and to make decisions based upon evidence and reasoning rather than emotion and the "teachings of priests and prophets"

[Greatest I Am]

.

Have you ever had success with one of those that believe in talking snake? If yes, what was your point that stuck?

DL, I have absolutely no indication that I have ever affected the thinking of a "talking snake believer" – partially, at least, because that is of no concern to me and is not among my objectives.

I do not devote time and energy to attempting to convert or convince anyone of anything. Instead, I present ideas that people are free to evaluate and to use, reject, ignore (or make into paper airplanes for all I care). I have no investment in seeking change of the views of ANY person – particularly fundamentalists. Each person's views are their own business (and are no more my concern than their sexual preferences or personal grooming).

In debate, however, I seek to present ideas that counter flagrant irrationality and incredible claims characteristic of fundamental / literal literature and dogma. I do NOT care whether my "opponent" ever understands what I present – because I focus on the readers – many of whom I credit with ability to evaluate the merits of what is said and to make decisions based upon evidence and reasoning rather than emotion and the "teachings of priests and prophets"

Keep up the good work.

Regards
DL

[Confused]

Welcome to the forum. Fresh views are always nice.

Also, allow me to apologize for your introduction being turned into a completely irrelevant discussion. We debaters tend to lose ourselves in the moment from time to time.

[Confused]

.

Have you ever had success with one of those that believe in talking snake? If yes, what was your point that stuck?

DL, I have absolutely no indication that I have ever affected the thinking of a "talking snake believer" – partially, at least, because that is of no concern to me and is not among my objectives.

I do not devote time and energy to attempting to convert or convince anyone of anything. Instead, I present ideas that people are free to evaluate and to use, reject, ignore (or make into paper airplanes for all I care). I have no investment in seeking change of the views of ANY person – particularly fundamentalists. Each person's views are their own business (and are no more my concern than their sexual preferences or personal grooming).

In debate, however, I seek to present ideas that counter flagrant irrationality and incredible claims characteristic of fundamental / literal literature and dogma. I do NOT care whether my "opponent" ever understands what I present – because I focus on the readers – many of whom I credit with ability to evaluate the merits of what is said and to make decisions based upon evidence and reasoning rather than emotion and the "teachings of priests and prophets"

MODERATOR GENTLE NOTE:

I am not sure the thread where someone introduces themselves to the forum is the right place for this discussion. Can we perhaps move it to a new thread?

[Confused]

.

Have you ever had success with one of those that believe in talking snake? If yes, what was your point that stuck?

DL, I have absolutely no indication that I have ever affected the thinking of a "talking snake believer" – partially, at least, because that is of no concern to me and is not among my objectives.

I do not devote time and energy to attempting to convert or convince anyone of anything. Instead, I present ideas that people are free to evaluate and to use, reject, ignore (or make into paper airplanes for all I care). I have no investment in seeking change of the views of ANY person – particularly fundamentalists. Each person's views are their own business (and are no more my concern than their sexual preferences or personal grooming).

In debate, however, I seek to present ideas that counter flagrant irrationality and incredible claims characteristic of fundamental / literal literature and dogma. I do NOT care whether my "opponent" ever understands what I present – because I focus on the readers – many of whom I credit with ability to evaluate the merits of what is said and to make decisions based upon evidence and reasoning rather than emotion and the "teachings of priests and prophets"

Keep up the good work.

Regards
DL

MODERATOR GENTLE NOTE:

I am not sure the thread where someone introduces themselves to the forum is the right place for this discussion. Can we perhaps move it to a new thread?

[Zzyzx]

.

MODERATOR GENTLE NOTE:

I am not sure the thread where someone introduces themselves to the forum is the right place for this discussion. Can we perhaps move it to a new thread?[/color]

I agree. Apologies to Theo. GIA and I got carried away talking about talking snakes.

[Greatest I Am]

.

MODERATOR GENTLE NOTE:

I am not sure the thread where someone introduces themselves to the forum is the right place for this discussion. Can we perhaps move it to a new thread?[/color]

I agree. Apologies to Theo. GIA and I got carried away talking about talking snakes.

I also.

Regards
DL