Is debating with theologists pointless?

[Questionable]

I couldn't help but notice that Facebook has exploded with secular vs. theologist debates over the fact that the Supreme Court is taking a look at anti-gay marriage laws.

Normally I avoid these because participants on both sides tend to be petty and uneducated, but I ended up getting pulled into one by a friend. The person I was debating with was an Evangelical Christian who had no argument against gay marriage except the people who did it were going to hell. Eventually I just said I didn't care about going to hell, and the "debate" ended.

But debates with theologists tend to be full of these kinds of incidents. Because their entire argument depends upon the premise of the bible being God's word, it automatically does not apply to anyone who does not share that view. No matter if these people try to approach the issue from a seemingly logical standpoint, they will eventually break down and just admit that they're against because "God says it's wrong." Therefore, the discussion reaches a brick wall, because nobody who doesn't believe in God has any reason to believe what they're saying, but the theologist will not engage in any grounds outside of their wholly subjective religious beliefs.

Is there any reason to discuss politics with these people, or will it always lead to the "God says so" wall?

[blake 3:17]

Do you actually mean a theologian? Or a theist? Or a Christian Fundamentalist? And atheism, humanism, and secularism aren't identical either.

[Deity]

Through my experience with these people it is extremely pointless. I've attempted to have a political discussion with an extreme Christian for over an hour about capitalism, and his argument was that the starving people around the world are ok because it's gods will. He told me there was no need to try and change the world because this is god punishing us for eve eating an apple.

Despite my numerous attempts at reasoning, starving people were gods will.

[Taters]

I've never found debates with evangelicals or bible literalists to be especially fruitful. It usually ends up as you said: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." (That's a popular bumper sticker, by the way). This isn't to say all of them are a lost cause, I was once one myself (but that might have been purely by accident).
You have to realize that when they go to church every Sunday sermons often include the idea that everything contrary to what's being taught must be consciously rejected or everlasting hellfire will be the result. Constant indoctrination and reinforcement of their beliefs every week contributes to this stonewalling you've seen.

[Questionable]

Do you actually mean a theologian? Or a theist? Or a Christian Fundamentalist? And atheism, humanism, and secularism aren't identical either.

I was referring to someone who subscribes to any religious theology, be it Christian or Muslim or Buddhist. I apologize if I used any of the terms incorrectly.

[Sidagma]

I was referring to someone who subscribes to any religious theology, be it Christian or Muslim or Buddhist. I apologize if I used any of the terms incorrectly.

Then you're making a horrendous overgeneralization based on your interactions with a handful of Christians. The problem you're speaking about is one that comes entirely from the privilege that Christians enjoy in American society It would be absurd for a member of a minority religion to demonstrate the same sense of entitlement that Christians do in thinking they're relevant to American lawmaking.

I think it would help to acknowledge that you being an atheist (right?) and them being a Christian does put a cultural gap between the two of you. You're both coming to the conversation with a different rulebook, as it were -- you have your values and they have theirs. Which means that you can handle it a number of ways!

You could argue theologically. You could use evidence from Christian texts and traditions to clarify the nature of Hell and who goes there.

You could make sure you're on the same page on the role of church and government. Assuming this person doesn't think that everything that some Christians believe will send you to hell should be illegal, for instance, you could use that to try to get them to agree that gay marriage should be legal.

You can educate them about the role of the state in American society, and about marriage within that state. You could point out that marriage was a private contract between two adults and their families, and not a state-backed institution, for most of American history. The state's involvement came after the Civil War, when it was used to prevent interracial marriage.

Of course, you could probably just ignore them and yell louder. This has the downside of not educating them at all, when potentially you could have had an opportunity to influence someone one-on-one. Sometimes, though, it isn't worth your time.

What's probably not worth your time, and fucking rude anyway, is to try to convert them out of their religion. That doesn't mean the two of you can't come to an agreement. It just means you're gonna do you, and they're gonna do them, and there is room in any discussion and any movement for people of most any religious tradition.

[Questionable]

Then you're making a horrendous overgeneralization based on your interactions with a handful of Christians.Please don't talk down to me like this. I've lived around Christians my entire life. My entire family and extended family are Christian, as are many of my friends. The region I live in is extremely religious. I encounter them every day and it's very common for me to become engaged in political debates with them. This accusation that I'm "overgeneralizing" based on a "handful" is rather rude to me. I encounter this attitude from Christians all the time.

I'm fully aware that there are going to be exceptions to the rule. Obviously a wealthy white man reads the bible differently than a poor inner-city black girl. But in my own experiences in my particular region, homophobia is the general attitude I've encountered in many Christians, even if some are less proclaimed than others.

[blake 3:17]

My mother is a conservative and her main volunteer work is head of her local church and the main thing she wanted to get done was have the local church adopt a pro-gay/lesbian marriage policy.

I know it's fucking Kanada but...

Edited to add: Not just Kanada, but Toronto, den of sin.

[Sidagma]

Please don't talk down to me like this. I've lived around Christians my entire life. My entire family and extended family are Christian, as are many of my friends. The region I live in is extremely religious. I encounter them every day and it's very common for me to become engaged in political debates with them. This accusation that I'm "overgeneralizing" based on a "handful" is rather rude to me. I encounter this attitude from Christians all the time.

I'm fully aware that there are going to be exceptions to the rule. Obviously a wealthy white man reads the bible differently than a poor inner-city black girl. But in my own experiences in my particular region, homophobia is the general attitude I've encountered in many Christians, even if some are less proclaimed than others.

Apologies; I should have said "a handful of Christian denominations". I wasn't trying to minimize your experience with Christianity, which I'm sure is extensive, or to dismiss the pervasiveness of this sort of malarkey in American politics with "but they're not all like that!!!1". Christianity is a diverse religion, especially on a worldwide scale, and I'm hesitant to put everyone under the same umbrella, especially when it comes to this specific American political tendency.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Because their entire argument depends upon the premise of the bible being God's word, it automatically does not apply to anyone who does not share that view.

You don't know many theologians, do you? Every theologian I hav had the pleasure to speak to has drummed up Duns Scotus or St. Aquinas, rather than bible thumping.

[homegrown terror]

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html

it's a long article, but has a very reasonable and useful set of guidelines for such debates. i'd suggest you read it, then ask any christian you frequently debate with to read it before they try to bible-thump you again

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What an obtuse article. Not all of us believe in some magical objective morality, nor do all of us hold puritanical bourgeois sexual mores. And not all of us care about the sacred intrinsic value of a bag of reactionary shit like Falwel. Focusing on the negative effects of religion is very easy; religious people do it for us.

[blake 3:17]

Terry Eagleton's book The God Debate is excellent. It tears the "New Atheists" to shit. He is writing as a Marxist, an atheist, and former Catholic.

One of the best and most basic points he makes is that people like Dawkins and Maher attack Christianity as it's stupidest. To engage in an honest debate, he says you gotta take your intellectual opponent at their best.

Apparently Hitchens claims that Martin Luther King wasn't really a Christian... WTF?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Bible thumpers have as much to do with Theologians as weird youtube Maoist Third Worldists have to do with Marxist theorists.

One can find a theologian's argument against gay marriage based fundamentally on idealist metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality, but it doesn't make them an ignoramus. However, your average Baptist preacher going on about the sinful lives of others deserves intellectual scorn.

Too many Leftists make the foolish error that anyone who disagrees or who is operating under different philosophical assumptions is not just wrong but wrong because they are an idiot.

[Klaatu]

I have done a bit of research into Biblical writings on homosexuality. Most of the scripture is based upon pure conjecture and dubious interpretation. For example, it may refer to "doing things to men" (bear in mind that "men" is a "politically incorrect" form of person) (e.g. fireMAN as opposed to fireFIGHTER)

Also, the Bible condemns MAN-BOY relationships (as it should) and promiscuous behavior (and if so, why not encourage gay marriage in the first place --- married people are less likely to be promiscuous --- at least in theory. That being said, The Bible does not explicitly prohibit gay marriage at all.

So if someone argues this on a religious premise, this is all the more reason to prohibit the government from proscribing gay marriage: according to the U.S. First Amendment, the government cannot endorse any specific religious view or opinion, simply because there exists a "wall of separation" between church and state. Church can have any opinion it chooses, but it should not be able to impose it's will upon those of different opinion.

[Philosophos]

most of the times theists are exactly as you describe them, but there are some of them that can challenge you. Start a conversation if you want and if you see that he goes for the "God said it so it's right" just ignore him. Otherwise enjoy turning down his arguments one by one and watch become an atheist.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Debating with theists is as useless as debating with people on this site that don't agree with you ideologically. ;)

[Crixus]

Would you have a debate with me, right now? The topic is:

Did Xenu REALLY show up billions of years ago and imprison alien souls into our bodies therefore necessitating we get audited every other day for a small charge of $119.99?The only people worth debating are agnostics.

[Brutus]

In my experience they are a stubborn as mules, but so am I.
Quite frankly, I would have better luck convincing a wall to move of its own accord.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

\

One can find a theologian's argument against gay marriage based fundamentally on idealist metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality, but it doesn't make them an ignoramus. However, your average Baptist preacher going on about the sinful lives of others deserves intellectual scorn.

\

So fancy language for what is practically the same crap = Less of an idiot?

Bugger off.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

So fancy language for what is practically the same crap = Less of an idiot?

It's not fancy language, it's two starkly different epistemological foundations.

[rylasasin]

Debating them? Yes it pretty much is a waste of time.

Trolling them? Yes, it is a waste of time.... but at least it's fun.

[Luís Henrique]

And not all of us care about the sacred intrinsic value of a bag of reactionary shit like Falwel.

There are three reasons however, besides any intrinsic value Falwell might or might not have, that atheists shouldn't celebrate his death.

One is that it invites retaliation and consequently demeans our own value, intrinsic or not. The second is that it makes us look like indecent jerks on the eyes of those we are trying to convince.

The third, and most important, is that it simply shows a deep layer of unabashed theism beneath the secular veneer of people doing that. Old stupid Falwell, he got what he deserved, was duely punished for being such an asshole... wait, punished by whom? By some mystical entity we atheists worship and pray to, demanding the death of our opponents?

Gee, I thought atheism was about not believing such entities?

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

One can find a theologian's argument against gay marriage based fundamentally on idealist metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality, but it doesn't make them an ignoramus.

It makes them ignorant or dishonest since they peddle an outdated, unscientific view of the world.


There are three reasons however, besides any intrinsic value Falwell might or might not have, that atheists shouldn't celebrate his death.

One is that it invites retaliation and consequently demeans our own value, intrinsic or not.

In case you have not noticed, people like Falwell, and those "moderate" Christians that dissociate themselves from his lunacy in public but applaud him in secret, have been persecuting atheists and others that do not fit into their mediaeval view of the world for quite some time.


The second is that it makes us look like indecent jerks on the eyes of those we are trying to convince.

If they think we're the indecent jerks, they need to seriously reconsider their attitude.


The third, and most important, is that it simply shows a deep layer of unabashed theism beneath the secular veneer of people doing that. Old stupid Falwell, he got what he deserved, was duely punished for being such an asshole... wait, punished by whom? By some mystical entity we atheists worship and pray to, demanding the death of our opponents?

There once lived an extremely ignorant, hateful, bigoted prick that propagated murderous ideas and harassed an extremely oppressed groups while the "moderates" cheered and defended his imagined rights. Now the prick is dead; he can no longer harass people nor can he propagate his venom. And the world is a better place without him. Ding, dong, Falwell's dead.

There is nothing, nothing in this standpoint that is religious in any sense.

[Luís Henrique]

In case you have not noticed, people like Falwell, and those "moderate" Christians that dissociate themselves from his lunacy in public but applaud him in secret, have been persecuting atheists and others that do not fit into their mediaeval view of the world for quite some time.

How exactly do you know what they do "in secret"? Do you have access to their "secret" meetings?

Yes, there has been persecution of atheists for a long time. It is basically over. What's your point?


If they think we're the indecent jerks, they need to seriously reconsider their attitude.

Well... believe me, most people will, yes, think "we" are the indecent jerks. You might wish to live in a different world, but this one is like that.


There once lived an extremely ignorant, hateful, bigoted prick that propagated murderous ideas and harassed an extremely oppressed groups while the "moderates" cheered and defended his imagined rights. Now the prick is dead; he can no longer harass people nor can he propagate his venom. And the world is a better place without him. Ding, dong, Falwell's dead.

So you really think it is an individual problem, do you?


There is nothing, nothing in this standpoint that is religious in any sense.

If you can't see how it is, I fear you are quite probably a closet theist.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How exactly do you know what they do "in secret"? Do you have access to their "secret" meetings?

Their explicit doctrine is at variance with their public condemnation of Falwell; if they fault him for anything it is that he says what they are all thinking out loud.


Yes, there has been persecution of atheists for a long time. It is basically over. What's your point?

It is "basically" over but not quite; my point was that atheists can not be blamed for the attacks by Christian cretins. What would you have us do, be extra nice to those wonderful people? Tie ourselves into knots in order to avoid offending them?


Well... believe me, most people will, yes, think "we" are the indecent jerks. You might wish to live in a different world, but this one is like that.

Good riddance to them, then.


So you really think it is an individual problem, do you?

This ridiculous argument could be used against nearly anything. "You are glad that the serial killer was caught? So you really think it is an individual problem, do you?" I am fascinated by people that are too revolutionary to acknowledge anything but the definite solution of discrimination by way of social revolution.

I mean, I suppose we shouldn't punish hate speech and hate crimes at all, no? It's not an individual problem.


If you can't see how it is, I fear you are quite probably a closet theist.

"If you can't see how my ridiculous claim that I have not argued for is true, you are a closet theist." Ridiculous.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Yes.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm actually pretty disapointed by this thread. I think the question posed in the subject, if not in the original post, is potentially very interesting. Unfortunately, most of what has been said speaks to the worst type of condescending, self-rightous, assurance that one knows the answers to the mysteries of the universe. Well, here's the kicker - you don't.

So, should one debate with the religious? Absolutely! But one needs to take some time to understand their language, and locate one's arguments within their ethico-political framework - which isn't nearly such a terrible thing as one might assume, given that countless emancipatroy and communistic projects have been undertaken within a "religious" (are all religions the same?) framework.

Read the Diggers. Read some liberation theology. Hell, read some of the queer theory coming out of the Student Christian Movement, etc., etc.

Instead of preaching atheism, given that you're about as likely to convert them as vice versa, listen to what they're saying, how they're saying, and articulate an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, antisexist, etc. in a way that acknowledges their beliefs. I mean, with Christians, it shouldn't be that damn hard - it's a religion that explicitly forbids usary (making money from money), and says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Homophobia in particular is an easy one to tear down, since, obviously, it's roots are social and homophobic rather than Christian. They're not running around demanding the legislation of eating meat on Fridays, coveting thy neighbours shit, etc., etc.

[Luís Henrique]

Their explicit doctrine is at variance with their public condemnation of Falwell; if they fault him for anything it is that he says what they are all thinking out loud.

What explicit doctrine? That of Maronite Catholics, or that of the Baha'i Faith?

Point: there is no "explicit doctrine". There are hundreds of different religions and sacred books, and thousands of different interpretations of each of those books.

Falwell's is, believe me, a marginal one.


It is "basically" over but not quite; my point was that atheists can not be blamed for the attacks by Christian cretins. What would you have us do, be extra nice to those wonderful people? Tie ourselves into knots in order to avoid offending them?

It would be a good idea, yes.

You can pitilessly torn their arguments into small pieces without insulting them personally. Politeness is one thing, and usually a good one; abstaining from saying what you think is a very different thing, and usually not a good one.


Good riddance to them, then.

This means "good riddance" to the overwhelming majority of mankind. And only rhetoric "riddance", indeed: it is much easier for them to get rid of us than for us to get rid of them.


This ridiculous argument could be used against nearly anything. "You are glad that the serial killer was caught? So you really think it is an individual problem, do you?"

I can of course be relieved by the fact that a serial killer is caught - even if 100% of his victims are religious arseholes - but this doesn't mean I should be "glad" that there are things like psychopaths and/or jails. So, no it is not an individual problem, which is the reason I starkly disagree with those who want to hang, behead, torture, lynch, etc., psychopaths.


I am fascinated by people that are too revolutionary to acknowledge anything but the definite solution of discrimination by way of social revolution.

I am pretty sure that there are lots of issues that do not require a social revolution to be solved. One of them, for starters, is maintaining proper attitudes when we debate those who disagree with us. On the other hand, I still do think a social revolution is absolutely necessary to solve some of the most important issues of our times - and I am decidedly not going to jeopardise the chances of such revolution just to have a petty go on people who disagree with me on unconsequential issues.


I mean, I suppose we shouldn't punish hate speech and hate crimes at all, no? It's not an individual problem.

Of course, we should. But this means actual punishment, after actual trial. Jerry Falwell dying of a heart attack is no punishment, unless I believe in God. Jerry Falwell dying of AIDS or cocaine overdose may expose his hipocrisy, and I myself would have some trouble avoiding outright laughter; but then there are other people who die of these causes who weren't morally repulsive preachers, so it again is not some kind of immanent justice.

On the other hand, having a law that forbids the desecration of of public funerary cerimonies, and enforcing it by jailing or fining people who do such kind of things - that would certainly be something deserving of my support.


"If you can't see how my ridiculous claim that I have not argued for is true, you are a closet theist." Ridiculous.

And, of course, though you don't realise it, you, deep down in your self, believe in the divine providence.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm actually pretty disapointed by this thread. I think the question posed in the subject, if not in the original post, is potentially very interesting. Unfortunately, most of what has been said speaks to the worst type of condescending, self-rightous, assurance that one knows the answers to the mysteries of the universe. Well, here's the kicker - you don't.

What "mysteries of the universe"? Are you proposing that there are some deep mysteries that hint at the possibility of the supernatural? But this is demonstrably false. Or is the claim that we "do not know the mysteries of the universe" equivalent to the fairly banal statements that we do not know everything? That does not mean that religious explanations are respectable.

Anyone that is at all familiar with modern science, that values consistency and opposes eclecticism, can do nothing but reject religion in all its forms and variations.


So, should one debate with the religious? Absolutely! But one needs to take some time to understand their language, and locate one's arguments within their ethico-political framework - which isn't nearly such a terrible thing as one might assume, given that countless emancipatroy and communistic projects have been undertaken within a "religious" (are all religions the same?) framework.

It's the same old refrain - we should be extra nice to Christians and twist and turn our words until they fit in their framework and we should give them extra leeway and pretend that Scholasticism is an entirely functional model of the world in the twenty and first bloody century after the alleged death of their founder.


Read the Diggers. Read some liberation theology. Hell, read some of the queer theory coming out of the Student Christian Movement, etc., etc.

Maybe when they start being relevant.


Instead of preaching atheism, given that you're about as likely to convert them as vice versa, listen to what they're saying, how they're saying, and articulate an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, antisexist, etc. in a way that acknowledges their beliefs. I mean, with Christians, it should be that damn hard - it's a religion that explicitly forbids usary (making money from money), and says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Homophobia in particular is an easy one to tear down, since, obviously, it's roots are social and homophobic rather than Christian. They're not running around demanding the legislation of eating meat on Fridays, coveting thy neighbours shit, etc., etc.

The roots of homophobia are homophobic? What does that even mean? Religious ideology plays a crucial role in legitimating homophobia, and so on, and should be fought and smashed, not given special dispensation because... I don't even know why.


What explicit doctrine? That of Maronite Catholics, or that of the Baha'i Faith?

Yes.


Point: there is no "explicit doctrine". There are hundreds of different religions and sacred books, and thousands of different interpretations of each of those books.

And the official, explicit doctrine of all Christian sects is homophobic.


It would be a good idea, yes.

You can pitilessly torn their arguments into small pieces without insulting them personally. Politeness is one thing, and usually a good one; abstaining from saying what you think is a very different thing, and usually not a good one.

I see no special reason to be polite to Christians, any more than I am polite to fascists or liberals.


This means "good riddance" to the overwhelming majority of mankind. And only rhetoric "riddance", indeed: it is much easier for them to get rid of us than for us to get rid of them.

"The overwhelming majority" is unimportant. The proletariat is, of course, extremely important, but the formation of a Marxist labour movement requires the instilling of an iron, unbreakable scientific atheism in the proletariat, and that can no be achieved by treating religion in gloves.


I can of course be relieved by the fact that a serial killer is caught - even if 100% of his victims are religious arseholes - but this doesn't mean I should be "glad" that there are things like psychopaths and/or jails.

Nor I am glad that people like Falwell exist. But his death removes him from the public sphere and stops his harassment and homophobic propaganda.


Of course, we should. But this means actual punishment, after actual trial. Jerry Falwell dying of a heart attack is no punishment, unless I believe in God. Jerry Falwell dying of AIDS or cocaine overdose may expose his hipocrisy, and I myself would have some trouble avoiding outright laughter; but then there are other people who die of these causes who weren't morally repulsive preachers, so it again is not some kind of immanent justice.

Who said anything about punishment? Who said anything about justice?


And, of course, though you don't realise it, you, deep down in your self, believe in the divine providence.

You should stop making uneducated guesses about other people; you're terrible at it.

[Luís Henrique]

What "mysteries of the universe"? Are you proposing that there are some deep mysteries that hint at the possibility of the supernatural? But this is demonstrably false.

It is logically contradictory, of course - if something "supernatural" exists, then it is not supernatural, it is just natural.

But what exists, and what does not, this remains of course a matter of deep controversy. How much time until "dark matter" follows "aether" and "phlogiston" into the realm of the ideas that looked good at the time, but...?


Or is the claim that we "do not know the mysteries of the universe" equivalent to the fairly banal statements that we do not know everything? That does not mean that religious explanations are respectable.Religious explanations are logically flawed, as they merely displace the problem. But "respectable" is a moral adjective, that shouldn't have place here. To the extent that people earnestly and honestly believe in them, they are "respectable"...


Anyone that is at all familiar with modern science, that values consistency and opposes eclecticism, can do nothing but reject religion in all its forms and variations.Which is a very small part of mankind.

And even then it seems false; there are plenty of religious scientists. Of course they will reject the most obviously mythological religious narratives, but that's a very different issue.


It's the same old refrain - we should be extra nice to Christians and twist and turn our words until they fit in their framework and we should give them extra leeway and pretend that Scholasticism is an entirely functional model of the world in the twenty and first bloody century after the alleged death of their founder.Is anyone proposing that?


The roots of homophobia are homophobic? What does that even mean? Religious ideology plays a crucial role in legitimating homophobia, and so on, and should be fought and smashed, not given special dispensation because... I don't even know why.Well, no. It is perfectly possible to be homophobic without being religious, and perfectly possible to be religious without being homophobic. True, most religions have historically been homophobic - but then so have been most attempts to negate religion.

But I agree, religion should be fought and smashed. How do you propose doing such? By leading on a pretence struggle, in which we only irritate the enemy with slogans and bullshit, but do not cut into their ideological "supply lines"?

Common, if it is a war that you want, you must provide us some strategy. Either that, or you are just talking bullshit.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And the official, explicit doctrine of all Christian sects is homophobic.

Until it is reformed, as it has been so many times, and it ceases to be.


I see no special reason to be polite to Christians, any more than I am polite to fascists or liberals.

And? Are you really trying to tell us that politeness or lack thereof are political stances?


"The overwhelming majority" is unimportant. The proletariat is, of course, extremely important, but the formation of a Marxist labour movement requires the instilling of an iron, unbreakable scientific atheism in the proletariat, and that can no be achieved by treating religion in gloves.


Ah, so the Marxist doctrine isn't a tool for the liberaton of people... rather people are tools for the success of the Marxist doctrine.

Good luck with instilling an unbreakable scientific atheism in the proletariat...


Nor I am glad that people like Falwell exist. But his death removes him from the public sphere and stops his harassment and homophobic propaganda.

His death does nothing, because he isn't an isolated individual. Others are going to carry on his line.


Who said anything about punishment? Who said anything about justice?

You, perhaps:

"I mean, I suppose we shouldn't punish hate speech and hate crimes at all, no? It's not an individual problem."


You should stop making uneducated guesses about other people; you're terrible at it.

It seems I have hit a nerve...

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It is logically contradictory, of course - if something "supernatural" exists, then it is not supernatural, it is just natural.

In fact there is no logical contradiction in the claim that the supernatural exists (unless you think that "natural" is a synonym for "existing", which would make "natural" an empty term). But such claims are severely unsupported.


But what exists, and what does not, this remains of course a matter of deep controversy. How much time until "dark matter" follows "aether" and "phlogiston" into the realm of the ideas that looked good at the time, but...?

But what? Anyone that ridicules historical aether or phlogiston theories has failed to place these ideas in their proper historical context. And what does any of this have to do with the lord God? Do you think that He will somehow become part of serious scientific explanation?


Religious explanations are logically flawed, as they merely displace the problem. But "respectable" is a moral adjective, that shouldn't have place here. To the extent that people earnestly and honestly believe in them, they are "respectable"...

Someone might honestly believe in the Ptolemaic cosmology, but that does not make it a respectable explanation in the scientific community.


Which is a very small part of mankind.

It will be larger when people stop being afraid of telling the entire scientific truth and propagandising for a consistently scientific mode of analysis.


And even then it seems false; there are plenty of religious scientists.

Who are eclectics.


Is anyone proposing that?

You seem to be.


Well, no. It is perfectly possible to be homophobic without being religious, and perfectly possible to be religious without being homophobic.

How is that relevant? Do you really want to deny that religious ideology is an important source of homophobic norms in the present society?


But I agree, religion should be fought and smashed. How do you propose doing such?

By tirelessly carrying out scientific propaganda and education in the ranks of the proletariat, by exposing the lies and the murderous acts of the religious, by agitating for the expropriation of the prelates and of the religious organisations and so on and so on.


Until it is reformed, as it has been so many times, and it ceases to be.

And in the mean time, we should all just be extra nice for the Christian fascists that agitate for the deaths of everyone that is not a heterosexual?


And? Are you really trying to tell us that politeness or lack thereof are political stances?

In a sense.


Ah, so the Marxist doctrine isn't a tool for the liberaton of people... rather people are tools for the success of the Marxist doctrine.

Marxist doctrine is a powerful tool of social analysis; the Marxist socialist movement aims to liberate the proletariat, not some supra-class "people", and to do that, the proletariat needs to have a firm grounding in Marxist theory.


His death does nothing, because he isn't an isolated individual. Others are going to carry on his line.

There will be a period of respite for his potential victims.


You, perhaps:

"I mean, I suppose we shouldn't punish hate speech and hate crimes at all, no? It's not an individual problem."

You're missing the point. I mentioned the punishment of hate speech, not as an example of divine justice according to the most refined bourgeois theories of morality, but as an example of something that alleviates oppression in the short term.


It seems I have hit a nerve...

No, I just find "fellow travelers" of religious backwardness to be irritating.

[Luís Henrique]

Who are eclectics.

So? Because no true Scotsman is ecletic?


You seem to be.Well, I am not. Indeed, how could I, considering that I believe Scholasticism is a late mediaeval philosophical school?


How is that relevant? Do you really want to deny that religious ideology is an important source of homophobic norms in the present society?Of course I deny that. Religion is a mere reflex of much deeper issues, not by any means the cause of homophobia, but merely as much as a consequence of the same causes of homophobia.


By tirelessly carrying out scientific propaganda and education in the ranks of the proletariat, by exposing the lies and the murderous acts of the religious, by agitating for the expropriation of the prelates and of the religious organisations and so on and so on.How idealist!

How about actually following Marxist doctrine, and working to put an end to the material conditions from which religion springs?

Seriously, what kind of "scientific propaganda and education in the ranks of the proletariat" is going to destroy deepseathed bourgeois conceptions of life and society? Who is going to do such "SPaEitRotP", pray tell? What is this ad hoc social force that detains the secret keys to revolutionary action?


And in the mean time, we should all just be extra nice for the Christian fascists that agitate for the deaths of everyone that is not a heterosexual?Er, exactly. That's literally what I said. Not only that, we should of course kill ourselves as soon as possible in order to be even more nice to "Christian fascists" who "agitate" for the deaths of everyone who is not heterosexual, male, White, Anglo-saxon and Protestant.


In a sense.And in what sence, pray tell?


Marxist doctrine is a powerful tool of social analysis; the Marxist socialist movement aims to liberate the proletariat, not some supra-class "people", and to do that, the proletariat needs to have a firm grounding in Marxist theory.Well, we must have been reading some different Marxes. The one I read certainly doesn't believe any such absurds. Liberation of the proletariat is the liberation of mankind, and this is the reason that the proletarian movement is progressive. It is not about the Hegelian realisation of an abstract idea, at the expense of real people (which is an evidently crypto-theist position). And nowhere Marx says that the proletariat has to have a firm grounding in Marxist theory - on the contrary, it is the Marxists who need to have a firm grounding in the proletarian practice.


There will be a period of respite for his potential victims.Let's not fool ourselves.


You're missing the point. I mentioned the punishment of hate speech, not as an example of divine justice according to the most refined bourgeois theories of morality, but as an example of something that alleviates oppression in the short term.So? It is still on the same ground for you: if we aren't rejoicing on Falwell's death, it must mean that we are against punishment for hate speech. Which only makes sence if for you Falwell's death was some kind of punishment.


No, I just find "fellow travelers" of religious backwardness to be irritating.The backwardness of fellow travelers who adhere to bourgeois transcedentalist views of History is by no means less irritating, in my opinion. Should I call a jihad against you, or is it better to suffer your company until the historical conditions of struggle duely put your positions into the dustbin of failed bourgeois theories?

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So? Because no true Scotsman is ecletic?


Because eclecticism, particularly eclecticism that aims to protect certain emotionally appealing positions from scientific scrutiny, is not a consistent standpoint, and can not provide a firm basis for praxis. The allusion to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is based on your imagination and nothing else; I did not claim that religious scientists are not scientists. But their religious ideas are opposed to the scientific model of the world.


Well, I am not. Indeed, how could I, considering that I believe Scholasticism is a late mediaeval philosophical school?

Yet you want us to "situate" our argument "in the framework of Christianity" (paraphrasing), as if the content of the modern scientific standpoint is not in contradiction with the form of mediaeval scholasticism.


Of course I deny that. Religion is a mere reflex of much deeper issues, not by any means the cause of homophobia, but merely as much as a consequence of the same causes of homophobia.

Again, I never said that religion is "the cause" of homophobia; though it should be fairly clear that religion is often a cause of homophobia. And yes, homophobia is part of the ideology of the reactionary bourgeoisie and is sustained by the present economic order. Attacking the superstructure without attacking the base is pointless in the long run; but waiting for the revolution to change the base and ignoring the task of weakening the superstructure is a direct betrayal of oppressed groups.

You might as well have said that Galtonian eugenics are not "the cause" of racism, so really, there is no point in fighting them.


How about actually following Marxist doctrine, and working to put an end to the material conditions from which religion springs?

The special economic position enjoyed by the religious institutions and the prelates is one of those material conditions.


Seriously, what kind of "scientific propaganda and education in the ranks of the proletariat" is going to destroy deepseathed bourgeois conceptions of life and society? Who is going to do such "SPaEitRotP", pray tell? What is this ad hoc social force that detains the secret keys to revolutionary action?

The same sort of SPAEITROTP that was prominent in the First and the Second International, and in the Third for a time.


Er, exactly. That's literally what I said. Not only that, we should of course kill ourselves as soon as possible in order to be even more nice to "Christian fascists" who "agitate" for the deaths of everyone who is not heterosexual, male, White, Anglo-saxon and Protestant.

That is the entire gist of your posts here.


And in what sence, pray tell?

That politeness toward opposing political groups serves no revolutionary purpose.


Well, we must have been reading some different Marxes. The one I read certainly doesn't believe any such absurds. Liberation of the proletariat is the liberation of mankind, and this is the reason that the proletarian movement is progressive. It is not about the Hegelian realisation of an abstract idea, at the expense of real people (which is an evidently crypto-theist position). And nowhere Marx says that the proletariat has to have a firm grounding in Marxist theory - on the contrary, it is the Marxists who need to have a firm grounding in the proletarian practice.

The liberation of the proletariat is not the "realisation of... an idea" but the destruction of certain material conditions that, at present, hold back the proletariat and certain other oppressed groups. "Mankind", if it is meant to denote some social (and not biological) supra-class reality, is an anti-Marxist term.


Let's not fool ourselves.

It's not as if the activities of the WBC subsided for a while, no? No, wait, they did.


So? It is still on the same ground for you: if we aren't rejoicing on Falwell's death, it must mean that we are against punishment for hate speech. Which only makes sence if for you Falwell's death was some kind of punishment.

Or if I think that it shares some relevant characteristic with punishment - in this case, that it led to a temporary abatement in homophobic propaganda and harassment. It should be clear to anyone that is familiar with my posts here that I do not fetishise "justice", "punishment" and so on.


The backwardness of fellow travelers who adhere to bourgeois transcedentalist views of History are by no means less irritating, in my opinion. Should I call a jihad against you, or is it better to suffer your company until the historical conditions of struggle duely put your positions into the dustbin of failed bourgeois theories?

We are far from being in each other's company, comrade.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Given the necessary tasks in the sphere of popular education, and organization, anyone who spends their time picking arguments about whether "the big bang" or "god" created the universe needs to seriously reexamine their priorities. Anyone who reads Marx and concludes that they need to convince people of "science" in order to explain the dynamics of capital has made of woefully inept reading (not to mention that, in context, the appeal to the authority of science is little better than appealing to the authority of god).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Given the necessary tasks in the sphere of popular education, and organization, anyone who spends their time picking arguments about whether "the big bang" or "god" created the universe needs to seriously reexamine their priorities.

First of all, "the Big Bang" did not "create" the universe, though many woefully inadequate popular "science" works claim otherwise. The Big Bang was a period of expansion, a process in the early universe. Whether anything preceded this process is an open question (though we can state with some certainty that the good Christian lord God and his angels are out of the question).

Second, there is no need to "pick arguments"; the evidence for the standard cosmological model is hardly scarce.


Anyone who reads Marx and concludes that they need to convince people of "science" in order to explain the dynamics of capital has made of woefully inept reading

Including, apparently, Marx himself, Engels and Lenin, who consistently fought idealist distortions of science and religious attacks on science.

Marxist analysis is science - and it is not exactly an easy science to understand. Someone that is not convinced of the necessity of a thoroughly scientific and materialist worldview will find the various idealist and quasi-idealist "theories" about capitalism, such as the wildly popular "the evil Jews bankers are at fault", much easier to accept.


(not to mention that, in context, the appeal to the authority of science is little better than appealing to the authority of god).

As it happens, theories selected by the scientific method are demonstrably useful when engaging the world, so science is highly relevant. And until the Holy Spirit can be used to help me light a fag in the British sense, as a scientific understanding of fire can, instead of simply motivating people to kill "fags" in the American sense, there can be no equivalence between these two sorts of explanation.

[Raúl Duke]

It depends on what you're arguing. And what their position and arguments on the issue is.

I remember my first debate in a class about making speeches/debating/communication.

We had the subject of gay marriage.

One can tackle it many ways, sure.

But I choose to tackle the issue in the legalistic sense. Here, it's the best angle to make a case against homophobic Christians in this country who argue against gay marriage. By referring the the constitution and so on, I argued that while they may believe whatever they want to believe but in this country you can't make a law that holds a religious interpretation above other religions as its basis.

They stayed quiet.

However, from what you're saying, for the most part debating with them is pointless and annoying. At best, you can get them to recognize and "respect" your argument (as in my case, somewhat, at least their silence seemed to point towards an implicit realization that my case is rather solid) but that doesn't mean they will be ok with it.

Of course, we're talking about debating in issues in which religion engenders an opposing opinion. It's not so likely, but not impossible, for them to change their position unless their worldview and perhaps even their religious beliefs are also challenged more or less directly. Thus it is more or less pointless, unless you also put into question the religious or ethical underpinnings of those opinions as well in some cases.


(not to mention that, in context, the appeal to the authority of science is little better than appealing to the authority of god):rolleyes:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course it is pointless. Delusional systems are circular --there is no way in. You can point out how ridiculous the beliefs are -- but senseless faith is just that. There is no reconciling any kind of theism with a materialist view of the universe -- The end.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A match will help you light a smoke. A particular articulation of why a match works won't get you anywhere.

I love the perverse irony of "materialists" who consistently imagine narratives and ideologies not only precede but ultimately determine material relationships.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's not fancy language, it's two starkly different epistemological foundations.

No, it's believing in what isn't there. There's no fucking difference, you prance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A match will help you light a smoke. A particular articulation of why a match works won't get you anywhere.

It will allow you to make matches; it will also allow you to make more effective matches and to improvise when you don't have matches. Can the Holy Ghost do that?


I love the perverse irony of "materialists" who consistently imagine narratives and ideologies not only precede but ultimately determine material relationships.

Who has claimed that they do? The only thing that is "perverse" here - I usually avoid the term, but the religious definitely embrace it and all of its implications - is this ultra-left notion that the only consistent materialism is their sort of mechanicist epiphenomenalism where ideology is simply some qualia-stuff that floats above the material world, and not part of the superstructure.

Of course, the ultra-lefts imagine that we should attack the base (usually at some indeterminate point in the future when the workers spontaneously decide to do so) without engaging the superstructure in order to weaken bourgeois ideological hegemony; so it really isn't surprising that you aren't concerned about the concrete impact of religion on oppressed groups.

Also, it is highly amusing to see someone that apparently thinks science is on the same level as "god" as far as explanations go accusing people of not being materialist enough.

[Willin']

Pretty much its pointless,so its better to just let it slip away.

[Vanilla]

Debating with Christian fundies can be pointless as they are absolutely dead set in their ways, although debating with your average Christian who is only religious on Sundays can sometimes be fruitful (in my own experience). As long as you aren't one of those new atheist douchebags that treat all theists as braindead morons, I've noticed that the person you are debating actually will listen to you.

To be fair, I've never actually debated someone other than a Christian on an issue that can be related to religion, so I have no idea if debating Muslims, Jews, etc is pointless or not.

[one10]

I've never gotten through to a single theists with whom I've debated/argued with.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I've never gotten through to a single theists with whom I've debated/argued with.

Yeah, but what were you arguing about? I've heard committed Christians say that the police are armed thugs of the bourgeoisie, that private ownership of property is inherently unjust, that the immediate task of Christians ought to be the destruction of capitalism and its states. Hell, beyond discussion, I've goddamn blockaded things with Christians. Probably what you were debating/arguing about was pretty damn irrelevant.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, but what were you arguing about? I've heard committed Christians say that the police are armed thugs of the bourgeoisie, that private ownership of property is inherently unjust, that the immediate task of Christians ought to be the destruction of capitalism and its states. Hell, beyond discussion, I've goddamn blockaded things with Christians. Probably what you were debating/arguing about was pretty damn irrelevant.

Of course. A consistent, materialist revolutionary theory, ideological hegemony leading to a cultural revolution after the social one, protection of women and sexual minorities, this is all "pretty damn irrelevant".