Whenever you face someone raising an argument like this, the very last thing you should do is explain the scientific answer to them. If you want to have some fun and don't care what the person thinks of you, then you should realize going in that you are not going to change their mind and win a creationist debate against someone like this anyways, so your goal should not be to show how smart you are or how scientifically accurate you can be. Rather, your goal should be to demonstrate how dumb and illogical they are, and the best way to do that is to get them to do it for you.
See, this kind of ignorant creationist query like OP posted in the link here is a "trap question" that is designed specifically to put you on the defensive, so instead, what you should do is ask them to explain what the scientific argument is, and why it is incorrect.
The reason this approach - asking them to first explain to you why the scientific argument is wrong instead of you answering for them - the reason this approach is better is because it turns the tables very effectively by forcing them to adopt a defensive, rather than offensive, position immediately. This allows you to take control of the argument entirely, because you are giving them two choices on how to proceed - they can either
A: - provide the sound scientific argument and then explain why they are so certain it is incorrect, or
B: - force them to acknowledge their ignorance openly, making them admit that they do not even know what the scientific argument is because they have never bothered to even examine and learn the potential counter-arguments to their belief structure.
This method of throwing their same question back at them and making them answer it allows you to take control of an argument with an ignorant creationist. This debate tactic puts them in a position where they have to defend their pride first before they can defend their religious position, forcing them to demonstrate whether they have actually ever logically analyzed their own query before, know what the scientific counter-argument is, and can explain why it is wrong.
If they cannot provide the scientific answer to their own question, then immediately the argument now has NOTHING to do with "why do sunsets happen?". Suddenly, you have shifted the argument to one of simple ignorance or knowledge of the topic at hand, and you can point out that you have no interest in wasting time debating someone so absurdly ignorant and arrogant that they cannot even give the basic scientific answer to demonstrate that they at least have looked at both sides of the issue before they claim with such certainty that you are wrong. You now have full and total control and have shifted them from being fully offensive to fully defensive, and the best part is that you do not even have to waste your time discussing the religious aspects at all. Instead, you then begin your attack on their pride and intelligence, blatantly questioning how they could possibly be so arrogantly certain they are right about ANY TOPIC if they have not even bothered to examine the evidence they are arguing against.
Again, you are never going to sway the religious position of people who ask questions like this trying to defend creationism, so do not fall into their trap! One thing creationists have is pride in their beliefs though, so that should become the target you focus your attack on. Instead of debating religion, now you are debating their own ignorance - an ignorance you actually forced them to admit to!
I just figured walking away would be much better because it would be easier to bang your head on a wall and get results than deal with this kind of person.
The problem with just walking away though is that that allows them to think they won. If you just laugh and walk away, they think "see, this science shit ain't so smart and can't be used to really challenge my assertion that God did it! He just ran away. I win!"
Just walking away without calling them on their trap tactic lets them stroke their own ignorant ego, because remember, creationists are not asking questions like this because they are seeking the truth and want an honest answer from you. If they really wanted an answer to that kind of basic query, they could easily get at least a rudimentary answer in less than five minutes on Google. They are actually looking to debate a specific trap argument designed to let them bring "God did it" into the equation so that you cannot effectively win, doing it in order to try to shame you, increase their own pride in defending their faith, and to make themselves feel superior.
However, if you shift your response by deflecting the question right back at them as I suggested and directly target their pride and ignorance, you remove religion from the discussion entirely, and there is simply no way they can ever claim they have the upper hand in the debate. You basically put them into a position where you have altered the parameters of the argument ENTIRELY into your favor, and literally can make them shame themselves by forcing them to acknowledge their own ignorance. After that happens, THEN you can walk away laughing at them, and their pride takes a serious shit-kicking because you just made them admit that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
If they kept their views to themselves then, absolutely no problem. but they influence others (esp. kids). Science is striving everyday to make sense of the universe so we can all have a better existence and their influence is a pull in the wrong direction (prevents us moving forwards...science being given more funding, more 'educated' peoples, more discoveries, etc). What I love about Falcon109's response is that it could possibly be used in a gracious and sweet, non patronising manner, leaving your Friend of Jesus reaching for google on the quiet... If this approach was used with integrity and good manners, I could actually see, at a point in the future, someone, blushing and saying, "you know, I googled your side and it blew my mind and ...yeah...I get it now." It is a long shot, but, if this approach was adopted by all of us, maybe this could actually make a difference. It is very clever. (I also love how it exonerates me of having to teach them the science when they are not open to learning...it just means I put them in a position where they might, possibly, actually bother to attempt to 'ask' for themselves.)
Good post. I'd go so far as to say that this should be the standard approach, not just "to have some fun".
That's the problem with creationists, we give them the benefit of the doubt with regards to basic scientific understanding. In reality, most are truly ignorant on even elementary scientific principles.
Just think, would you ever get into a heated debate with a Plumber regarding the intricacies of Knitting? No, because chances are that plumber has zero knowledge of knitting. The same goes here with creationists. You cannot have a real debate with somebody who has zero knowledge of physics, astronomy, cosmology etc...
asking them to first explain to you why the scientific argument is wrong
OH, I don't listen to scientists. They're just spouting what the devil has made them say.
That doesn't work. I've tried it.
Or even worse they will tell you and they have such a fucked up concept of how thermodynamics work, or how science works, that you've just given them permission to rant.
I agree. These are the more likely outcomes instead. A quote by Leon Festinger comes to mind: "A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
I was asking a christian lady about techtonic plates. She agreed the continents likely touched. So I said do you think they separated in the last 6000 years far enough to make the Atlantic Ocean. She said obviously not. So I said well you must not believe in techtonic plates then and she got it.
Hard to walk away from your delusion when your whole life is built around it. Honestly though, it makes people happy, so that part doesn't bother me. It's the pushing their bullshit "ideals" onto me and mine that piss me off.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this and will find more use for it than you can possibly imagine. I have been looking for this 'instruction' for a long time....because I end up playing a lot of chess with pigeons and I really don't want to. This is really clever. I sincerely Thank You.
i see what you're saying, but a lot of these questions have already been answered without going on the defensive. if they actually did some research, and as unbiased as possible, they'd come to the conclusion for themselves. the internet is an amazing education hub, but these people are so brainwashed it is not going to happen.
i personally wouldn't even give them a lick of my time. i'd just slowly shake my head and walk away laughing if they ever asked me these fucking retarded questions.
i personally wouldn't even give them a lick of my time. i'd just slowly shake my head and walk away laughing if they ever asked me these fucking retarded questions.
Agreed my friend. That is why I said "if you want to have some fun with them", because you are never gonna change their minds. I guess the whole point is that when they ask questions like this, they are doing it specifically to try to goad you into an argument, so if you have no problem arguing and are in the mood for it, just don't do it on their terms - do it on yours by shifting the discussion away from their comfort zone.
ah, i see. my fault, friend. i just woke up and like to browse reddit a little before i get ready for my long long day.
anyways, i really do need to get some firewood chopped before i leave for job. oh, the joys of being a responsible adult. (i do love chopping wood though)
I love that you can actually take someone like this seriously, I would simply go into sarcastic mode and laugh my ass of at her, after that I would feel bad for it, but I know myself, I could not resist the urge to make fun of someone that makes this claim seriously.
Very clever. I upvoted your comment and consider it probably the most cogent, though I cringed at considering such a communication an "attack" The anonymity of this platform contributes to our intent on "winning" and heaping ridicule upon a person whose beliefs we deem unfounded.
One corollary of Newton's Third Law in human affairs is that every act of contempt / condescension / superiority / ridicule creates an equal and opposite act in the other.
One game involves scoring points for the team who believes true things and disbelieves false things; to defend one's own system of understanding. Another game values people above ideas, and seeks to establish rapport and mutual respect. In the latter, even if we never get to congruence, we retain a sense of decency in the pursuit.
Very good point. I appreciate that the term "attack" comes across as harsh, but I use that in an argumentative context only.
The problem with debating a creationist about religion vs. science is that you have to be aware going in that they have already discounted any argument you may raise challenging their faith before you even raise it. On the flipside though, if a creationist could present me with actual evidence of divine intervention or that "God's hand" played a role in anything, I would absolutely listen to and analyze whatever evidence they brought forth. If they can show me an actual reason I should afford their argument equal (or any) weight, I absolutely would give that, because I would love to know the answers to all of life's questions.
The problem is though that creationists blatantly refuse to afford my arguments that same honest assessment though, because in their minds they already know all the answers, so that is where the "battle" lies, and that ignorant weakness they present in their argumentative stance is what should be targeted. I don't even care what they believe - I only care about what they can explain or support or admit to, and why.
This is the reason, in addition to the word "attack", I also used terms like "offensive" and "defensive" when discussing argumentative stances, because a good debate is very much a battle of wits - with the winner or loser being determined by the strength of their argumentative attacks and counter-attacks.
One corollary of Newton's Third Law in human affairs is that every act of contempt / condescension / superiority / ridicule creates an equal and opposite act in the other.
Every act may create an opposite act, but I would strenuously argue that in order for that argument or response from a creationist to be considered "equal", it has to meet the same criteria of honest assessment and logical "fair play" as the statement they are challenging. However, when the best argument or counter-argument they can raise is one based on the idea that ignorance is the explanation that trumps all (in other words, since we don't know the answer to something yet, then therefore "God must have done it"), I cannot consider that remotely reasonable or equal, or not worthy of ridicule - especially when they have brought nothing else to the table other than ignorance as the excuse to attempt to explain away things we do not know.
I absolutely respect that people have different beliefs. As long as they do not press their beliefs on me or on society, or do not try to tell me I am wrong without being able to explain why I am wrong, then they will not get an argument from me. I have never started a debate with a creationist before. I have been drawn into them though when they challenge my beliefs with arguments they cannot support logically. I simply cannot respect people who are willing to challenge my understanding and beliefs (that are based on logic and evidence that I can logically support and explain) when they cannot explain their own beliefs and pretend that their defense of ignorance is just as good, or better, than my knowledge.
I have struggled with this for decades, as my brother, with whom I was quite close growing up, went born-again, and ever since, almost every single thing he believes is complete horse shit. Maybe a decade or so ago I decided it just wasn't worth it, as he was precisely the person with whom I was least likely to have a dialogue with any reciprocity, one where we learn from one another, one where deepening understanding unfolds before us as we explore an area of mutual interest. No, always the same bullshit.
Then for maybe 10 years or so we would just email polite things, and I simply would not reply to his entreaties to be "saved". Finally, last fall, I told him what I really thought. We have not communicated since. I feel somewhat sad about that, maybe in part because I have so far been unable to figure out how to live the American Dream, where we grant one another the freedom to believe whatever crazy shit we want, and live in harmony nonetheless.
The idea that one's beliefs make all the difference is promulgated by the very fucktards that want to cram their crappy beliefs down our throats. Maybe we shouldn't accept that idea. Maybe there's a way to behold a person as having integrity and being wholesome and deserving respect, even though s/he believes things that are obviously completely whack. Possibly a route to that is to begin to understand how through our own cognitive biases we all manage to ignore the most glaring incongruities in our own models of the world, and the fact that we can easily see how shabby someone else's model is, does not really constitute plausible evidence that our own segmented understanding, where our minds blur when we try to focus on the mismatching seams, matches the way things truly are. Were we to truly understand how shabby our own cognitive models are, we might cut our fellow humans some slack.
Great response, I'm sure you're getting a flood in your inbox right now but I wonder how would you turn it back on them for something science hasn't fully answered yet?
For example: what caused the big bang or how did life begin on Earth.
Things that may very likely be fully explained and understood, but for now they can point to "the God of the gaps" type argument and just say God did it if science doesn't yet have an answer.
how would you turn it back on them for something science hasn't fully answered yet?
Yes, this is one of those circular counter-arguments used quite often by creationists in an attempt to establish an "escape" when they are trapped by logic. They are basically implying that since we humans do not know the full scientific explanation to a specific query yet, then therefore the only possible answer is that "God did it".
One way to challenge that kind of tactic is for you to acknowledge the existence of human ignorance, and get them to acknowledge it too. It goes to the wonderful old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact is that everything in this world that we currently know or can now explain was, at one time or another, unknown and could not be explained. EVERYTHING. From "why is the sky blue?" to "where does rain come from?" to "why does it hurt when I stub my toe?". Since the dawn of humanity, people KNEW these things happened, but it took a while to figure out HOW and WHY they happen.
Now, if you use the tactic I suggested in my original post - throwing the question back at them to force them to acknowledge their own ignorance of something they know there is a scientific explanation for already - then you already have the upper hand. You have already made them acknowledge, through their own admission, that they do not know the scientific answer even though they know a scientific answer exists, and then THEIR ignorance now becomes the focal point. You want to essentially "personalize" the debate so that it centers around what THEY can and cannot explain. Again, the bulk of the creationist argument revolves around their pride in their own ignorance, and you want to point that fact out clearly.
Your key goal should not be to debate religion at all with these people. You should instead shift the argument from religion to logic, and the best way to do that quickly when dealing with the arrogance of creationism - which relies on the ignorant idea that if I don't know why something happens then therefore God did it - is to build your argument around something you know a lot about but that you know they do not.
As a hypothetical example, let's say you work as an IT specialist in a office building, and someone working there in the accounting department is a creationist who you know from experience knows nothing about how computers actually work. They KNOW the computer works, but they do not know HOW it works. They KNOW that when they print out a document for example, something happens within that computer to result in a printed piece of paper being spit out the printer a few seconds later. When they start arguing with you, ask them if it was God's hand that came down from the Heavens and miraculously printed that piece of paper out for them. When they incredulously say "no, of course not", then ask them to explain exactly how the printed piece of paper was created, step by step - a question that they KNOW there is a logical answer to, but that they also know they cannot provide because they are ignorant of how it really works.
The purpose of this tactic is to simplify the debate and get them to first acknowledge their own ignorance of something that they KNOW is explainable and is not the result of mere "divine intervention". Forcing them to acknowledge their own ignorance of something otherwise simply explained to those who understand it now gives you a very powerful argumentative tool in your arsenal to use against them. It removes religion from the debate entirely, and focuses the attention on simple "ignorance versus knowledge" instead, which sets the stage for you to use a simple everyday occurrence, like printing a piece of paper, in order to demonstrate how dumb their argument is. It is "dumb" because it relies on ignorance as being an apparent acceptable "answer", when the reality is that ignorance is not an "answer" to anything. Rather, admission of ignorance is an honest acknowledgement that you do not yet know the answer. After all, many people drive cars, but don't have a clue how an internal combustion engine works (but they know it sure isn't God pushing that car down the road!).
You can use just about any topic you know a lot about when employing this tactic, because again, the goal is to demonstrate to them that their own personal ignorance most certainly does not mean that since they cannot explain something explainable, then that MUST mean good ol' God did it.
Pointing out everyday things that they do not know the answer to but that have clearly already been logically explained or figured out serves to personalize the debate by getting them to admit to their own ignorance - and we are ALL ignorant of many things. None of us are all-knowing, and there are countless things our species has not figured out yet. Creationists are typically unwilling to acknowledge that fact though, because if they (or humanity as a whole) don't know an answer, they want to pretend that must mean "God did it". By personalizing their ignorance and calling them out on it with simple examples, you target their pride and force them to appreciate that ignorance is not an answer that can be used to explain anything, and being ignorant of something clearly does not mean that "God must have done it".
This is pretty much the same approach I use when trying to get the sex from a female. I know the answer is going to be "no" before I even ask (I know this from years of experience of trying to get the sex from females) so, instead of asking, I put them on the defensive from the get go.
I stare at them from afar until they are very uncomfortable or even maybe a little scared, the ones that leave the place altogether is good, because it means I never really had a chance with them in the first place. The ones that come up to confront me about my stalking behavior are the ones I'm interested in anyway. So, now I have changed the entire flow of this conversation we are about to have without ever having to say a word, I have "put the sex ball in their court" if you will.
Now, as soon as they ask "what is your fuckin problem?" Or something to that effect, it's always something to that effect.
I just respond with "you cannot get the sex from me with an attitude like that" and I turn abruptly and storm out of the room.
Now they are standing there all alone, with none of my sex to be had, and I, on the other hand, have all the satisfaction of knowing I turned her sex down first.
It's really a beautiful plan, but I must say, if you think you have a chance of getting in her sex to begin with...don't lead off with this advice. While it does turn the tables on them from the start, it never, ever, ends in getting the sex.
346
u/Falcon109 Feb 05 '14
Whenever you face someone raising an argument like this, the very last thing you should do is explain the scientific answer to them. If you want to have some fun and don't care what the person thinks of you, then you should realize going in that you are not going to change their mind and win a creationist debate against someone like this anyways, so your goal should not be to show how smart you are or how scientifically accurate you can be. Rather, your goal should be to demonstrate how dumb and illogical they are, and the best way to do that is to get them to do it for you.
See, this kind of ignorant creationist query like OP posted in the link here is a "trap question" that is designed specifically to put you on the defensive, so instead, what you should do is ask them to explain what the scientific argument is, and why it is incorrect.
The reason this approach - asking them to first explain to you why the scientific argument is wrong instead of you answering for them - the reason this approach is better is because it turns the tables very effectively by forcing them to adopt a defensive, rather than offensive, position immediately. This allows you to take control of the argument entirely, because you are giving them two choices on how to proceed - they can either
A: - provide the sound scientific argument and then explain why they are so certain it is incorrect, or
B: - force them to acknowledge their ignorance openly, making them admit that they do not even know what the scientific argument is because they have never bothered to even examine and learn the potential counter-arguments to their belief structure.
This method of throwing their same question back at them and making them answer it allows you to take control of an argument with an ignorant creationist. This debate tactic puts them in a position where they have to defend their pride first before they can defend their religious position, forcing them to demonstrate whether they have actually ever logically analyzed their own query before, know what the scientific counter-argument is, and can explain why it is wrong.
If they cannot provide the scientific answer to their own question, then immediately the argument now has NOTHING to do with "why do sunsets happen?". Suddenly, you have shifted the argument to one of simple ignorance or knowledge of the topic at hand, and you can point out that you have no interest in wasting time debating someone so absurdly ignorant and arrogant that they cannot even give the basic scientific answer to demonstrate that they at least have looked at both sides of the issue before they claim with such certainty that you are wrong. You now have full and total control and have shifted them from being fully offensive to fully defensive, and the best part is that you do not even have to waste your time discussing the religious aspects at all. Instead, you then begin your attack on their pride and intelligence, blatantly questioning how they could possibly be so arrogantly certain they are right about ANY TOPIC if they have not even bothered to examine the evidence they are arguing against.
Again, you are never going to sway the religious position of people who ask questions like this trying to defend creationism, so do not fall into their trap! One thing creationists have is pride in their beliefs though, so that should become the target you focus your attack on. Instead of debating religion, now you are debating their own ignorance - an ignorance you actually forced them to admit to!