obviously this isnt applicable to everyone but allow me to shed some light on teh principle of reasoning and debate.

this is not a forum for specialists in a certain field for physics nor any field.

what i find truley amazing is that peopel here spend so much time reading "paper x" from" dr Y" that is making a huge claim counter to something already established by teh scientific community (such as evolution).

now obviously this choice is yours to make, if you want to spend the rest of your life analysing the reports that in all probability will be wrong, then fine.


but it is indeed "common sense" to conclude that if something is significant enough and thorough enough then teh findings of paper x will be made public far sooner than you will be informed on here.

what is essentily hapening on these forums is that two sets of people are arguing over very complex details that neither can counter claim or argue with without reading the others source material/evidence.

is that really the most constructive way to debate in the capacity of a forum??

let us not argue over small details but on principle and concepts as these are open to all and require little to no research to understand or disprove.

before someone starts waving up and down thinking i am declaring i do no research.
i could go into teh most complex detail about some incredibly complex science (all relevant) but decide it is of no use becuase 1) few people will be able to understand it 2) the effort required to document years and years of knowledge isnt worth it.

These forums exist to allow people from all backgrounds and educations to discuss with people from other backgrounds educations and help iron out misunderstandings or change/ reaffirm your conclusions. if you spend 90% of your time writing massive essays explaining teh intricate details of theroy x teh chances are it will be wasted effort

there is indeed a place and time for complex and indepth debate using trial studies and documentation, but it is only worthwhile if the participants are of teh same education level and can understand the concepts of logical debate.

so please for the love of god if anyone wishes to get anywhere with their understanding let us discuss principles and concepts and try and keep details to a minimum.

or perhaps im the only one that thinks this and if so just ignore this post and continue

Can you summarise in a sentence or two? i will happily reply.

it is waste of effort argueing over fine details that can only be understood/backed up by a handful of people

where as if we discuss principles and logical mechanisms of religion these are available to all and yield better results with the least effort

There has been a study done that implies that details are significant in debates:

Please read the following, (all of it),

Bach Fugue performed by Remi
On Debating
This page was last modified on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2002 17:18:16 EST
Express your own opinion and debate with others here.


If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with alternative points of view. The history of the development of civilization can be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there must be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.

Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.

Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon

A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:

* Liberal!
* Tax and spend!
* Fascist!
* Politically correct!
* (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
* All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or religions
* Baby killer!
* Socialist!
* Hippy!
* Druggy!
* Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument

Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.

Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.
A really persuasive anti-drug message Could there be a bias here?

Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough. There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous. An example of this came up recently. I was criticizing Pat Robertson's apparent belief that God punishes people who do not behave as he wants them to by sending storms or natural disasters of various kinds or even terrorists. I do think this is a childish and obviously invalid belief. Saying so is not a violation of any of the principles enumerated here. But I found myself saying that Pat Robertson's "Big Friend in the Sky" would do such and so. This is objectionable because it ridicules. It isn't as straightforward as simply saying that in my opinion Pat Robertson's belief is ridiculous. Another example is to say that nudists "prance around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and denigrates as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.

Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing. Perhaps we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring individuals. We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. We find that there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ? Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle. It has nothing to do with what is being measured. It works with molecules and atoms just as it does with juvenile delinquents and schizophrenics. What is going on here? The whole thing is based on the fact that when we measure something there is always a bit of luck involved. Sometimes this is called "chance". Statisticians call it "error". There are two kinds of luck: good and bad. Let's say you take an IQ test and score 130. That's pretty good, considering that the average IQ is 100. What part of your score is luck? Well, there's no way of knowing this, but we know that some luck was involved. Is it more likely that your true IQ is 129 but that you had enough good luck to make it 130, or that your true IQ is 131 and that you had enough bad luck to make it 130? Well, there are a lot more people whose true IQ is 129 than there are people whose true IQ is 131, so there are more ways to get 130 because of good luck than there are ways to make 130 because of bad luck. If you have understood this, go to the head of the class! But even if you haven't understood it completely, remember it. Failure to understand it has probably cost us billions of dollars. Another important fact about regression to the mean is that the less reliable the measurement is the more regression will occur.

There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:

* Apply the scientific method.
* Cite relevant personal experience.
* Be polite.
* Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
* Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also anti-gun.)
* Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
* Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
* Read the post you are responding to.
* Stay open to learning.

And DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit." Here it is:

* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are :

* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .

It has been pointed out by various participants that following these recommendations to the letter might make for dull reading. The idea is that a little invective is a good thing because it adds spice. An interesting example of this occurred in a nationally televised debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Benson. Quayle had just remarked on some similarities between himself and Jack Kennedy. Benson said, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. But I can tell you one thing, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!" This was of course an argumentum ad hominem of the first water. But I would like to point out that a political debate and a scientific debate are two quite different things. But to concede the point somewhat I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could agree to divide our debating messages into two parts. In the first part it would be illegal to mention the opponent at all. The word "you" would be forbidden. Then the second part would allow judicious use of personal remarks. Writing a debate without using "you" is a very interesting exercise. I urge everyone to give it a try!

(Incidentally, the fugue you have been listening to if you clicked on the icon at the top of the page was chosen because a fugue can be thought of as a debate. In this particular fugue there are three combatants represented by the three voices. There are notable discords sprinkled thoughout the fugue, but all is harmony at the end!)

Or you can just Click Here

kudos to you sir for being the owner of a good sense of humour.

i wish you well

joc, that's a pretty cool post and it makes a lot of sense. The problem is (no matter how much sense it makes), people find it hard to keep their 'cool' when trying to get a point across. They may start off well, but when the posts take over and this page has passed, it will be forgotten. It's kind of like marking a date to remember on the calender, then forgetting to look at the calender to remind yourself, lol. People (like myself) are very opinionated, and it's hard to accept a specific tone when you're just reading words on a screen - no matter how hard you try, and which words you choose to use.

It just has to be accepted, or ignored, lol. Personally, I'm an "accepting" kinda person!

No doubt people will try, but in my opinion, it wont continue that way.



DL: I'm with you on that!

I think you are a control freak.
Analyze that.

Why must you always take things to heart...try to lighten up and I am not trying to be sarcastic...seriously girl

So what if I think Desk is a control freak?
Its not my problem so I do not take it to heart.

Bella you take a lot of things to heart and I have seen others tell you this...as for Desk light..you don't know this guy from Adam...therefore why so quick to judge?

I gave the sort of response he asked for.

I don't think he asked for b*tching from anyone

I don't agree with the "control freak" part, but the quote to back up Bella's statement made me laugh. I like it! (Sorry DL - nothing personal there ).

Just My 2 cents: I beleieve DL to be saying give your take on things, bring your life experince in, bring your accrued wisdom, I to think the so and so said from this study or that study just shows that its not ones thoughts its someone elses, this isn't rocket science, you begin to be a thinker by thinking and giving your POV, the great minds showed us how to think they never intended for us to have cult like fascination with their thoughts, or calim their thoughts as our own and never have one ourselves. My fav's are Bec's ma, Hyper, Venom, curiousity, bacca, tornado, DL,Zannie, Micheal... Hyper makes up poems for his posts very original, be sure to read his stuff DL . I'm not interested in this study or that paper either.... It is good to have some one come in and critique us , Joc i actually like your post it actually does fit into the topic at hand and is helpful to all of us, the main thing is STAY OPEN TO LEARNiNG I think that is all DL is trying to say, I don't see him as a control freak at all, but i do see leadership qualitys Namaste sheri

was there a point to any of this? i think i must have missed it

Me, too; I am totally lost on this one.

Bac, since you haven't been around...... things have gotten real structured , politically correct, no REALopinions are allowed, so DL is attempting to bring back some originality at least that is my POV

Sheri!


Yeah. He's referring to stuff that has been spoken in other threads about religion - proof(?), common sense in what you believe, logic in what you accept, etc.

You have one side that says "the bible speaks truth", and another side that says "there is no common sense, logic, nor consistency in believing this to be a fact".

This thread applies to many things within religion, not just the bible. It can apply to many religions - even New Age - and I think it's cool to have a separate thread on these issues. People can either take it or leave it - not contribute to a thread and be stuck with this issue when it wasn't even the point of the OP, lol.

I don't see anything wrong with debating articles and findings as long as people can walk away with something new they might have not had before.

It could be said that many articles and findings are debating opinion, just someone else's opinions. Personally I would much rather discuss and learn and share but I'm finding that to be nearly impossible with some. Since I've been here at this froum I must have read several posts asking people to stop discussing something or another.

Either people are asking for proof or they are asking to stop with the proof.
I think people should just discuss in whatever manner best suits them and others who do not care for their style just don't comment on those posts. These are just my thoughts and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

I completely agree with you.

im loving the irony, intended or not, of the first few replies. thats great stuff.

Personally, I don't think you can limit discussion to concepts and ideas. At least, not ALL discussion.

Especially not in this subforum--Spirituality VS Skepticism--because one of the tenets of being skeptic is withholding belief until proof is presented. Now, obviously, concepts and ideas are not going to make proof for anything. So, that limit seems to run purpose to the concept of this subforum. At least to me.

I agree with you Sheri..and love your posts too lol

I don't see him as a control freak either...I don't always agree with joc...but his post does fit in well to the thread at hand...there's a 1st time for everything lol (j/k)

sadly i predicted that people would say im trying to dictate how an argument should be follwed or that there would be personal critisisms.

however my original point which still remains vaild is this.

ask your self what you want to take away from this forum.

how is it best achieved.

if your answer is a deep understanding of the details of a particuar claim religion then i fear your time is better spent just researching rather than debating.

if however you wish to discuss the feasability/infeasability of spiritulism or religion then this seems to be a more worthwhile reason after all it is spirituaity VS sceptisism"

if one is intent on debating that which is so vast and complex, and the people you are debating with are at differet knowledge levels about different subjects it seems insane to spend hours ad hours trying to prove disprove the smallest details.

let us not argue over whether satna clause's hat is made of cotton or polyester but let us discs the principles and reasoning as to why he exists or more acurately doesnt.

anyone whos given a technical presentaion to anyone knows the key is to tailor it to the audience and in this case the audience is so far ranged that to get anthing meaningful out these discusions one has to either restrict who can participate or limit what is and isnt discussed.

Well in a debate i appreciate people using resources to back up their beliefs/findings..It makes it that little bit more credible. Basically all Essays and debates revolve around references to back up their personal beliefs.

As Santa pre-dates polyester...my vote goes with cotton...or maybe even silk.

To the point though,

Of course you are right, but you are talking to an audience that for the most part can't grasp the significance of what you are saying.

Sadly you are correct. this is also demonstrated by people not quite sure if your 1st post was a joke or not.

i only hope more people such as yourself frequent these forums and so eventually an exeptional intellectual debate can occur.

good luck to you sir, and thank you for showing reason.

Sadly, I think that that will not happen.

The reason people will quote or copy these tracts and thesis' is due to the very facts that you just mention: different education, cultural and religious levels.

How is a person supposed to counter an arguement that basically says "I know its true because its in the bible (torah, koran, t'e ching, whatever) and god wrote it so it must be true"? You can talk personal experience and life paths until you are blue in the face, and it won't make a whit of difference. But, if you bring in logical evidence, maybe somewhere, somewhen, someone will actually nod their haed and say "wow, I never thought of that".

In my case, I enjoy the links and articles presented: my thirst for new knowledge is quite unslakable.


-good journey

The primary purpose here is entertainment, that should be obvious. Anything beyond that is cake under the icing.

Perhaps it is ImOne, but entertainment without purpose is wasteful.

However, entertainment that causes you to exercise the grey muscle in your head is always worthwhile, no?




-Good Journey

Absolutely JMPD1. And didn't mean to imply nobody is learning anything here. It's here for the taking for those that are inclined.

Oh, it used to be like that.... How I long for the days when I was presented with a new idea or belief, or even had my beliefs constructively questioned. But sadly these days it's more this is my belief it's true because *insert evidence here*.

Questioning and discussing, discussing and questioning....*sigh* sadly missed.

Ah, but dear Kis, we can always hope.