Never, ever try and engage these people on their terms, for example, by trying to “challenge” them with counter arguments. They already have a whole script of replies ready for anything like that, designed to drag you down to his level of bad-faith bickering.
Instead, simply call out to their face what they actually are. These are bad-faith actors there for the sole purpose of undermining social cohesion by creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. They are not the only reason we are so divided but they are a large one. Tell them that. Don’t let them respond. Don’t give them questions to answer. Just keep pressing, stating what they are, to them, and to everyone who’s stopping to listen. Humiliate them by presenting them to the public as the cancer to society that they are.
Never, ever try and engage these people on their terms
Instead, simply call out to their face what they actually are.
Heckling can work when you’ve got a crowd on your side. But when it’s just you with your paper sign shouting slurs, you end up looking like the asshole instead of the folks you’re jeering.
At some point, you have to engage with the premise. Or, at least, put forward your own beliefs and positions. If it’s just a contest of vibes and mogging, the person with the professional experience in those fields is going to win.
This is pretty much prime territory for the same methods Kirk used for “debate”.
Gish gallop, butwhatabout, moving goalposts, exhausting the opponent with bs, etc.
They’re all the same, they’re not there for any honest conversation. There is absolutely no way to “win” with them because no matter what objective and truthful information you offer it will be rejected or you’ll be asked to “prove” something that cannot be done in any manner acceptable to the asker.
Not only that but both of them, Kirk and WBC, were experienced. Not at being good debators but at shutting down people who tried to prove them wrong. Even if they were wrong. They had months if not years built around defending a flawed view and shutting down naysayers. They regularly practiced all their tactics so most of the people they debated (regular students who had an opinion) weren’t ready for their tactics. You don’t have to outsmart your opponent or be correct, you just have to trip them up and make them publicly look foolish. These guys travel the country ragebaiting and begging people to call them out daily, they know how to dodge and redirect and speak over.
Once you stoop to their level, they beat you with experience. It doesn’t make them right.
Also I’m pretty sure half of WBCs old tactic was saying stuff that would get them punched and then suing.
They also are going in skilled at public debate and picking fights with the unskilled. They’re media trained, and you probably aren’t. They get to cut the video and decide if they post it. They’re fighting dirty, but they’re doing it in a game they rigged before the first fight.
You can’t call them out either, they’re prepared for that probably even more. You debating them, you calling them names, you doing anything with them gives them what they want - attention and footage for their stupid youtube channels.
The only thing they’re afraid of is if you ignore them. The only footage that makes them look actually bad and which they can’t cut to make themselves look good is them sitting in the corner with their silly little bait bullshit, being ignored by society.
About 25yrs ago we had a flurry of these types invade. So we pulled some strings, got permission, and started having local bands play the main spot where they wanted to preach during the busy part of the day. Drown them out. The best was our local death metal band where the guitarist dressed up like a priest in a gimp mask and the singer wore a prison jumpsuit and nylons over his face. They condemned it but left. Also, mid-day death metal in the center of campus is something to behold.
In this particular case, he has no audience except a banana and a time traveler, so you could also just ignore him. Nothing worse for him than a day of nothing happening.
Plenty of religious scientists. The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain. You can still believe in a God whilst respecting the scientific method of iterative reasoning and refinement
The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain.
Yes, but similarly, the god of the gaps is pretty hard to ignore.
There will be questions we never will have the answer to, and if you’re actually serious about the scientific method as a philosophy, you aren’t uncomfortable with “we don’t know”.
To me, a mysterious universe is more wondrous than “god did it” and yes, I do very much question religious scientists, despite many great scientists being religious.
If you’re willing to just believe things “just because” then how can I trust you’ll actually apply the scientific method (also a philosophy) reliably?
I can happily coexist and work with mildly religious scientists/engineers, but I would straight up refuse to work with a creationist or someone born again. Religion is anti-scientific.
Religion vs science is not a false dichotomy, despite it being possible to be religious and a scientist at the same time.
It’s less accepting the uncertainties, and more seeing familiar patterns and constants and wondering of their nature. Why Pi, why 3 visible human dimensions, why the golden ratio in so many flora and fauna, why quark trios.
The scientific answer to many of these is “Nature of the universe, energy minimization dictates, we have Math models”, all which are fine answers. But you do still question why those values/patterns compared to others, and the truth is we may never know. If we do, that’s amazing(!), but if not, that’s probably alright too.
There are people who’re scientists and also religious people. People are amazing at compartmentalizing. My physics teacher in school was young earth creationists. She had no problems spending the whole academic hour correctly explaining how lead is formed over millenia in a heart of a dying start, and then spending an hour after school explaining to all who could listen, with the same conviction, that the earth is 6 thousands years old everything was made in 6 literal human 24 hours days.
People contain multitudes. Science and religion, however, are mutually exclusive. Scientific method is the opposite of religious conviction, and anyone who don’t see that doesn’t know what either of those words mean.
There was a shortformvid clip I saw some time ago that stuck with me: You can only ‘believe’ in something that does NOT have evidence for it (or at least not conclusive evidence), otherwise you would KNOW it to be true. Belief requires a certain amount of uncertainty. Note that I am in no way religious and in no way am saying people should believe religious texts, just sharing an interesting take on the concept of ‘believing’
That’s not exactly what believe means. In a way we can’t be sure of anything, including our own existence, so everything we do is believing something based on what evidence we have. The difference between that and a religious conviction is that religion requires you to stop basing your believe on any evidence at all, and believe in their stuff regardless.
If I tell you I ate a piece of bread this morning, you’ll believe me. If I tell you I ate a piece of Uranium, you wouldn’t. Even though, you have the same amount of evidence for both claims. That’s normal believe. Religious believe requires you to believe everything religious higher ups tell you, but because humans aren’t wired to do that, they only tell you shit you can’t actually check, so your believes are “justified”.
There are also a fair number of scientists that believe there may be a higher power or an afterlife that still devoutly hold to scientific study. You can be a person of science and a person of faith. As long as you don’t deny science along the way then there’s no problem with that. Now if you don’t believe in evolution or something then yes your credentials are weakened significantly, but believing that there is a higher power beyond earth doesn’t mean your test results are invalid.
People are amazing at holding mutually contradictory believes, but that’s only the commentary on people. Actually, it’s part of the reason we need scientific method in the first place.
Ya. That doesn’t work either. What does work is doing the exact same thing they do. Get a sign write on it “Christianity is bullshit. Prove me wrong” and stand there.
Don’t look at him, don’t engage. When he does finally say something tell him that he’s oppressing your beliefs and he deserves to burn in everlasting hellfire…
Never, ever try and engage these people on their terms, for example, by trying to “challenge” them with counter arguments. They already have a whole script of replies ready for anything like that, designed to drag you down to his level of bad-faith bickering.
Instead, simply call out to their face what they actually are. These are bad-faith actors there for the sole purpose of undermining social cohesion by creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. They are not the only reason we are so divided but they are a large one. Tell them that. Don’t let them respond. Don’t give them questions to answer. Just keep pressing, stating what they are, to them, and to everyone who’s stopping to listen. Humiliate them by presenting them to the public as the cancer to society that they are.
Heckling can work when you’ve got a crowd on your side. But when it’s just you with your paper sign shouting slurs, you end up looking like the asshole instead of the folks you’re jeering.
At some point, you have to engage with the premise. Or, at least, put forward your own beliefs and positions. If it’s just a contest of vibes and mogging, the person with the professional experience in those fields is going to win.
I like to sing “the preacher and the slave” to them
This is pretty much prime territory for the same methods Kirk used for “debate”.
Gish gallop, butwhatabout, moving goalposts, exhausting the opponent with bs, etc.
They’re all the same, they’re not there for any honest conversation. There is absolutely no way to “win” with them because no matter what objective and truthful information you offer it will be rejected or you’ll be asked to “prove” something that cannot be done in any manner acceptable to the asker.
Not only that but both of them, Kirk and WBC, were experienced. Not at being good debators but at shutting down people who tried to prove them wrong. Even if they were wrong. They had months if not years built around defending a flawed view and shutting down naysayers. They regularly practiced all their tactics so most of the people they debated (regular students who had an opinion) weren’t ready for their tactics. You don’t have to outsmart your opponent or be correct, you just have to trip them up and make them publicly look foolish. These guys travel the country ragebaiting and begging people to call them out daily, they know how to dodge and redirect and speak over.
Once you stoop to their level, they beat you with experience. It doesn’t make them right.
Also I’m pretty sure half of WBCs old tactic was saying stuff that would get them punched and then suing.
They also are going in skilled at public debate and picking fights with the unskilled. They’re media trained, and you probably aren’t. They get to cut the video and decide if they post it. They’re fighting dirty, but they’re doing it in a game they rigged before the first fight.
You can’t call them out either, they’re prepared for that probably even more. You debating them, you calling them names, you doing anything with them gives them what they want - attention and footage for their stupid youtube channels.
The only thing they’re afraid of is if you ignore them. The only footage that makes them look actually bad and which they can’t cut to make themselves look good is them sitting in the corner with their silly little bait bullshit, being ignored by society.
About 25yrs ago we had a flurry of these types invade. So we pulled some strings, got permission, and started having local bands play the main spot where they wanted to preach during the busy part of the day. Drown them out. The best was our local death metal band where the guitarist dressed up like a priest in a gimp mask and the singer wore a prison jumpsuit and nylons over his face. They condemned it but left. Also, mid-day death metal in the center of campus is something to behold.
In this particular case, he has no audience except a banana and a time traveler, so you could also just ignore him. Nothing worse for him than a day of nothing happening.
You can tell they’re a time traveller because of the Mark V time machine in front of them.
Oh I can think of lots worse.
Was with you until this part. There’s nothing false about that dichotomy.
Plenty of religious scientists. The more you learn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain. You can still believe in a God whilst respecting the scientific method of iterative reasoning and refinement
Yes, but similarly, the god of the gaps is pretty hard to ignore.
There will be questions we never will have the answer to, and if you’re actually serious about the scientific method as a philosophy, you aren’t uncomfortable with “we don’t know”.
To me, a mysterious universe is more wondrous than “god did it” and yes, I do very much question religious scientists, despite many great scientists being religious.
If you’re willing to just believe things “just because” then how can I trust you’ll actually apply the scientific method (also a philosophy) reliably?
I can happily coexist and work with mildly religious scientists/engineers, but I would straight up refuse to work with a creationist or someone born again. Religion is anti-scientific.
Religion vs science is not a false dichotomy, despite it being possible to be religious and a scientist at the same time.
Found my new religion.
It’s less accepting the uncertainties, and more seeing familiar patterns and constants and wondering of their nature. Why Pi, why 3 visible human dimensions, why the golden ratio in so many flora and fauna, why quark trios.
The scientific answer to many of these is “Nature of the universe, energy minimization dictates, we have Math models”, all which are fine answers. But you do still question why those values/patterns compared to others, and the truth is we may never know. If we do, that’s amazing(!), but if not, that’s probably alright too.
The scientific method answers “How?” questions. It lets us build models of reality - a map of the territory.
“Why?” questions imply intent- requiring an intelligence making a decision. The scientific method does not and cannot answer those questions.
That’s why it’s fun to ponder them
There are people who’re scientists and also religious people. People are amazing at compartmentalizing. My physics teacher in school was young earth creationists. She had no problems spending the whole academic hour correctly explaining how lead is formed over millenia in a heart of a dying start, and then spending an hour after school explaining to all who could listen, with the same conviction, that the earth is 6 thousands years old everything was made in 6 literal human 24 hours days.
People contain multitudes. Science and religion, however, are mutually exclusive. Scientific method is the opposite of religious conviction, and anyone who don’t see that doesn’t know what either of those words mean.
I question the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe things with no evidence. It’s as simple as that.
There was a shortformvid clip I saw some time ago that stuck with me: You can only ‘believe’ in something that does NOT have evidence for it (or at least not conclusive evidence), otherwise you would KNOW it to be true. Belief requires a certain amount of uncertainty. Note that I am in no way religious and in no way am saying people should believe religious texts, just sharing an interesting take on the concept of ‘believing’
That’s not exactly what believe means. In a way we can’t be sure of anything, including our own existence, so everything we do is believing something based on what evidence we have. The difference between that and a religious conviction is that religion requires you to stop basing your believe on any evidence at all, and believe in their stuff regardless.
If I tell you I ate a piece of bread this morning, you’ll believe me. If I tell you I ate a piece of Uranium, you wouldn’t. Even though, you have the same amount of evidence for both claims. That’s normal believe. Religious believe requires you to believe everything religious higher ups tell you, but because humans aren’t wired to do that, they only tell you shit you can’t actually check, so your believes are “justified”.
Ehh, I don’t necessarily agree with that but I understand the point.
I think if a thing is evident, then it’s irrelevant as to whether or not someone believes it. But it’s still a thing.
There are also a fair number of scientists that believe there may be a higher power or an afterlife that still devoutly hold to scientific study. You can be a person of science and a person of faith. As long as you don’t deny science along the way then there’s no problem with that. Now if you don’t believe in evolution or something then yes your credentials are weakened significantly, but believing that there is a higher power beyond earth doesn’t mean your test results are invalid.
People are amazing at holding mutually contradictory believes, but that’s only the commentary on people. Actually, it’s part of the reason we need scientific method in the first place.
As I said elsewhere in this thread: I do not trust the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe in anything without evidence.
I do not care that these people exist. They are untrustworthy.
Rightly so. If the scientific method is applied to religious claims, they fail as untestable assertions. Every time.
Ya. That doesn’t work either. What does work is doing the exact same thing they do. Get a sign write on it “Christianity is bullshit. Prove me wrong” and stand there.
Don’t look at him, don’t engage. When he does finally say something tell him that he’s oppressing your beliefs and he deserves to burn in everlasting hellfire…
Next time I bring you with me.
You’re right. They can’t have a response when you say big fancy words to them that mean actual things. They’ll be stumped.