When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_Tal Bachman]

Just wandered over here after months away, and saw many of the same church defenders arguing with the same church critics as when I was last on. This post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be.

Hi Kindred Souls

I have a question for you. It's for myself as well, I guess. Here it is:

Given certain variables...what's the point?

This is what I'm talking about.

We live in a universe of laws. That means we live in a universe of constraints. It seems to me that it is only when our beliefs conform to those constraints that they have any real chance of being true.

Off the top of my head, I might say there are two primary constraints which our beliefs must conform to, if they are to have any chance of being true: one constraint is logic, the other is evidence. It seems to me that any belief which requires the disregard of either, or both, is almost certainly wrong (certainly by definition, it would be irrational).

So, for example, if Robert's belief is that "it is raining and it is not raining", he is disregarding logic, one principle of which is that "'A' cannot equal 'not A'". If Robert, after all his study, believes that it was the Japanese who dropped two atomic bombs on the United States, rather than the other way round, he is disregarding evidence. Either way, we might say that Robert is, to some extent, not psychologically sound. And, I think, we would be right.

Why then would we engage in an ongoing debate with Robert about rain, or World War II - or, perhaps, anything at all? If once we explained how opposites, by definition, cannot be identical, or laid out all the evidence that it was America who dropped the bombs, and Robert still maintained his positions............

Why?

If we continued debating Robert, wouldn't we be demonstrating similar psychological unsoundness? What other explanation could there be for our continued appeals to the twin gold standards of sound thinking to convince Robert of something, when we already know that Robert rejects those standards?

Just wondering...

[_The Dude]

There are people I ignore because they seem to be exactly what you describe. When someone is hopelessly deaf except to his own words and thoughts, you have to move on.

Until someone new joins the board.

[_Runtu]

I can relate to this. There are certain people and certain arguments I don't bother with because there is no point. Sometimes, however, a brave soul actually does listen, and sometimes I learn something from listening to the other person. It just depends. And you never know whether someone out there is going to benefit by listening to something you said in an otherwise pointless debate.

[_Coggins7]

How interesting that each and every person who has responded to this thread thus far are precisely among those who have demonstrated again and again that they cannot handle serous, extended philosophical argument.

Now they come here whining about how difficult it is to have a discussion in this forum.

Will wonders never cease.

[_Tal Bachman]

Coggins7

Does that mean you take all precaution to submit your own beliefs to the constraints of logic and evidence?

[_Runtu]

How interesting that each and every person who has responded to this thread thus far are precisely among those who have demonstrated again and again that they cannot handle serous, extended philosophical argument.

Now they come here whining about how difficult it is to have a discussion in this forum.

Will wonders never cease.

Hmmm. When did we do that?

[_DonBradley]

How interesting that each and every person who has responded to this thread thus far are precisely among those who have demonstrated again and again that they cannot handle serous, extended philosophical argument.

Hmm. When you say, in your response, that everyone who has responded to the thread "thus far" cannot handle serous [sic] philosophical discussion, I'll take it that you're speaking for yourself. You're clearly not speaking for, or accurately about, the previous posters.

Don

[_Coggins7]

Hmm. When you say, in your response, that everyone who has responded to the thread "thus far" cannot handle serous [sic] philosophical discussion, I'll take it that you're speaking for yourself. You're clearly not speaking for, or accurately about, the previous posters.

Oh please. Dude couldn't handle the Beckwith thread past his first response.

[_Mercury]

I have been harping this point concerning discussions with the willfully uninformed, that it is like beating up on the handicapped. It stops getting fun after a while and you just get tired.

[_DonBradley]

Oh please. Dude couldn't handle the Beckwith thread past his first response.

I didn't read that thread. But I *have* read the Dude on hundreds of other threads, and know that he is one of the most substantive posters on the LDS-related boards. If he was not similarly savvy on that particular thread, that doesn't generalize to anything at all.

Don