Why wait for a rational theist to debate?

Greetings,
I thought I would debut my blog page with an easy one.
Easy because, with a little editing, it is mainly just a cut and paste from one of many debates I have with the Christian right on FaceBook and YouTube etc.
It’s probably not the best example(a tad sparse), but I still think it epitomizes the reasoning and motivation of the Christian AND conservative view point applied to rational justification.
The content of the argument is not as important as how the argument was obviously expected to achieve for the guy who initiated it, and his conduct( or lack of it) when he didn't get the non-response he obviously wanted to make his point for him.

More simply put: He invited a debate. Why didn't he want it enough to reply ?


Hope you can follow this:


Christian apologist:-

"Hey Darwinians. Why would you care if the Polar Bear becomes extinct? (Not that it is.) Aren't you interfering with evolution? "


Our hero waits a full 8 hours before deciding he has totally stumped every “evolutionist" out there (Bearing in mind, he is on his own page dominated by his Christian fundamentalist/creationist friends)


Christian apologist:-
"Hmmm. No answers. Interesting. "

I came across it maybe a day later

ME:-
"I can’t speak for other “Darwinians”, but my “silence” was due to the fact that I didn’t see your post.
Personally, I would relish the opportunity to discuss the subject of biological evolution with you, if only to introduce you to some facts that you have obviously been systematically trying to dodge up to now.
So, to answer your question, I must first correct the fallacy in its premise.
By “Darwinian” I assume you mean everyone who accepts the fact of biological evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of taxonomy of life on this planet???
(I also include almost every expert in the relevant fields).
By the tone of your question, I feel you that you are assuming it is a belief, opinion, or a moral worldview, that needs to be defended emotionally, much the way your religion is, rather than just an understanding of current scientific knowledge?
I accept “Darwinian evolution” as a scientific fact in the light of the abundant evidence, full stop. (Or as you guys say: “period”)

That said, you asked a moral question, which I answer thus: -

As a compassionate man, I would be loath to see such a beautiful creature disappear off the face of the earth.
If you think humanity, with our unique intellect and sentience, has any responsibility to ensure that natural selection works, as it has always done without interference, I would say that this particular ship has already sailed!
It is long underway within the nature of our compassionate social order, formed millennia ago. Today, more than ever, we protect the weaker and less adaptable in human society. Humanity now ensures the survival of those who would possibly not survive without the protection of society as a whole.
Before you point it out, I will admit that the liberal/socialists among us have always promoted a welfare state, and other mechanisms, that enhance this human “interference” with nature.
Having said that, as we ourselves are a product of evolution, are we not also conforming to our own natural characteristics??

Feel free to ask, or try to catch me with, some more questions on this. I enjoy this subject! Especially with pseudo intellectuals who think the universe is as old as the book of Genesis tells them it is, and who think they can prove it!! LOL!! "



I posted this immediately after the previous reply:

ME:
"It wouldn't be surprising, if in 8 hours, I was also saying of you: -
“Hmm, no answers? ...interesting..."
Damn!!...should have waited - then I could have copied and pasted from yours!! "


And this one many days later…….

ME:-
"Hmm, no answers.....interesting.... lol!! "





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


My point is- this same apologist makes all kinds of ad homonym comments throughout his facebook account, to, and with, people of exactly the same persuasion as himself, - of others who are never there to defend themselves.
He and his friends speculate, about the motives of anyone who disagrees with him, without asking them what their actual beliefs, motives or point may be.
They attribute arguments to the opposition, rather than listening to what its spokesman actually has to say.
When they are confronted with a response, they run away and sulk.

I watch a great deal of Christian TV and read a lot of right wing blogs etc.
Anyone else who does, will notice the “sermon approach” employed by these guys, to “debunk” secular reasoning, or any acceptance that doesn’t include their own particular superstition.
It applies a decree, by fiat, that something is undeniably true, then with strategic mis-reasoning, they hang whatever garbage they need you to believe, on that one fallacious premise.
They then offer the other guys argument, in his absence of course, and of course totally misrepresenting it to a point where even a religious fundamentalist congregation would find it laughably illogical (remember – they believe in resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, virgins who get pregnant, and people who can walk on water!).
They then start to decimate their own version of the absentee opposition debater’s argument.
It must surely be the duty of every rational thinker to make these people either justify, or face up to, the unreasonableness of their thought patterns at every opportunity?
If for no other reason, isn't this important to keep bad ideas from informing electoral decisions that affect us all?
And bad ideas don’t seem to need a great deal of rational justification to take hold of a group of people, as we’ve all seen!

When you get this opportunity, don’t feel guilty that you're taking advantage of someone who’s rationally challenged, or that you’re being aggressively opinionated (as you will be accused of being, when you start to successfully refute their hitherto unchallenged arguments).
You are, in fact, giving them an opportunity and a forum for their ideas to be expressed openly, and tested critically.

The fact that they are bullshit ideas, that don’t withstand logical scrutiny, is their problem.