So I'm curious how precisely do you deal with what I deem hysterical people?
They try to say that Stephen Jay Gould "agrees" with their creationist fantasy about evolution being all wrong, you show them he's been quote mined along with plenty of other quotes that demonstrate he thought no such thing, and they continue to go on about how he agrees with them, usually with lots of WORDS LIKE THIS and swearing.
They try to say a scientist by the name of Koonin EV (Eugene Koonin) wrote a paper which confirms their creationist fantasy about evolution being all wrong, you show them multiple papers by the same guy demonstrating he doesn't believe anything of the sort and you can even find an article on Christian Science Monitor where somebody actually went and talked to him about it, and he said he's being misrepresented. Yet they keep right on about how you haven't "proven him wrong".
They quote 'Favored Races' from Darwin, you point out that one of the 'races' Darwin talked about was a 'race' of cabbages, even showing them the passage and explaining that language of the mid 1800s was different, which will cause them to launch into a tirade about him being 'racist' because he basically wrote unflattering things about Turks whom he thought might invade parts of Europe. Yet they keep right on even after being shown Darwin was a strict abolitionist about how he wanted 'racial genocide'.
Things like this go on and on and on... They make a claim usually pulled from the creationist book of nonsense over at AIG or DI... You show them why it's wrong, they fall into hysterics.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
People who adopt a pet view without benefit of reason can hardly be expected to drop it because of reason! Serious reasoning is just not part of their world, a world ruled by dogma and emotion. When it comes to dealing with fanatics, carefully detailed and reasoned arguments will not bring enlightenment. You might still put together a short, spicy reply to be used over and over.
The old 'can't reason people out of a position they were never reasoned into' I know but when you can literally put evidence, such as the Gould quotes, right in their face you wouldn't expect them to suddenly agree with evolution.
You might expect them to say that their particular quote was in error.
But nope, I guess if they do that they have to admit to themselves that their creationist website lied to them, and if they lied about one thing then that's that.
Well it depends what you mean by deal with. I mean you're unlikely to dent the beliefs of anyone who's so delusional they're prepared to deny scientific facts like species evolution and the age of the earth and universe. My advice is to relax and only argue with them if you are getting something from the exchange. You can chuckle to yourself if it helps, but there is no reason to become frustrated by intransigent blinkered creationist propaganda, it's axiomatically risible nonsense.
If they try to force their beliefs on you then look sympathetic and explain you accept scientific facts, and aren't prepared to cherry pick science as they are, or subjugate it's validated theories in favour of risible creation myths from archaic superstitions.
If you tell them that most scientists disbelieve in creationism, they will no doubt call you elitist or say that truth is not decided by a majority. You cannot really change the mind of such people except perhaps as a gradual process.
Tell them they haven't proven Darwin wrong about evolution. Repeatedly.
"You cannot really change the mind of such people "
The best we can hope for is to stop creatards indoctrinating children by destroying the education system with their superstitious guff.
Oh but 'evolution is racist!' and it's what caused the Holocaust you see. Don't you understand that just by making this claim alone that evolution becomes wrong by default? Just like the claim that the Dover trial is 'wrong" by default just because the judge read something from the ACLU you see.
Yes I've heard this absurd piece of Orwellian double think form theists. The Holocaust was a direct result of centuries of christian antisemitism. In his appalling book mein kampf Hitler, a christian living in an overwhelmingly Christina country, repeatedly outlines his prejudice against, and hatred of Jews, and he claims his "plans" for them in Europe is God's work. He repeatedly claimed during his life that the Holocaust, which the Nazis called the Final Solution, was "doing god's work.
Evolution of course is an insentient process, and in and of itself explains the origins of species and the diversification of life we see. It makes no claims about the fallacious human concept of racism, that the human species sub divides into races.
Lastly even if this absurd lie about evolution were true it would not of course tell us anything about the validity of the scientific fact of evolution, anymore than it would represent evidence for absurd theistic creation myths derived from ancient superstitions, that no evidence can demonstrated to support.
Look up "Assertion Training." You use "fogging, negative assertion, and negative inquiry."
@Cog Re: Look up "Assertion Training." You use "fogging, negative assertion, and negative inquiry."
Another useful trick is the Tri-polar Singularity Reversal Pre-alignment Method. When used in opposing conjunction with Whispering Yells techniques and the Coherent Confuscation Theory, it is unlikely quite possible a randomly static position of dynamic equilibrium will become loosely cohesive under conditions of arid humidity. Thus the haphazard precision of the impulsive short-term strategy renders any concurring disagreements viably unsuccessful.
@blinknight
For people and situations like that, I do not even engage them in a lengthy conversation. I would state that I am not convinced, and they must provide valid proof. That always keep the burden of proof on them.
Never allow them to shift the burden of proof, always maintain that it is theirs to prove. And be on the watch for any attempts by them to shift the burden of proof. You do not have to prove anything, it is on them to provide the proof.
They say that Stephen Jay Gould "agrees" with their creationist fantasy, make them prove it. Never try to disprove it.
They say a scientist by the name of Koonin EV (Eugene Koonin) wrote a paper which confirms their creationist fantasy. Make them provide proof. You do not have to disprove anything.
And when I mean "proof", I mean I want to see the video or documentation where Gould agrees with them, and I want to see Koonin's paper.
Make them do the work, make them provide proof.
You do not have to prove them wrong, that is your first mistake in dealing with these people. They must provide proof on their claims.
Oh but you misunderstand.
They throw up Gould or Koonin, deem this is "proof", and that's what they just go with. In essence, they feel as if they've already provided proof. When you show them that they are completely wrong and their evidence doesn't support their claim in the slightest, that's when they go off, screaming that they "have proof" and "they've shown it to you".
"The old 'can't reason people out of a position they were never reasoned into'"
It is mainly due to their indoctrination process. Here is an excerpt from one of my essays in my first book. I shall never claim it is correct, but it does make sense, at least to me.
About Absolutist Training
If it does not conform to what was taught during their indoctrination process, then they are to deny it by looking at evidence through God Glasses, which is nothing more than confirmation bias. (There are even Absolutist-made YouTube videos about God Glasses. Just do a YouTube search for “god glasses.”) Confirmation bias is where they simply repudiate anything that stands against their beliefs, even if it irrefutably counters those beliefs. They only affirm those things that they think they can rationalize from their indoctrination process to make sense for their position. Using rationality and logic, this means it is nothing more than playing “make-believe,” and it is not even a sincere belief most of the time. It is a delusion called, “Let’s play pretend.”
The Absolutists usually begin the training from early childhood through a controlled, systematic, totalitarian indoctrination process which utilizes mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism when a child’s mind, especially in the ages of 4 to 14 years, is at its most susceptible and most vulnerable to cultural conditioning. I know this for fact because it is the ghastly, abhorrent, and terrifying nightmare I endured as a child for seven years. Tyrannically dictated norms of fidelity are imposed such that children are trained to vomit conflicting ideas and to never consider their veracity. And I look back at this and, to this day, wonder how in hell I could have allowed those horrible savages to brainwash me that way. Although it never truly took, I was worn to the point I gave up and succumbed. I had to “play pretend” just to keep them from continuing to ostracize me, excommunicate me, and abuse me.
Absolutists are trained to react to ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. They are taught to never question their beliefs. Militantly trained to maintain and preserve “the faith.” And, due to this designed abusive training and indoctrination process, they shall do so with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence. Worst of all, their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they need to defend their belief at all. This form of indoctrination, no matter its intended outcome, is actually “child abuse” in the form of psychological terrorism. All of which is immoral in any moral landscape. However, due to the First Amendment, religion gets a free ride to practice all the immorality they wish. One only has to prove it is religious to prove it is not immoral.
It is an indoctrination process which teaches them to never think for themselves, but to close their mind against all things except for what some sky-faerie in an obsolete and irrelevant and barbaric and savagely immoral Bronze Age religious text commands them to think. It is an indoctrination process which works to eradicate a person's capability for critical thinking, deductive reasoning, analytical thought, and logical reasoning. For me, that is the most heinous of acts, especially to do it to children. And no matter whatever they may say to the contrary, this is child abuse. Ask Richard Dawkins.
I submit that to believe in this manner is not being human. Instead it is just being a mindless drone obeying an imaginative figment. They are just pretending to be like one of those Nazis defending his actions by saying, “But I was just obeying orders.”
rmfr