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.
Comment on average red state university
gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
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.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
This is pretty much prime territory for the same methods Kirk used for “debate”.
Gish gallop, butwhatabout, moving gailposts, 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.
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
creating a false dichotomy between science and religion
Was with you until this part. There’s nothing false about that dichotomy.
tetris11@feddit.uk 4 hours ago
Plenty of religious scientists. The more you lesrn, the greater you are aware of how much is uncertain. You can still believe in a God whilst respecting the scientific method of reasoning
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
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.
tetris11@feddit.uk 19 minutes ago
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.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
I question the expertise of any scientist who is willing to believe things with no evidence. It’s as simple as that.
brendansimms@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
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’
Fluke@feddit.uk 4 hours ago
Rightly so. If the scientific method is applied to religious claims, they fail as untestable assertions. Every time.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 hours ago
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.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
You can tell they’re a time traveller because of the Mark V time machine in front of them.
gigastasio@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Oh I can think of lots worse.
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 17 hours ago
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.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
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…
Diurnambule@jlai.lu 21 hours ago
Next time I bring you with me.
WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
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.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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.
nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 hours ago
I like to sing "the preacher and the slave" to them