To Oldbetang, Chalnoth, Big Cedar, James and others who have spent countless time debating with 9/11 Truthers, I ask......should we do it at all?
I think that perhaps we should review Richard Dawkins' stance on not debating Creationists, for many of the same reasons. Here's a quote, and a link to his reasons for refusing to do so:
"Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."- Richard Dawkins
Here's the link: http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins
It's been over six years since 9/11. We're still going over the same, tired old 'anomalies' that will seemingly never die. There are still no plausible theories put forth by the movement at all to explain the events of that day, because the entirety of the cause is spent in hammering on the 'official story' and expecting.......what? A sway of public opinion.
Unless there is a plausible conspiracy theory put forth that explains the facts of that day, with positive evidence to support it, and the willingness to present these theories to peer-reviewed scientific journals, then how is it any different than Creationism, and why are we giving them legitimacy by debating nonsense?
In essence, just having the debate is their victory. It's a chance for them to stay continually on the offensive, and keep you busy doing all the work in making them appear to be credible enough to spend so much time refuting. It keeps the often politically-motivated, psychology-driven belief and agenda in the public eye, where it can be picked up by like-minded others who we help sway into thinking there's an actual controversy. As we've seen here at CF, no matter how many answers you give, you will get none in return....simply the pulling of another 'anomaly' out of the hat, and the game continues.
And until they produce an explanation, and support it, there is no controversy, any more than there is regarding Creationism vs. Evolution, and perhaps Dawkins' point should be considered regarding 9/11 Truth. Of course, perhaps the result is worse if we don't counter nonsense with reason.....I'm not sure yet.
Thoughts?
Btodd
I think that perhaps we should review Richard Dawkins' stance on not debating Creationists, for many of the same reasons. Here's a quote, and a link to his reasons for refusing to do so:
"Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."- Richard Dawkins
Here's the link: http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins
It's been over six years since 9/11. We're still going over the same, tired old 'anomalies' that will seemingly never die. There are still no plausible theories put forth by the movement at all to explain the events of that day, because the entirety of the cause is spent in hammering on the 'official story' and expecting.......what? A sway of public opinion.
Unless there is a plausible conspiracy theory put forth that explains the facts of that day, with positive evidence to support it, and the willingness to present these theories to peer-reviewed scientific journals, then how is it any different than Creationism, and why are we giving them legitimacy by debating nonsense?
In essence, just having the debate is their victory. It's a chance for them to stay continually on the offensive, and keep you busy doing all the work in making them appear to be credible enough to spend so much time refuting. It keeps the often politically-motivated, psychology-driven belief and agenda in the public eye, where it can be picked up by like-minded others who we help sway into thinking there's an actual controversy. As we've seen here at CF, no matter how many answers you give, you will get none in return....simply the pulling of another 'anomaly' out of the hat, and the game continues.
And until they produce an explanation, and support it, there is no controversy, any more than there is regarding Creationism vs. Evolution, and perhaps Dawkins' point should be considered regarding 9/11 Truth. Of course, perhaps the result is worse if we don't counter nonsense with reason.....I'm not sure yet.
Thoughts?
Btodd