|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2004 : 09:47:21 [Permalink]
|
Well, for me sounds interesting. Definitely needs to include some form of Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
A few questions:
Who's the target audience?
Age level to which the essays should be written?
There's more questions for when writing, but I can't think of them right now. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2004 : 19:38:12 [Permalink]
|
Trish wrote:quote:
A few questions:
Who's the target audience?
Age level to which the essays should be written?
I'm gonna say that the target audience is adults who frequent this sort of web site (or "real life" skeptical group).
Ricky wrote:quote:
I'm thinking about doing something on evolution, just to clear things up, explaining how we got from eubacteria to humans, hitting every phylum on the way. What do you think?
I think it's fine. The humor angle is, of course, important. How funny would a chapter titled "The Evolution of the Fart" be?
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
The definition of what is a leftie and rightie position tends to depend on what part of the political spectrum one is a member of.
If we assume that C88 is a "real" Republican, then yeah, there are a lot of lefties here as he suggested.quote:
Since the great majority of regular members here are freethinkers, they tend toward status quo until compelling evidence indicates otherwise. (a conservative position)
You know what? We'd have to get into an entire discussion of how "right" differs from "Republican" which differs from "conservative" (and how they all differ from "left," "Democrat," "liberal," and "centrist") to really do this discussion correctly. That's for a different thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2004 : 08:02:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
The definition of what is a leftie and rightie position tends to depend on what part of the political spectrum one is a member of.
If we assume that C88 is a "real" Republican, then yeah, there are a lot of lefties here as he suggested.quote:
Since the great majority of regular members here are freethinkers, they tend toward status quo until compelling evidence indicates otherwise. (a conservative position)
You know what? We'd have to get into an entire discussion of how "right" differs from "Republican" which differs from "conservative" (and how they all differ from "left," "Democrat," "liberal," and "centrist") to really do this discussion correctly. That's for a different thread.
Definately. Especially since I use a different definition of "liberal" and "conservative" than the political pundits. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 08:36:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky:
Lately, I have been noticing a lot of Creationists claiming the evolutionists are biased when all else fails. I was thinking maybe how to deal with it when this happens should go into the book. Anyone want to write something on it?
I am almost positive I have mentioned this somewhere. Maybe in an essay. I dunno. But of course, everyone has a bias. But science is set up to cut through bias as much as possible. That is why a hypothesis must undergo peer review and theories must have predictive qualities that can be demonstrated by experimentation or observation. Evolution passes both tests. Creationism passes neither. The bias argument demonstrates a profound unwillingness to understand how the scientific method works... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 09:00:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Lately, I have been noticing a lot of Creationists claiming the evolutionists are biased when all else fails. I was thinking maybe how to deal with it when this happens should go into the book. Anyone want to write something on it?
The scientific method takes no stand for, or against, the existance of God. In fact, rumour is that there are a lot of Christian evolutionists. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
LOGOS
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2004 : 20:52:08 [Permalink]
|
A quick and dirty guide to devastating creationist's "arguments".
--------------------------
KEYPOINT: Don't get caught up in the creationist's quagmire of pseudoscientific "truth" to combat currently accepted scientific theories, because the 'big picture' of the method used by creationists is logically flawed to start with. That is, they try to discredit currently accepted scientific theories and then offer up the 'reasonable alternative' of a Magic Dragon breathed the universe into existence, talking snakes, unicorns etc.
DON'T ARGUE THE POINTS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND FACTUAL REALITY. DON'T OFFER FACTUAL REALITY TO THE CREATIONISTS, USE IMMUTABLE LOGIC INSTEAD. Logic is objective and material reasoning is subjective. Take the argument out of his realm of manipulation. Using scientifically accepted facts and material reasoning is a waste of time and it is what they rely on. They equate the uncertainty of a theory to be evidence of 'shaky' invalidity, when actually nothing is certain but blind faith. "Science" does not claim to be authoritarian, dictatorial, or hold ultimate truth. Science is not facts or truth, science is a really damned good method/procedure for establishing factual reality.
-----------------------------------
THE UNIVERSE:
The creationist is arguing that "god spoke the universe into existence".
Devastating argument #1.
"Lets assume that you are correct. Yes, the Big Bang Theory is totally out to lunch. Lets say that it is poppycock, totally communist-plot balderdash."
"Since it is true that there are literally hundreds of 'Universe Origin' theories, myths, legends, folklore, and stories, then logically, eliminating the BBT DOES NOTHING as far as bolstering your argument that "a magic ghost spoke the universe into existence"."
"We don't even know if the "truth" is included in this set of possible explanations".
"So this being the case, what evidence do you offer to directly support the notion that god spoke the universe into existence?"
There is of course no evidence of this, and the creationist is forced to slink away or retreat to another argumentative position.
----------------------------------
EVOLUTION THEORY/ABIOGENESIS THEORY
(most theists and creationists think that abiogenesis is Evolution Theory anyway)
Replace the BBT in "Devistating argument #1" with Evolution Theory (or abiogenesis) and you have "Devastating argument #2".
Charge the creationist to offer any evidence that "god breathed life into dirt".
They cannot. (slink-slink-slink)
-----------------------------------
I OFFER NO EVIDENCE, BUT LOOK AT HOW WEAK THE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE! (I.E. Argument from Unnecessary Faith.)
Creationists and theists alike love to claim NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), or that science is 'not equipped' (inadequate) to deal with the supernatural transcendent 'god'. That science deals with 'natural facts' and not the supernatural.
For a god that "does anything", this a false claim, and I'll show you why.
Occasionally you will get a creationist that will argue that he cannot/will not offer any material evidence that 'god spoke the universe into existence'/'god breathed life into dirt', but will simply demand that you explain how there is so much water on the earth, or how the moon got in it's orbit that is perfectly geosynchronous, etc.
DO NOT GIVE IN TO THESE ILLOGICAL DEMANDS; IT IS THE CREATIONISTS ATTEMPT TO IGNORE AND EVADE THE TRUTH OF DEVASTATING ARGUMENTS #1/#2.
Devistating Argument #3.
Does your god answer prayers, i.e. cause physical material changes to our natural universe? Does your god veer the paths of tornados, cure leprosy, make the blind see, heal the sick and maimed, make the crops come in healthy and abundant, send plagues of locusts, cause cancer to remiss? Does your god "do anything" in this physical universe? If the answer is 'no' then this cannot be the god of Abraham explained in the bible. Such a god would be materially irrelevant to our universe and anything in it. If the answer is 'yes', then yours is a god that divinely intervenes in our physical universe. A god that intervenes in our physical universe is a god that is theoretically detectable via the physical sciences. It is not a matter of scientists being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore not having verified 'god' before; because the means by which the theist proclaims that god intervened, is EXACTLY the same means that such intervention would be detectible, confirmable, measurable, and verifiable beyond any reasonable doubt.
To the NOMA creationist (and theist) who refused to offer evidence of god, the question should be "why not"?
IT IS THE CHRISTIAN CREATIONIST/THEIST THAT CLAIMS THAT GOD INTERVENES IN OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE LEAVING EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE, NOT THAT THE SKEPTICS ARE TRYING TO 'PUSH' GOD INTO THE SCIENTIFIC REALM UNFAIRLY.
When the theist says, "wow, look at what god did", and we say "ok, I'm looking", we are not at fault for wanting to see the wondrous thing that they claim is there!
Go back to the argument of "you say that "god" intervenes in the physical universe, where is the physical evidence of this that must exist and yet you don't offer"?
----------------------------------
A COUPLE OF MINOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD
1. Physical existence is not evidence of god.
The creationist's argument that 'god exists' follows the following material conditional format.
"If god (the creator) exists, then the universe (creation) exists.
"The universe (creation) exists."
"Therefore god (the creator) exists.
Logically, this is neither modus ponens nor is it modus tollens. It is in fact, not a valid deduction. It is doing what is called 'affirming the consequent' and is not deductive.
An easier way to see the same thing (in common-sense speak) is that there could be other reasons for our physical existence, therefore noting our physical existence cannot be concluded to be evidence of god.
THEREFORE: MATERIAL THINGS CANNOT BE CONCLUDED TO BE EVIDENCE OF GOD.
--------------------------------------
2. Subjective experiences are not evidence of god.
"I have Jesus in my heart", etc.
I can appreciate the significance someone can feel along these lines, but such experiences are not evidence of god's alleged existence, and here's why.
Tell the theist/creationist, "I'll believe that this is evidence for god if you'll give me a means to discern such mystical experiences from personal delusion or mass hysteria."
Of course, they can't.
The functioning of the mind is conditional on the functioning of the brain. We know that this is true. We alter our minds all the time by affecting our brains, through use of drugs, ingesting caffeine, and smoking cigarettes. We can even induce 'mystical' experiences by exposing portions of the brain to electrical stimuli. We can detect non-nominal behavior in the brain when the patient routinely and predictably has reoccurring 'experiences' of a mystical type.
For personal experiences to be evidence of god, such non-nominal functioning of the normal brain would have to be from very, very unlikely to impossible. The exact opposite is true. The chances that a normal brain will operate perfectly (with no brain 'hick-ups') for 24/7/365/75-110 is very unlikely indeed.
The alternative explanation by theists would require a supernatural realm to exist, and there is no evidence of this magical realm. Supernature must exist before a supernatural god can exist.
THEREFORE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES CANNOT BE CONCLUDED TO BE EVIDENCE OF GOD.
--------------------------------------------------
The claim |
LOGOS |
|
|
|
Tom Morris
New Member
United Kingdom
10 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2004 : 12:56:28 [Permalink]
|
| I've found http://www.evowiki.org is quite helpful in destroying creationist arguments. They even have a page listing creationist arguments with refutations for each one! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
