|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 19:19:08 [Permalink]
|
Figures. That's the typical news media frame. Everything is a balanced controversy, accuracy is irrelevant.
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 19:21:02 [Permalink]
|
Thank you, ig, for the link. I've now watched the longer, though still edited, 5-part version of the debate. This reveals a much more thorough trashing by the RRS of the theist duo. It also proves how much of a lie was the pre-debate promise of "scientific proof" of God's existence without reference to faith or the Bible. In fact, aside from the hollow tautology of an "argument from appearance of design," the only arguments for God that they presented were from the Bible, or from personal "faith experiences." No science, and no proof -- just the same same hoary, circular, Biblical "reasoning" that theists have used for thousands of years.
As the RRS folks commented after the debate, they themselves unfortunately came to the debate with their "B game," but even that completely floored the theists.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2007 : 21:18:15 [Permalink]
|
In fact, aside from the hollow tautology of an "argument from appearance of design," the only arguments for God that they presented were from the Bible, or from personal "faith experiences." No science, and no proof -- just the same same hoary, circular, Biblical "reasoning" that theists have used for thousands of years.
|
The problem is not the flaw in the "appearance of design" argument, but rather the flaw in the human brain that lets people accept that argument in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is bunk.
(seriously, the one line answer to the "appearance of design" argument is: Everything we know to be designed has been designed by a human being, and we know this because we can verify it by their signature, or some other record of them designing and building.)
Call it ignorance or stupidity or whatever. The fact remains that millions of people are unconvinced by logic and scientific evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 05:17:04 [Permalink]
|
After that debate, I suspect a few tens of thousands fewer have that cognitive flaw, Dude. Just as such nonsense can be learned, in many people, it can be discarded, and critical thinking can be learned in its place. Yes, millioms will never change, but I think many in the middle are beginning to swing away from theism.
Future debates will do even more. I hope the atheists in such debates learn very soon to require the media to air the whole debates unedited.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 07:33:29 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
Future debates will do even more. I hope the atheists in such debates learn very soon to require the media to air the whole debates unedited. |
That will never happen on network TV. Maybe public television or cable (unlikely) but never where sponsors and the need to not offend viewers is a concern.
ABC made a mistake in even having the debate and they knew it. That is why most of it wound up on the cutting room floor. The idea may have brought in ratings for the night, but it had the potential of driving away some viewers permanently. Sponsors don't like that sort of thing.
As for the debate itself, it sucked. Even the clip that Ig linked to sucked. Ray and Kirk were almost evenly matched. How depressing is that? As I said in the other thread about this, I am sorry I wasted any time on it at all. Not only wasn't it our finest hour, it was embarrassing to watch. I think “B team” is giving the atheists way more credit than they deserve. But then, ABC chose them. No way were they going to gamble on a guy like Christopher Hitchens, who is articulate, not timid about his views and not a stranger to television news as a go to guy for comment, a chance at them. For ABC, he would have been a disaster because the last thing they wanted was a win on either side…
I call baloney on the whole thing. Sheer crap that promoted nothing but ratings by promising and not delivering the goods, which was ABC's intention the moment they blundered there way into hosting the stupid debate that aired.
Edited to add:
Come to think of it, ABC could have chosen to stick with the usual Nightline format by interviewing Kirk and Ray themselves and asking for the scientific proof that God exists complete with the usual tough questions put right to those two idiots. And they could have done that without even taking a position.
But they chickened out, afraid of fallout by asking the obvious questions themselves to a couple of Christians. So they created a way out as transparent as Kirk's and Ray's claim to having scientific evidence for God.
The whole thing was a sham to keep ABC's ass out of a sling.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 13:47:29 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
| After that debate, I suspect a few tens of thousands fewer have that cognitive flaw, Dude. |
I dunno. What this argument boils down to is what authority figure do you trust. Anyone who was swayed either way by this debate was already going to end up there.
This trust/distrust thing is the root of the problem we have in communicating scientific concepts to laypeople. Especially when it comes to issues that involve the underlying worldviews people hold.
Its a sad fact, but people all think this way unless they are forced to be aware of this congitive blind spot (and even then they won't believe you unless you are already on their "trusted" list).
On political issues, for example, people will almost always say they support an issue if they think their own political party supports the issue (even on fabricated issues just to put this concept to the test).
People intuitively trust authority figures in their communities. The weight they give the words of these figures outweighs other considerations they may have for an issue.
How many times have we destroyed the "argument from apparent design" here on these boards alone? Do we honestly think that any of the people we have argued with have been swayed by evidence and reason?
How many times have you heard a creationist say, "There are no transitional fossils!"? Despite the fact that there are to many transitional fossils to list in a day?
How many SFN members refuse to believe that there is an anthropogenic component to global warming, in spite of the huge scientific consensus and evidence?
How many times have you heard a religious person say, "We didn't come from monkeys!"? (ignore the fact that they are technically correct, since monkeys and humans came from the same place, not one from the other, the point is about common descent) And STILL hold that position after you explain HERVs and human chromosome 2?
I'd bet you that the majority of these people, if they were on a jury, would listen carefully and do their best to render a verdict based on the evidence presented to them.
Where is the disconnect? Trust, I think. And maybe some instinct to form groups, and listen to the authority figure of your group and disregard the authority figures of other groups.
Add to this the often counter-intuitive nature of evidence based conclusions, the technical language of science, and you can start to see why the "argument from apparent design" is convincing to many people.
It comes from an authority figure in their own group, it is re-enforced by other members of the group, and it is an intuitive conclusion. If it walks like a duck.... if it looks designed...
Many people don't have basic critical thinking skills, but even some who do will not be swayed by evidence and logic, because they give the authority figure in their own community more trust.
Scientists are going to have to do some hard thinking, very soon, about how they communicate science to ordinary people. If we don't want to end up in the place Randy Olson predicts for us in his documentary A Flock Of Dodos (i.e. extinct) I think we need to add a new target audience to our list. The authority figures who deny not only evolution, but science itself. A seemingly impossible task, I know.
But we will not, I think, sway to many of the people who look to their church for guidance unless we can also sway the thinking of the church leaders.
In short, science needs to hire a publicist and a PR firm.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 16:23:53 [Permalink]
|
I think the strongest argument I can make for the effectiveness of such debates (even if they have to be organized with no TV coverage at all), is their novelty. They would tend to mobilize the tens of millions of existing but closeted atheists who have never, ever, seen atheism take on theism in public. To me, this factor is the big one, the elephant in the room.
I'm beginning to work on a somewhat related project, "HalfTrax.com." After months of waiting, I finally captured the domain I wanted late last week. My hope is to concentrate on general critical thinking issues for the layman, and I'm inspired by the successful work of Jack Chick, though what I want to do is essentially the opposite. I'd like to do short, cartoon "HalfTrax" online and perhaps in printed format. Though I have some ideas, I need more, and I need volunteer artists.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 18:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm beginning to work on a somewhat related project, "HalfTrax.com." After months of waiting, I finally captured the domain I wanted late last week. My hope is to concentrate on general critical thinking issues for the layman, and I'm inspired by the successful work of Jack Chick, though what I want to do is essentially the opposite. I'd like to do short, cartoon "HalfTrax" online and perhaps in printed format. Though I have some ideas, I need more, and I need volunteer artists.
|
Cool.
The amount of artistic skill I have could best be summed up as "Slightly less than half of fuck all".
However, if it's technical help of any nature you need a hand with, I'd be happy to throw a few packets your way.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 05/20/2007 18:53:43 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 02:28:29 [Permalink]
|
| To say things look as though made by a designer is to use pareidolia-see what is not there.To see design is to beg the question in postulating that God had us in mind. |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 06:04:33 [Permalink]
|
I think there really is an appearance of something design-like in nature, and it comes as a byproduct of evolution.
A leaping gazelle, an arctic tern, or a dolphin each looks as though it were designed cooperatively by an artist and an engineer. But these forms and their functions are simply required by evolution to promote survival. It's not intelligent design, nor really directed design at all. But when the Creationists see such design, I tend to have a passing bit of sympathy for that perception, though I do not agree share it. Seeing such design is an effect of using "common sense," but it is a case which shows common sense's limitations, and how it can even be used to prop up nonsense
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 08:44:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm beginning to work on a somewhat related project, "HalfTrax.com." After months of waiting, I finally captured the domain I wanted late last week. My hope is to concentrate on general critical thinking issues for the layman, and I'm inspired by the successful work of Jack Chick, though what I want to do is essentially the opposite. I'd like to do short, cartoon "HalfTrax" online and perhaps in printed format. Though I have some ideas, I need more, and I need volunteer artists.
|
Cool.
The amount of artistic skill I have could best be summed up as "Slightly less than half of fuck all".
However, if it's technical help of any nature you need a hand with, I'd be happy to throw a few packets your way.
|
Make that two!
My artistic talent is zilch, but I can design websites half-assedly. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 09:26:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
My artistic talent is zilch... |
Having seen your art, I whole-heartedly dispute your self-assessment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 10:14:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Roddy
(1) Kirk Cameron is probably a retard.
|
That's being cruel to retards. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:05:45 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah I think Kirk is into the whole, intentional self-retardation thing. Kind of like Homer putting a crayon op his nose into his brain "to return him to the blissful boob he was." |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:29:24 [Permalink]
|
half said:
| I think there really is an appearance of something design-like in nature |
Complexity in nature is mistaken, by laypersons, as apparent design.
The argument fails because you can't demonstrate the necessity of design in complex systems.
Try explaining that to people who don't understand basic logic, and they will just look at you like you're an alien.
It goes back to what I said about science and logic often being counter-intuitive. Most people lack either the native intelligence to intuitively grasp logical principles or the education which allows people to comprehend counter-intuitive principles. (i.e. some people just get it, others have to get some education first, and most people have neither)
In those situations they will dismiss authority figures not from their own community. So science loses by default in those situations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ABC Nightline Debate
