Decent science vs. religion essay

[billydkid]

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=14&subject=Science%20and%20Religion

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=14&subject=Science%20and%20Religion

A decent essay?? If you think that this essay is "decent" then you're even more breathtakingly stupid than I had previously thought. And that's saying something. The author is a complete dunce who clearly understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the issues. Very like most skeptics on here in fact. Kindly desist in linking to facile cretinous web pages.

[showme2]

"Decent" ?
You gotta be kidding !
Not even decently balanced.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


A decent essay?? If you think that this essay is "decent" then you're even more breathtakingly stupid than I had previously thought. And that's saying something. The author is a complete dunce who clearly understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the issues. Very like most skeptics on here in fact. Kindly desist in linking to facile cretinous web pages.

Jeeze, thanks for the kind thoughts Ian. Gracious and thoughtful as always. Generally I have refrained from joining in the "Ian is a total jackass" chorus in here and have, on occasion, even stuck up for your right to express your point of view when others called you a troll - however much I disagreed with you. You can pretty much count on that never happening again. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer Ian, but at least I am not willfully delusional or a pathetic, foul mouthed, angry crank.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by showme2
"Decent" ?
You gotta be kidding !
Not even decently balanced.

Let me get this straight, one is supposed to take the middle ground when dealing with delusion? "The ideas of delusional people are just as legitimate as our own." - is that the right approach?

[showme2]

Billydkid

Yes, that's right - at least UNTIL you establish that they are delusional.
And you haven't.
And you can't.

[billydkid]

and, basically, any essay with which you disagree is a bad essay, right?

[showme2]

NO ! - (Where do you GET these wild ideas from?)

It's a bad essay because it produces no support whatever for the assertions the author makes.

[geni]

Ok I'm gessing the essay was writen in the US. Over here the shock would be if a lecturer stood up and said it's ok to be religious. Anyway why is it science vs religion the two can coexist quite happily

[billydkid]

Originally posted by showme2
NO ! - (Where do you GET these wild ideas from?)

It's a bad essay because it produces no support whatever for the assertions the author makes.

It's an opinion piece based on personal observations, not a thesis!

[showme2]

Billydkid
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Originally posted by showme2
NO ! - (Where do you GET these wild ideas from?)

It's a bad essay because it produces no support whatever for the assertions the author makes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an opinion piece based on personal observations, not a thesis!"


You asked the question, got an answer, and didn't like it.
And now you change the subject.
So opinion without ANY evidential support is OK now is it, provided that it is supporting your viewpoint.
(Most of the sceptics on this forum have been arguing exactly the opposite with me for God-Knows-How-Long.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid


Jeeze, thanks for the kind thoughts Ian. Gracious and thoughtful as always. Generally I have refrained from joining in the "Ian is a total jackass" chorus in here and have, on occasion, even stuck up for your right to express your point of view when others called you a troll - however much I disagreed with you. You can pretty much count on that never happening again. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer Ian, but at least I am not willfully delusional or a pathetic, foul mouthed, angry crank.

I find it very sad that you think such an atrocious essay to be brilliant. Hell it could have been written by TBK! :eek:. Yes, that's how bad it is.

[showme2]

Come ON, Ian - be fair.

Could have been written by TBK ?

Yeah, it was singularly unimpressive, but it wasn't THAT bad !!

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I find it very sad that you think such an atrocious essay to be brilliant. Hell it could have been written by TBK! :eek:. Yes, that's how bad it is.

This is so typical and what is most pathetic is that you don't even see it. Where did I write anything about anything being brilliant? Did you read that between the line? Is the word "decent" synonymous with "brilliant" in your vocabulary? I do believe that non-believing is frowned upon by society in general and that, unlike in this forum, skepticism is considered to be unwholesome. Certainly, if you want to be despised in the US (I have no real idea about the UK.) profess to be a nonbeliever or an atheist. Try expressing your disbelief publicly and see how quickly you are portrayed as an evil person. Rational people are, in fact, forced to pussyfoot around believers. It was not that long ago folks were being prosecuted for heresy in this country and not long before that they were being burned at the stake for not believing. The dangerous people are not the skeptics, they are the believers.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid


This is so typical and what is most pathetic is that you don't even see it. Where did I write anything about anything being brilliant? Did you read that between the line? Is the word "decent" synonymous with "brilliant" in your vocabulary? I do believe that non-believing is frowned upon by society in general and that, unlike in this forum, skepticism is considered to be unwholesome. Certainly, if you want to be despised in the US (I have no real idea about the UK.) profess to be a nonbeliever or an atheist. Try expressing your disbelief publicly and see how quickly you are portrayed as an evil person. Rational people are, in fact, forced to pussyfoot around believers. It was not that long ago folks were being prosecuted for heresy in this country and not long before that they were being burned at the stake for not believing. The dangerous people are not the skeptics, they are the believers.

Well I assure you that I'm not dangerous. And yes, it would appear that the UK is totally unlike the US in this respect. If you say you believe in God or life after death to people over here (or at least if you say to so called intellectuals), you're liable to receive a funny look!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by billydkid

The dangerous people are not the skeptics, they are the believers.

Don't equate skepticism with non-belief.

[showme2]

T'ai Chi is absolutely right.

Scepticism is about enquiry, doubt, and the requirement for proof.

It is not about denial, which is the purview of PSEUDO-scepticism.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by showme2
T'ai Chi is absolutely right.

Scepticism is about enquiry, doubt, and the requirement for proof.

It is not about denial, which is the purview of PSEUDO-scepticism.
Can you prove that?

[showme2]

arcticpenguin

PROVE it ??? !
Don't be obtuse.
It is self-evident.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Don't equate skepticism with non-belief.

I can not fathom your meaning. Belief in this context, as opposed to knowledge, requires of one that one holds an opinion for which there is not supporting evidence. Clearly, on can not be a "believer" and also be a skeptic in any meaningful sense of either term.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by showme2
arcticpenguin

PROVE it ??? !
Don't be obtuse.
It is self-evident.
You refuse to provide evidence for your claim. You are a pseudo-skeptic.

[showme2]

arcticpenguin

I am a pseudo-sceptic ????? !!!!
No.
I'm a BELIEVER, you ignoramus.

(Do try to keep up.)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by showme2
arcticpenguin

I am a pseudo-sceptic ????? !!!!
No.
I'm a BELIEVER, you ignoramus.

(Do try to keep up.)
Why would I want to keep up with you? You seem like a very unpleasant person, and your bahaviour is an advertisement against whatever cause you are promoting.

[Yahweh]

INTERESTING JEREMIAH IAN! SHOWME2! You two have been very NAUGHTY!

Seriously, calm down. It is completely unnecessary for yall to insult Mr. Billydkid and Mr. Arcticpenguin. This is especially disheartening as I've seen this kind of behavior on other threads (I've even seen your hostility directed towards myself).

If you want to make a decent criticism, it would be better if you didnt attack the skeptics on the board. Instead, take a moderate approach, and claim the article was "biased" (as opposed to words like "stupid", "retarded", "ignorant", etc.).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by billydkid
Clearly, on can not be a "believer" and also be a skeptic in any meaningful sense of either term.

Are you saying that no skeptic can hold beliefs?

[Aussie Thinker]

Billy,

I believe the essay WAS excellent !

It was pointing out clearly that Religion holds undue influence in society when it provides absolutely nothing in return.

Ian and Showme2…It wasn’t trying to be even handed .. why should it. It was making a POINT and made it clearly ! Because it was widdle bit mean to the sensibilities of those that NEED to believe in idiotic mumbo jumbo you didn’t wike it.. boo hoo !

You guys have to realise that your “love in” version of acceptance of supernatural claptrap is laughable to most of us.

You should consider yourself HONOURED that because of the tolerant nature of sceptics that we still deem to listen to your lunacy. We still keep handing you rope and you still keep hanging yourself.. but hey.. here’s some more.. now make that noose a bit tighter this time !

[KelvinG]

I enjoyed the article as well.

Why are some folks in this thread crying foul?
Maybe the truth hurts.

[An Infinite Ocean]

I too thought this was a good article.

It doesn't have to be 'balanced' because it is an opinion piece. I suspect that those loudly decrying it would be better able to restrain their outrage if it had supported their beliefs.

[Suezoled]

It reads like an editorial in a magazine. But I liked it, too.

[Folly]

Wasn't exactly a thrilling read for me, as it was sort of preaching to the choir, but I liked it. And I think that's where Ian's and Showme's troubles with it come from. It seems clear to me that the target audience is other skeptics, and the choir is outspoken skeptics. I rather suspect that the author cares very little about whether nonskeptical thinkers enjoyed it. Read that way, it just seems to be saying "stop shutting up and speak out."

Arguing that it's not balanced is pointless. Of course it's not balanced. It's assuming a the reader has a certain viewpoint, then arguing for certain actions. If you don't happen to be in the target audience, then you're not going to get much out of it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Folly
...snip...

Arguing that it's not balanced is pointless. Of course it's not balanced. It's assuming a the reader has a certain viewpoint, then arguing for certain actions. If you don't happen to be in the target audience, then you're not going to get much out of it.

I agree and even if it was not an opinion essay there is still no appeal to balance or "fairness".

It seems that our society now (generalisation alert) expects everything to be presented as "balanced", but unfortunately the real world doesn't seem to give equal weight to every "side" in many debates.

For instance if I want to write an article where I talk about why the earth is roughly spherical do I have to include an equal exposure to the ramblings of some "flat earther" in some insane requirement for "balance"?

Even in journalism stories/articles are meant to be a truthful and accurate reporting of facts; a good journalist makes sure that they can verify their facts, they don’t make sure that all “sides” in a report “balance”.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Folly
Wasn't exactly a thrilling read for me, as it was sort of preaching to the choir, but I liked it. And I think that's where Ian's and Showme's troubles with it come from. It seems clear to me that the target audience is other skeptics, and the choir is outspoken skeptics. I rather suspect that the author cares very little about whether nonskeptical thinkers enjoyed it. Read that way, it just seems to be saying "stop shutting up and speak out."

Arguing that it's not balanced is pointless. Of course it's not balanced. It's assuming a the reader has a certain viewpoint, then arguing for certain actions. If you don't happen to be in the target audience, then you're not going to get much out of it.

Folly, the essay was one of breathtaking unadulterated stupidity. The author is as utterly clueless as the vast majority of skeptics on here, and trust me, that is seriously bad.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


I agree and even if it was not an opinion essay there is still no appeal to balance or "fairness".

It seems that our society now (generalisation alert) expects everything to be presented as "balanced", but unfortunately the real world doesn't seem to give equal weight to every "side" in many debates.

For instance if I want to write an article where I talk about why the earth is roughly spherical do I have to include an equal exposure to the ramblings of some "flat earther" in some insane requirement for "balance"?

Even in journalism stories/articles are meant to be a truthful and accurate reporting of facts; a good journalist makes sure that they can verify their facts, they don’t make sure that all “sides” in a report “balance”.

The point is that the author doesn't understand anything about the topic he is writing on. I get the impression he is extremely philosophically naive.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point is that the author doesn't understand anything about the topic he is writing on. I get the impression he is extremely philosophically naive.

One day you'll understand that since philosophy can't help us determine fact from fiction it's worthless towards generating facts.

Until then, don't expect us to be impressed with your constant drumbeat. No on here thinks you're an intellectual.

No one.

[Ipecac]

I liked it too. Good article.

Thanks, Mr. The Kid!

[Folly]

Okay. I'm going to give this one try.

Ian, you said
Folly, the essay was one of breathtaking unadulterated stupidity. The author is as utterly clueless as the vast majority of skeptics on here, and trust me, that is seriously bad.

That's a whole lot of unsupported accusations there, Ian. Since I don't happen to agree, it seems like it's not a self-evident truth. Why do you say that author is utterly clueless and the essay is unaldulterated stupidity?

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

"Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."


Lets leave the issue of the vast majority of skeptics here being utterly clueless out of this for now (I don't happen to agree with that either, by the way.)

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Folly
Okay. I'm going to give this one try.

Ian, you said
snip

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

"Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."

Wow! Boils that right down, doesn't it?

Nicely put.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The point is that the author doesn't understand anything about the topic he is writing on. I get the impression he is extremely philosophically naive.

You could be right or wrong, personally I don't think it is such a bad essay, for instance I pretty much agree with this part


But people do change their views. Not all of them all the time, not easily, not necessarily even when they are confronted with evidence or good arguments. But they do change them sometimes, and it's impossible to know in advance what those times are. People read books, they discuss, they think, and sometimes they do change their views. Sometimes from atheism to theism, alas, but also sometimes the other way. And as for 'just believing' something, what of that? We can all believe all sorts of things that are not true. We can believe the sun travels around the earth, or that crystals have healing powers, or that it's a good idea to take antibiotics when we have a cold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document. What is wrong with someone better-informed disabusing us of our mistaken beliefs?

I don't believe in God but that is a belief, not some thing I know. I believe I love my husband, but I couldn't prove it to you one way or the other. How could I? I just know I do. My particular belief is that there is no Deity out there, but I can't prove it and therefore I would not have the temerity to tell other people they're wrong. The coinage of proof is not appropriate for belief...


But that is beside the point about the lack of requirement for an essay. It was this statement that started this thread of debate:

Originally by showme2

"Decent" ?
You gotta be kidding !
Not even decently balanced.


It seemed from this statement that showme2 considers a lack of “balance” in the article to mean it is not a “decent” (presumably being used as synonym for “good”) essay.

My point, that I still maintain, is that there is no inherent requirement for "balance" in an article and therefore showme2’s stated reason for his/her’s criticism of the essay is not valid.

[munkymu]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The point is that the author doesn't understand anything about the topic he is writing on. I get the impression he is extremely philosophically naive.

What gives you that impression?

[TLN]

Originally posted by munkymu
What gives you that impression?

The point is who cares?

"Philosophically naive"? What difference could that possibly on a matter of fact?

Ian wants to make everything about philosophy because you don't need evidence. You just make a claim and run with it. You're bullet proof because you offer nothing that you can test or falsify.

Ian wants--scratch that, needs--everything in the universe to revolve around philosophy because it's the only way he can keep his head in the sand and maintain his belief systems.

Let him, but don't dignify his nonsense by asking him follow up questions on completely irrelevant points.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Kindly desist in linking to facile cretinous web pages.
Speaking of cretinous web pages, how's yours coming along?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


One day you'll understand that since philosophy can't help us determine fact from fiction it's worthless towards generating facts.

Until then, don't expect us to be impressed with your constant drumbeat. No on here thinks you're an intellectual.

No one.

Oh yes? I trust you able to give abundant evidence for this assertion? :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh yes? I trust you able to give abundant evidence for this assertion? :rolleyes:

Wanna see my Ian imitation? Here goes:

You can't refute my position, therefore I'm correct! I win, I win, I win!!! :D :D :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Folly
Okay. I'm going to give this one try.

Ian, you said


That's a whole lot of unsupported accusations there, Ian. Since I don't happen to agree, it seems like it's not a self-evident truth. Why do you say that author is utterly clueless and the essay is unaldulterated stupidity?

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

"Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."


Lets leave the issue of the vast majority of skeptics here being utterly clueless out of this for now (I don't happen to agree with that either, by the way.)

What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

They're only "stupidities" because they disagree with you. No other reason.

Besides, what criteria would you use, your worthless philosophy?

[showme2]

TLN says:-

"Wanna see my Ian imitation? Here goes:
You can't refute my position, therefore I'm correct! I win, I win, I win!!! "

If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.

So he does indeed "win", if you want to reduce the discussion to winning and losing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by showme2
If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.

Wrong.

It's not my job to prove Ian's pet theories wrong; it's his job to prove them right. Which he admits he can't do, then lords his imaginary victories over us.

Try to keep up; this has all been covered before.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat

[quote]
[quoting from essay]
But people do change their views. Not all of them all the time, not easily, not necessarily even when they are confronted with evidence or good arguments. But they do change them sometimes, and it's impossible to know in advance what those times are. People read books, they discuss, they think, and sometimes they do change their views. Sometimes from atheism to theism, alas,



Ummm . . .very dispassionate :rolleyes:



Essay
but also sometimes the other way. And as for 'just believing' something, what of that? We can all believe all sorts of things that are not true. We can believe the sun travels around the earth, or that crystals have healing powers, or that it's a good idea to take antibiotics when we have a cold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document. What is wrong with someone better-informed disabusing us of our mistaken beliefs?


Obviously nothing whatsoever. A retard such as yourself is scarcely likely to succeed though. What you can do of course is "brainwash" people into unthinking acceptance of what you say. Congratulations! :rolleyes:



Darat
But that is beside the point about the lack of requirement for an essay. It was this statement that started this thread of debate:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by showme2

"Decent" ?
You gotta be kidding !
Not even decently balanced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seemed from this statement that showme2 considers a lack of “balance” in the article to mean it is not a “decent” (presumably being used as synonym for “good”) essay.



The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

More brilliant philosophy! It's wrong because... because... because I say so!!

How nice this silly system of yours is.

[Aussie Thinker]

TLN,

II Logic… It is marvellous to be always right.. how do I know I am.. ‘cause I say so and I am always right !

[showme2]

TLN (quote):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2
If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It's not my job to prove Ian's pet theories wrong; it's his job to prove them right. Which he admits he can't do, then lords his imaginary victories over us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Yes, it certainly IS your job to prove his theories wrong .... if you want to convince others that you know what you are talking about, and to accept your view of things.

Notwithstanding all of this crud about the burden of proof and who it is on, the burden is not actually defined by YOU but by those you seek to convince of the veracity of your arguments.

[TLN]

Originally posted by showme2

Yes, it certainly IS your job to prove his theories wrong .... if you want to convince others that you know what you are talking about, and to accept your view of things.

Notwithstanding all of this crud about the burden of proof and who it is on, the burden is not actually defined by YOU but by those you seek to convince of the veracity of your arguments.

The burden of proof in on the person making the claim. I make no claim. Ian claims consciousness survives death. He should prove it or quit wasting our time.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that it's my job to prove Ian's theory (not mine mind you) wrong.

Let me show you how wrong you are: Prove to me there's no Santa Claus.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . . .very dispassionate :rolleyes:

Since the article was an opinion piece, and not a university level thesis, the author had every right to be emotive.

The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

Personal attacks do not a rebuttal make.

[Folly]

Ian, you said

What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

Come on, Ian. You can answer that yourself...

Yes, I'd like an answer to those questions, and no I don't really want a line by line analysis, unless you really want to spend the time answering that way. For the first question, which was

Why do you say that author is utterly clueless and the essay is unaldulterated [ed. my bad] stupidity?

just write an overview of why it's so bad. Something like "he claims [X] and [Y], and says therefore [Z.] That's unadulterated stupidity! [X] and [Y], therefore [W]." Or "He claims [P]. That's utterly clueless! Because of [Q] you can see it's definitely [R]" You've made some extraordinarily strong claims, so it should be reasonably easy to come up with something like this. Note that just saying something like "The piece sucks because he claims all this stuff." is useless: you should know by now that the very next question is going to be "what claims?" Don't waste your time leaving a question like that dangling.


As for the second question,

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

eg something like "Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."

What would you say?

[Jeff Wagg]

Billy..thanks for sharing the article. It was indeed a "decent" article as you described. It was worth reading, and to me that's the definition of "decent."

Ian.. I don't understand why you're so beligerent. I'm new here..I must be missing something.

Couldn't you have simply said, "Billy, I didn't think that article was decent at all" and explained why? If you had done so, we could be discussing the article (point of thread) rather than discussing YOU.

Or maybe that is your point.