This oughta sort that out for you (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)
post retardedness interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauBhigbc2s)
Again Bill Nye wasted 2 1/2 hours debating a creationist. Bravo dumbass Bravo!
Quote from: /b/earman on March 24, 2014, 01:24:48 AM
Again Bill Nye wasted 2 1/2 hours debating a creationist. Bravo dumbass Bravo!
Truth is that a lot of people
wanted to hear that debate. I'm not sure what it says about humanity as a whole, but there you have it.
I guess since he knew he wasn't getting the Cosmos gig, he felt he had to do something.
Yeah, Dawkins kind of summed it up perfectly -
"Just as I wouldn't expect a gynaecologist to have a debate with somebody who believes in the Stork-theory of reproduction, I won't do debates with Young Earth creationists"
I don't have a problem with people believing ridiculously dumb, statistically improbable shit. I'd rather they didn't but it really aint my business until they try to pollute science with retardedness and bullshit whilst, simultaneously polluting the minds of new generations of potential scientists with the fairy-story model. Bear in mind if they manage to pull off their primary objective - convince the whole world that - god and jesus and talking unicorns - there will be no more science. Science will actually die. I'm an optimist, I don't think there are enough idiots on the planet but this shit is making ground in whole states in the US. That is fucking unacceptable.
I realise that the popular view among critical thinkers is that there's no real harm in religion nowadays but I've always felt that religion is potentially very fucking dangerous due to the viral nature of the pathology.
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Naw, creationism is different, for exactly the reasons Pent pointed out. When it was just a bunch of hambones blowing their farts up each other's assholes, I would have agreed with you. Actually I probably wouldn't have, since it seems likely I was one of those very insecure Atheists you often enjoy lambasting, but, I likely would have agreed that Bill Nye had better things to do with his time... but sadly this sort of shit is gaining genuine traction in a lot of places, and frankly needs to be mocked back into the sort of ghettos the Westboro Baptists shamed homophobes in to. The downside is that it's 99% preaching to the choir, because the creationists likely aren't watching.
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Maybe it's more a case of feeling like they're under attack. This one insane faction of bible believers
has launched an attack on the rational establishment. And they're gaining traction. Kids are currently being taught that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old and arks and adam and eve and a whole bunch of shit. Their plan is that everyone should be taught this.
I am seriously not okay with that. Where the fuck do you draw the line? Flat earth? Virgin sacrifice? I draw it at - works of primitive fiction masquerading as science. You call yourself a feminist, right? The kind of feminist I actually have respect for, as opposed to the man hating feminazi comedy stereotype. Man's god given right to treat women like shit are well covered in this book. You like the idea of kids being taught the - smack my bitch up - word of god, alongside the history of the suffragette movement?
I say let everyone rant their guts up. Both sides, as loudly as possible until EVERYONE is sick of it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
I say let everyone rant their guts up. Both sides, as loudly as possible until EVERYONE is sick of it.
WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!!! Can we throw in some swords? Maybe alcohol, or crank?
Quote from: /b/earman on March 25, 2014, 12:13:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
I say let everyone rant their guts up. Both sides, as loudly as possible until EVERYONE is sick of it.
WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!!! Can we throw in some swords? Maybe alcohol, or crank?
Bad crank makes all arguments better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2014, 12:14:59 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on March 25, 2014, 12:13:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2014, 08:57:18 PM
I say let everyone rant their guts up. Both sides, as loudly as possible until EVERYONE is sick of it.
WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!!! Can we throw in some swords? Maybe alcohol, or crank?
Bad crank Bath salts makes all arguments better.
I just got a holy vision!
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 23, 2014, 06:17:26 PM
This oughta sort that out for you (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)
post retardedness interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZauBhigbc2s)
Mickey Rooney telling Tammy Faye Bakker a story about the time he met an angel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7UmP_5xfwg&feature=youtu.be&t=35m2s
Hope this helps.
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
<The number of people polarized> +1.
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
<The number of people polarized> +1.
Sure. Or if it had done anything at all for the advancement of science, and was not just a slightly catfighty publicity stunt that felt cheap and tacky and reduced scientific presentation to the level of political debate.
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
<The number of people polarized> +1.
Sure. Or if it had done anything at all for the advancement of science, and was not just a slightly catfighty publicity stunt that felt cheap and tacky and reduced scientific presentation to the level of political debate.
Ooh, I hadn't considered that last point, bolded by me. And, it's an
excellent one. Hm. It really does. Damn you Nigel, and your smarts! Making me rethink my positions! :argh!:
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:44:15 PM
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Who is the mob? Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple". While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.
We are not the only humans capable of rational thought. Nor are atheists, as a group.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:44:15 PM
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Who is the mob? Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple". While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.
We are not the only humans capable of rational thought. Nor are atheists, as a group.
I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:44:15 PM
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Who is the mob? Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple". While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.
We are not the only humans capable of rational thought. Nor are atheists, as a group.
I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?
Every generation, with occasional blips, the number of creationists drops. So the obvious thing to do is grab the axe and go open the goose to get ALL the golden eggs right now.
And yes, you are incorrect. State weirdos try every 10 years or so, to put creationism in schools, and every time it is ruthlessly struck down by the courts. It's more or less a continuous battle, and will be until all the people raised in the 1980s (the last blip) are dead.
Fair enough. The influence of your religious right is obviously grossly exaggerated by the time the news of it reaches me. Not a problem. Got it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 05:40:32 PM
Fair enough. The influence of your religious right is obviously grossly exaggerated by the time the news of it reaches me. Not a problem. Got it.
Oh, it is a problem, it's just that the effect seems to be grossly exaggerated. There are countless attempts to introduce creationism every year, it's just that they never get past the courts, and these days they aren't even considered by the courts.
There's a part of me that likes finding out I'm wrong about shit like this but the other part is all - FUCK YUO ROGER!!! :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 05:58:54 PM
There's a part of me that likes finding out I'm wrong about shit like this but the other part is all - FUCK YUO ROGER!!! :argh!:
HAH! After all these years of being Nigeled, I got to Nigel someone else!
:banana:
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE: The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate". When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE: The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate". When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 05:02:15 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:44:15 PM
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Who is the mob? Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple". While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.
We are not the only humans capable of rational thought. Nor are atheists, as a group.
I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?
Every generation, with occasional blips, the number of creationists drops. So the obvious thing to do is grab the axe and go open the goose to get ALL the golden eggs right now.
And yes, you are incorrect. State weirdos try every 10 years or so, to put creationism in schools, and every time it is ruthlessly struck down by the courts. It's more or less a continuous battle, and will be until all the people raised in the 1980s (the last blip) are dead.
It doesn't look that way to me: (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx)
(http://i.imgur.com/jLv29tC.gif)
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Yes, and for exactly the same reason.
And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY. Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore. Give them credibility and you might.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:09:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 05:02:15 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 04:47:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 01, 2014, 04:44:15 PM
Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...
Who is the mob? Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple". While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.
We are not the only humans capable of rational thought. Nor are atheists, as a group.
I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?
Every generation, with occasional blips, the number of creationists drops. So the obvious thing to do is grab the axe and go open the goose to get ALL the golden eggs right now.
And yes, you are incorrect. State weirdos try every 10 years or so, to put creationism in schools, and every time it is ruthlessly struck down by the courts. It's more or less a continuous battle, and will be until all the people raised in the 1980s (the last blip) are dead.
(http://imgur.com/jLv29tC)
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspxIt%20doesn't%20look%20that%20way%20to%20me:%5B/url)
Broken jpg.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Yes, and for exactly the same reason.
And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY. Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore. Give them credibility and you might.
So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?
Okay, it's fixed.
Not sure I trust Gallup after 2008:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Check the section for America, halfway down the page. You'll also note that American is a statistical abberation in this regard, as Pent suggested...But that the numbers are a little different when viewed from a Pew Poll.
Now, compare this with America in 1986, 1956, and 1936.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Yes, and for exactly the same reason.
And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY. Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore. Give them credibility and you might.
So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?
I'd say that's a different case, the stakes being far higher...And the fact that there is a deadline associated with climate change. Apples and oranges.
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:17:44 PM
Okay, it's fixed.
Not sure I trust Gallup after 2008:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Check the section for America, halfway down the page. You'll also note that American is a statistical abberation in this regard, as Pent suggested...But that the numbers are a little different when viewed from a Pew Poll.
Now, compare this with America in 1986, 1956, and 1936.
Thanks!
I'll give that a harder look.
Worth looking at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-america-evolving-on-evolution/
Also, if you look at the graph you provided, the belief in non-guided evolution shows a steady increase, while the belief in creationism's increase is exacly mirrored by the decrease in the belief of guided evolution: That is to say, the intelligent design geeks gave up and went back to the cave.
So, over 30 years, a ~ 7% increase in rationalism.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 01, 2014, 12:16:55 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
<The number of people polarized> +1.
Sure. Or if it had done anything at all for the advancement of science, and was not just a slightly catfighty publicity stunt that felt cheap and tacky and reduced scientific presentation to the level of political debate.
Ooh, I hadn't considered that last point, bolded by me. And, it's an excellent one. Hm. It really does. Damn you Nigel, and your smarts! Making me rethink my positions! :argh!:
Aw, thanks! :)
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
Oh, well certainly if you just keep after me about it, my respect-o-meter for Nye will creep back up into the blue.
It's that old adage about what happens when you wrestle with pigs. YOU don't have to feel the same way about it, but how you feel about it really has no bearing on how I feel about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE: The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate". When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.
...you both get muddy, and the pig likes it.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 05:08:03 AM
Quote from: Net on March 30, 2014, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 30, 2014, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: Net on March 25, 2014, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 24, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.
The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.
Why?
Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.
I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.
Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.
How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?
Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.
Interesting.
I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?
It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.
I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE: The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate". When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
I know I would. The entire field of public health tries to avoid those kinds of public showdown-type conflicts because ample research shows them to be
counterproductive to convincing people to vaccinate.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Yes, and for exactly the same reason.
And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY. Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore. Give them credibility and you might.
So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?
I'd say that's a different case, the stakes being far higher...And the fact that there is a deadline associated with climate change. Apples and oranges.
It is also, unlike evolution and vaccination, a recently-emerging issue in which people had reasons
other than pure religious dogma to be skeptical.
Quote from: Nigel on April 01, 2014, 10:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:12:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 09:06:03 PM
If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?
Yes, and for exactly the same reason.
And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY. Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore. Give them credibility and you might.
So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?
I'd say that's a different case, the stakes being far higher...And the fact that there is a deadline associated with climate change. Apples and oranges.
It is also, unlike evolution and vaccination, a recently-emerging issue in which people had reasons other than pure religious dogma to be skeptical.
This is an excellent point. Everyone with a brain knows SOMETHING is happening, to one degree of severity or another,but all the models are pure shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only
ought to be publicly discussed, but it is
imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only ought to be publicly discussed, but it is imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
This is
also a good point. Now I don't know
what to think.
Damn you people!
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only ought to be publicly discussed, but it is imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
This is a good point for several reasons, HOWEVER...I am also against suppressing conversation. I don't believe that it should be forbidden. I just think that when dealing with nutters, it's counter-productive.
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only ought to be publicly discussed, but it is imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
I am certainly not against suppressing conversation, and I do also appreciate that Nye is not a condescending hateful prick like so many highly public atheists are. However, if this conversation were to happen in a public forum I think it would have been far more fitting to the subject and the audience, in terms of preserving dignity on both sides, to have it round-table style, with people of varying perspectives bringing those perspectives to the table. A one-on-one debate marketed - overtly or implicitly - as a showdown is far too reminiscent of political showmanship - ie. the media circus - for my personal tastes. Call that elitist and condescending if you are seeking a personal character flaw.
Keep in mind that this leg of the conversation started about my personal feelings of respect for Bill Nye, which are not, in fact, up for debate.
Quote from: Nigel on April 02, 2014, 12:25:35 AM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only ought to be publicly discussed, but it is imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
I am certainly not against suppressing conversation, and I do also appreciate that Nye is not a condescending hateful prick like so many highly public atheists are. However, if this conversation were to happen in a public forum I think it would have been far more fitting to the subject and the audience, in terms of preserving dignity on both sides, to have it round-table style, with people of varying perspectives bringing those perspectives to the table. A one-on-one debate marketed - overtly or implicitly - as a showdown is far too reminiscent of political showmanship - ie. the media circus - for my personal tastes. Call that elitist and condescending if you are seeking a personal character flaw.
People interested in seeing a showdown are exactly the kind of people who need to be exposed to the Mr. Rogers of science the most.
I do find the wholesale rejection of a civil discussion and those that found value in it to be condescending. Especially since you characterized the people who must have enjoyed the debate to be the "exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior."
That simply is not what happened at the debate, and those interested in seeing that must have been sorely disappointed.
Quote from: Net on April 02, 2014, 12:46:37 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 02, 2014, 12:25:35 AM
Quote from: Net on April 01, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
In general my approach is to respect these people as human beings first, and show them that as much as I disagree, I can see where they're coming from. I feel that the argument that scientists will only "legitimize" Creationists if they choose to publicly debate them is fairly condescending and only contributes to divisiveness and hostility.
Disagreements not only ought to be publicly discussed, but it is imperative to do so if we wish to live in a civil society. When it comes down to it, I think suppressing discussions can do far more harm than even hostile arguments.
For me, the goal is to provide a positive experience with the people I disagree, so they can better see their opponents as human beings too. I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about their religion, that's for sure, but perhaps I can help them view atheists as more than just Dawkins-douches. That's what I see Nye doing too--he's provided an excellent counter-example to the shitty, hateful atheist type that is unfortunately prevalent.
I am certainly not against suppressing conversation, and I do also appreciate that Nye is not a condescending hateful prick like so many highly public atheists are. However, if this conversation were to happen in a public forum I think it would have been far more fitting to the subject and the audience, in terms of preserving dignity on both sides, to have it round-table style, with people of varying perspectives bringing those perspectives to the table. A one-on-one debate marketed - overtly or implicitly - as a showdown is far too reminiscent of political showmanship - ie. the media circus - for my personal tastes. Call that elitist and condescending if you are seeking a personal character flaw.
People interested in seeing a showdown are exactly the kind of people who need to be exposed to the Mr. Rogers of science the most.
I do find the wholesale rejection of a civil discussion and those that found value in it to be condescending. Especially since you characterized the people who must have enjoyed the debate to be the "exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior."
That simply is not what happened at the debate, and those interested in seeing that must have been sorely disappointed.
Alrighty then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2014, 09:19:57 PM
I gotta ask you and Pent, though: What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?
My solution is to mock and encourage mockery of beliefs. Not just "weird" ones but essentially all of them. It probably won't accomplish anything but it amuses me to do so while I can. Long term I suspect the problem is self-correcting. We'll either end up extinct because of beliefs or we'll eradicate them. Problem solved either way.