Anyone got a problem with their teeth being way too long?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[hooplala]

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!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.