Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Understand your opponent

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
This is of course subjective, but I get the strong impression here that the majority of atheists are very poorly acquainted with the works of those opposed to atheism.

Whereas the majority of those opposed to atheism often seem more well read, well aware of what the atheist ideology is and who its main proponents are.

I for one am very familiar with the sciences (primarily physics) and the vocal exponents of atheism, I do study their arguments, their books.

Many atheists here often describe or perceive "religion" in a very simplistic, likewise the Bible and the history of Christianity.

I have no hard data, but I do often get this impression, that atheism is largely dismissive of anything religious without ever studying the arguments.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:16:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:44:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This is of course subjective, but I get the strong impression here that the majority of atheists are very poorly acquainted with the works of those opposed to atheism.

Whereas the majority of those opposed to atheism often seem more well read, well aware of what the atheist ideology is and who its main proponents are.

I for one am very familiar with the sciences (primarily physics) and the vocal exponents of atheism, I do study their arguments, their books.

Many atheists here often describe or perceive "religion" in a very simplistic, likewise the Bible and the history of Christianity.

I have no hard data, but I do often get this impression, that atheism is largely dismissive of anything religious without ever studying the arguments.

Wow Harry, you talk just like Trump.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:44:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This is of course subjective, but I get the strong impression here that the majority of atheists are very poorly acquainted with the works of those opposed to atheism.

Whereas the majority of those opposed to atheism often seem more well read, well aware of what the atheist ideology is and who its main proponents are.

I for one am very familiar with the sciences (primarily physics) and the vocal exponents of atheism, I do study their arguments, their books.

Many atheists here often describe or perceive "religion" in a very simplistic, likewise the Bible and the history of Christianity.

I have no hard data, but I do often get this impression, that atheism is largely dismissive of anything religious without ever studying the arguments.

You get that impression because of several factors.

1) Confirmation bias

You are more likely to think that those who agree with you are putting forward better arguments and have a deeper understanding of a topic than those who disagree with you. This extends to cover things like 'seeming well read' (as your bias dictates what you consider 'important' reading on the topic) and understanding your own (shared) position on the matter. It also means when they raise an objection you agree with, you see it as insight, while when your opponent raises an objection you disagree with, you see it as ignorance. This occurs regardless of the validity of the arguments surrounding the point in question; the bias means you're more likely to take confirmatory arguments on merit, whilst distrusting even the most carefully structured and well-justified dissenting one.

2) Generalising

"Many Xs" is effectively an ad populum argument and therefore (in this context) fallacious. By definition, the majority of people on any position in any argument aren't going to be those espousing the most sophisticated or convincing arguments for that position.

3) Not comparing apples with apples

Those with whom you agree and put forward the arguments you find most compelling are then compared to the generalised 'many Xs'. This is not an equal comparison, as you should be looking at the many people on both sides who talk utter b*llocks and spend most of their time wrestling straw men, dismissing them and then comparing those who are the best from each side.

Another instance of this making cross-disciplinary comparisons as if they're perfectly equal. William Lane Craig does not have Richard Dawkins' understanding of genetics, while Richard Dawkins does not have William Lane Craig's understanding of philosophy.

4) The Vox Pop

These people are the ones who are successful at selling books. This means they're addressing the majority of the market, which is by definition not the most sophisticated or well-informed. They're popular spokespeople because they make the numbers, not because they impress the experts. Reading them as a challenge to yourself to 'overcome' their arguments isn't going to get you anywhere - apart from feeding back into (1) and making you feel even more convinced you were right than before. Reading them as a matter of research to try and develop a more nuanced appreciation of how - not what - the other side thinks is a much better approach.

As an example, I have greatly enjoyed reading some of Karen Armstrong's books as insights into theistic worldviews. Not because they tell me what various religious groups believe, but because they help me understand how those beliefs shape their lives and what meaning their various rituals and tenets of faith have in the context of that perspective. If had merely read her books to laugh derisively at people believing things that I find absurd, I'd have learned nothing.

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

So the truth is that many people on both sides of the debate have a poor understanding of not only the opposing position, but also of their own. That the mass-media interpretations of this are meant to be audience-friendly rather than critically developed. And that people on both sides are much quicker to dismiss moderate-or-strong arguments from their opponents than they are to accept poor arguments from their allies.

Personally, I think there's a phenomenal amount of noise on both sides. There are some interesting and clever arguments for theism - rarely seen around here, I must say - but I do not find them persuasive. What I find worrying is that many of the poor arguments are shouted very loudly and very often, while the informed, nuanced ones are drowned out by the uneducated din. This ranges from people who literally think that theists believe there's a guy with a beard who lives in the sky, through to people who atheists are just in denial and that science is a deliberate attack on their faith. The former need to stop scoffing and start listening, while the latter need to accept that the world - both in the form of scientific evidence and of profoundly different views - isn't dictated by what they feel must be the case.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:13:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:44:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This is of course subjective, but I get the strong impression here that the majority of atheists are very poorly acquainted with the works of those opposed to atheism.

Whereas the majority of those opposed to atheism often seem more well read, well aware of what the atheist ideology is and who its main proponents are.

I for one am very familiar with the sciences (primarily physics) and the vocal exponents of atheism, I do study their arguments, their books.

Many atheists here often describe or perceive "religion" in a very simplistic, likewise the Bible and the history of Christianity.

I have no hard data, but I do often get this impression, that atheism is largely dismissive of anything religious without ever studying the arguments.

You get that impression because of several factors.

1) Confirmation bias

You are more likely to think that those who agree with you are putting forward better arguments and have a deeper understanding of a topic than those who disagree with you. This extends to cover things like 'seeming well read' (as your bias dictates what you consider 'important' reading on the topic) and understanding your own (shared) position on the matter. It also means when they raise an objection you agree with, you see it as insight, while when your opponent raises an objection you disagree with, you see it as ignorance. This occurs regardless of the validity of the arguments surrounding the point in question; the bias means you're more likely to take confirmatory arguments on merit, whilst distrusting even the most carefully structured and well-justified dissenting one.

2) Generalising

"Many Xs" is effectively an ad populum argument and therefore (in this context) fallacious. By definition, the majority of people on any position in any argument aren't going to be those espousing the most sophisticated or convincing arguments for that position.

3) Not comparing apples with apples

Those with whom you agree and put forward the arguments you find most compelling are then compared to the generalised 'many Xs'. This is not an equal comparison, as you should be looking at the many people on both sides who talk utter b*llocks and spend most of their time wrestling straw men, dismissing them and then comparing those who are the best from each side.

Another instance of this making cross-disciplinary comparisons as if they're perfectly equal. William Lane Craig does not have Richard Dawkins' understanding of genetics, while Richard Dawkins does not have William Lane Craig's understanding of philosophy.

4) The Vox Pop

These people are the ones who are successful at selling books. This means they're addressing the majority of the market, which is by definition not the most sophisticated or well-informed. They're popular spokespeople because they make the numbers, not because they impress the experts. Reading them as a challenge to yourself to 'overcome' their arguments isn't going to get you anywhere - apart from feeding back into (1) and making you feel even more convinced you were right than before. Reading them as a matter of research to try and develop a more nuanced appreciation of how - not what - the other side thinks is a much better approach.

As an example, I have greatly enjoyed reading some of Karen Armstrong's books as insights into theistic worldviews. Not because they tell me what various religious groups believe, but because they help me understand how those beliefs shape their lives and what meaning their various rituals and tenets of faith have in the context of that perspective. If had merely read her books to laugh derisively at people believing things that I find absurd, I'd have learned nothing.

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

So the truth is that many people on both sides of the debate have a poor understanding of not only the opposing position, but also of their own. That the mass-media interpretations of this are meant to be audience-friendly rather than critically developed. And that people on both sides are much quicker to dismiss moderate-or-strong arguments from their opponents than they are to accept poor arguments from their allies.

Personally, I think there's a phenomenal amount of noise on both sides. There are some interesting and clever arguments for theism - rarely seen around here, I must say - but I do not find them persuasive. What I find worrying is that many of the poor arguments are shouted very loudly and very often, while the informed, nuanced ones are drowned out by the uneducated din. This ranges from people who literally think that theists believe there's a guy with a beard who lives in the sky, through to people who atheists are just in denial and that science is a deliberate attack on their faith. The former need to stop scoffing and start listening, while the latter need to accept that the world - both in the form of scientific evidence and of profoundly different views - isn't dictated by what they feel must be the case.

+1

Please marry me, this is beautiful.
Meh!
Archaholic
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:11:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry for the atheists here, but I didn't see any with a decent level of knowledge.

By the way, what does this topic have to do in science? It should be in religion since this is the right place for atheists. LOL

Best Regards
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:11:06 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry for the atheists here, but I didn't see any with a decent level of knowledge.

By the way, what does this topic have to do in science? It should be in religion since this is the right place for atheists. LOL


Well I felt that this was an epistemological question not a theological one. Science as much as anything rests upon good analysis and observation and rational arguments etc.

Best Regards
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 6:12:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:11:06 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry for the atheists here, but I didn't see any with a decent level of knowledge.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.


By the way, what does this topic have to do in science? It should be in religion...

Agreed.
Maybe someone with the appropriate authority can move the thread over.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.


All of those I mentioned do have credentials and an education.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 6:12:20 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:11:06 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry for the atheists here, but I didn't see any with a decent level of knowledge.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.


By the way, what does this topic have to do in science? It should be in religion...

Agreed.
Maybe someone with the appropriate authority can move the thread over.

So you'll also be OK then with no atheist related posts in the religion forum I take it?
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:40:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:16:46 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 6:12:20 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
Agreed.
Maybe someone with the appropriate authority can move the thread over.

So you'll also be OK then with no atheist related posts in the religion forum I take it?
Sure! I'll be there.
And I hope other non-believers will follow.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 7:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
PS:
In my forum, I move stuff around quite frequently. When a thread gets "off topic" it is a neatway to keep things organized. The difference is, that everyone can see ALL the latest posts, so it is easy for users to follow when a thread is split. or moved.

For the programmers... I use phpBB with a MySql database.
Archaholic
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 5:18:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 6:12:20 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:11:06 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I am sorry for the atheists here, but I didn't see any with a decent level of knowledge.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

Or maybe I didn't see the real hard-beaten atheists and just saw the ones who try to emulate them. lol.

By the way, what does this topic have to do in science? It should be in religion...

Agreed.
Maybe someone with the appropriate authority can move the thread over.
What is your forum? What is this about?
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:33:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 5:18:07 AM, Archaholic wrote:
What is your forum?
My Forum? -- I doubt you'ld be interested, since it's in German.
I suspect the Administration frowns on advertizing.

I am bilingual, brought up in the UK, my job took me to the US frequently.
I now live in a suburb of Munich, Germany.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:35:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 5:18:07 AM, Archaholic wrote:

Or maybe I didn't see the real hard-beaten atheists and just saw the ones who try to emulate them. lol.
How do you differentiate between a hard-beaten atheist and a radical fundamental christian or jew?
Archaholic
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:35:20 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 5:18:07 AM, Archaholic wrote:

Or maybe I didn't see the real hard-beaten atheists and just saw the ones who try to emulate them. lol.
How do you differentiate between a hard-beaten atheist and a radical fundamental christian or jew?

Despite the fact that they are never going to cave in, because both are believers, the first one would better support his statements scientifically and logically, while the other wouldn't. Fundamentalists tend to think ilogically, because their faith is irrational.

I used to debate on these thorny topics, in a similar forum like this but in my native language, and most of the atheists were driven by hatred, they didn't have arguments but insults. It looks like it is the same the world over.

Best Regards
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:44:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:15:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.


All of those I mentioned do have credentials and an education.

And yet, they are idiots with no valid arguments and a Bible in their hands.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 3:44:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:15:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.


All of those I mentioned do have credentials and an education.

And yet, they are idiots with no valid arguments and a Bible in their hands.

If you think Eric Davidson is an idiot then you're apparently the only person on earth who does, but then you're a loner by nature I suspect. Here's a snippet from the obituary of this "idiot":

"Davidson, a developmental biologist, was a pioneer researcher and theorist of the gene regulatory networks that perform complex biological processes, such as the transformation of a single-celled egg into a complex organism. His work helped to reveal how the DNA sequences inherited in the genome are used to initiate and drive forward the sequence of steps that result in development.

His research emphasized quantitative understanding of biological mechanisms and the logic functions encoded in genetic networks, and focused on the question of how the genomic DNA could encode not only protein sequences but also the complex "software" needed for differentiating cell types in the right places and proportions to make complex animals."

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited are not referred to as "idiots" by anyone but you and you've already made it pretty clear your are a dogmatic, opinionated, pseudo-scientific wannabe who likes to call people names rather than step up with facts or reasoned arguments.

Much of what you say in these forums is claptrap man, get off your high horse and start being honest with yourself, at least as a courtesy to the rest of us.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?

There are many, Michael Behe for example.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:28:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:44:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:15:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.


All of those I mentioned do have credentials and an education.

And yet, they are idiots with no valid arguments and a Bible in their hands.

If you think Eric Davidson is an idiot then you're apparently the only person on earth who does, but then you're a loner by nature I suspect. Here's a snippet from the obituary of this "idiot":

"Davidson, a developmental biologist, was a pioneer researcher and theorist of the gene regulatory networks that perform complex biological processes, such as the transformation of a single-celled egg into a complex organism. His work helped to reveal how the DNA sequences inherited in the genome are used to initiate and drive forward the sequence of steps that result in development.

His research emphasized quantitative understanding of biological mechanisms and the logic functions encoded in genetic networks, and focused on the question of how the genomic DNA could encode not only protein sequences but also the complex "software" needed for differentiating cell types in the right places and proportions to make complex animals."

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited are not referred to as "idiots" by anyone but you and you've already made it pretty clear your are a dogmatic, opinionated, pseudo-scientific wannabe who likes to call people names rather than step up with facts or reasoned arguments.

Much of what you say in these forums is claptrap man, get off your high horse and start being honest with yourself, at least as a courtesy to the rest of us.

So, Davidson actually understood and accepted evolution and isn't waving a Bible around, correct?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:28:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:09:25 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?

There are many, Michael Behe for example.

Massive Bonehead.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 9:03:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:28:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:09:25 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?

There are many, Michael Behe for example.

Massive Bonehead.

Is this now the hallmark of the scientifically erudite DJR? Is this the language of the rational analytical scientist?

This is probably the best you can do, you profess to admire science and its methods yet you refuse to adhere to them when discussing things with others?

So Behe is a "massive bonehead" how very clever of you, what a staggering intellectual rebuttal you have here!

Since you NEVER read any science unless it fits your personal "I want this to be true" mold, you'll be unaware that after Behe's published his book The Edge of Evolution he was attacked by numerous Darwinists - often very unprofessionally (but you'll like that bit).

This is a man who understands genetics and molecular biology better than you know how to rant and rave like a mad woman.

Well (again you wouldn't know any of this because you don't actually want to know) he was attacked for his claim that a certain resistance can only be developed after TWO distinct mutations. He calculated that the probabilities observed in nature were so low that it was inconceivable this resistance could arise form a single mutation and that thus evolutionary processes cannot explain it.

He claimed that unless at least TWO specific and very rare mutations were present at the same time, NO resistance was conferred. The chances of this happening were astronomical.

Many experts attacked him (not just his arguments) but guess what? He was proven absolutely correct by an independent team publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014.

Can we now label Kenneth Miller, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins as "massive boneheads"?

For those interested here's a short article explaining the controversy and his vindication.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

That's science DJR, that's how it's done, read it and take notes my friend.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 9:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:28:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 3:44:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/22/2016 7:15:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 3:59:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:28:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

5) Dunning-Kruger

Without wanting to cause too much offence, based on your posts here it seems likely your grasp of atheism is not as deep as you apparently think it is. The fact that you bring up your scientific credentials - which are pretty much irrelevant - whilst also suggesting that reading some popular mainstream authors are the key indicators of this. You make no mention of trying to understand the philosophical arguments for atheism at all. This suggests to me that you've mistaken "pop-science books written by atheists" for "advanced atheist arguments with rigorous philosophical underpinnings" and that is a hallmark of Dunning-Kruger.

Harry has many times brought up his incredibly lengthy list of academic accomplishments such that one wonders why he has not yet achieved a Nobel Prize, while he denies evolution and considers it a religion.

This is a regular claim made my many theists here who want to try and fool us that they actually have any credentials or an education, which they exhibit in their posts as willful ignorance and personal incredulity.


All of those I mentioned do have credentials and an education.

And yet, they are idiots with no valid arguments and a Bible in their hands.

If you think Eric Davidson is an idiot then you're apparently the only person on earth who does, but then you're a loner by nature I suspect. Here's a snippet from the obituary of this "idiot":

"Davidson, a developmental biologist, was a pioneer researcher and theorist of the gene regulatory networks that perform complex biological processes, such as the transformation of a single-celled egg into a complex organism. His work helped to reveal how the DNA sequences inherited in the genome are used to initiate and drive forward the sequence of steps that result in development.

His research emphasized quantitative understanding of biological mechanisms and the logic functions encoded in genetic networks, and focused on the question of how the genomic DNA could encode not only protein sequences but also the complex "software" needed for differentiating cell types in the right places and proportions to make complex animals."

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited are not referred to as "idiots" by anyone but you and you've already made it pretty clear your are a dogmatic, opinionated, pseudo-scientific wannabe who likes to call people names rather than step up with facts or reasoned arguments.

Much of what you say in these forums is claptrap man, get off your high horse and start being honest with yourself, at least as a courtesy to the rest of us.

So, Davidson actually understood and accepted evolution and isn't waving a Bible around, correct?

I have no idea and why do you keep asking me questions are you incapable of study?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 9:03:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:28:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:09:25 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?

There are many, Michael Behe for example.

Massive Bonehead.

Is this now the hallmark of the scientifically erudite DJR? Is this the language of the rational analytical scientist?

This is probably the best you can do, you profess to admire science and its methods yet you refuse to adhere to them when discussing things with others?

So Behe is a "massive bonehead" how very clever of you, what a staggering intellectual rebuttal you have here!

Since you NEVER read any science unless it fits your personal "I want this to be true" mold, you'll be unaware that after Behe's published his book The Edge of Evolution he was attacked by numerous Darwinists - often very unprofessionally (but you'll like that bit).

This is a man who understands genetics and molecular biology better than you know how to rant and rave like a mad woman.

Well (again you wouldn't know any of this because you don't actually want to know) he was attacked for his claim that a certain resistance can only be developed after TWO distinct mutations. He calculated that the probabilities observed in nature were so low that it was inconceivable this resistance could arise form a single mutation and that thus evolutionary processes cannot explain it.

He claimed that unless at least TWO specific and very rare mutations were present at the same time, NO resistance was conferred. The chances of this happening were astronomical.

Many experts attacked him (not just his arguments) but guess what? He was proven absolutely correct by an independent team publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014.

Can we now label Kenneth Miller, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins as "massive boneheads"?

For those interested here's a short article explaining the controversy and his vindication.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

That's science DJR, that's how it's done, read it and take notes my friend.

I'd be careful with your sources - and comfirmation bias - before you lecture others on it. Behe is a charlatan and his 'vindication' was nothing of the sort:

http://scienceblogs.com...

So he's just playing silly little numbers games that don't correspond to sound science. He's a hack.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 12:55:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 9:03:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:28:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:09:25 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:04:45 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 7:23:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

It's probably that case that most of the other respected scientists I've cited...
Which one of those others you cited is a scientist?

There are many, Michael Behe for example.

Massive Bonehead.

Is this now the hallmark of the scientifically erudite DJR? Is this the language of the rational analytical scientist?

This is probably the best you can do, you profess to admire science and its methods yet you refuse to adhere to them when discussing things with others?

So Behe is a "massive bonehead" how very clever of you, what a staggering intellectual rebuttal you have here!

Yes, Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry, currently residing at the Discovery Institute, a collection of massive boneheads who misrepresent science in order to push their ID/Creationism agenda. These clowns are well known, Harry.

I could care less if Behe knows his biochemistry and wins a Nobel Prize for it, he will remain a massive bonehead as long as he continues to advocate the Discovery Institute pushing out trash pseudo science to fool the ignorant and gullible all in the name of God.

Folks just like you, Harry.


Since you NEVER read any science unless it fits your personal "I want this to be true" mold, you'll be unaware that after Behe's published his book The Edge of Evolution he was attacked by numerous Darwinists - often very unprofessionally (but you'll like that bit).

This is a man who understands genetics and molecular biology better than you know how to rant and rave like a mad woman.

Well (again you wouldn't know any of this because you don't actually want to know) he was attacked for his claim that a certain resistance can only be developed after TWO distinct mutations. He calculated that the probabilities observed in nature were so low that it was inconceivable this resistance could arise form a single mutation and that thus evolutionary processes cannot explain it.

He claimed that unless at least TWO specific and very rare mutations were present at the same time, NO resistance was conferred. The chances of this happening were astronomical.

Many experts attacked him (not just his arguments) but guess what? He was proven absolutely correct by an independent team publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014.

Can we now label Kenneth Miller, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins as "massive boneheads"?

For those interested here's a short article explaining the controversy and his vindication.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

That's science DJR, that's how it's done, read it and take notes my friend.

Yay for Behe. He finally gets a small win from all the failures he's had trying to push ID.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:35:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 7:16:46 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

I apologize for going off topic. Are you an evolution denier? I never pegged you for one, and you generally put a lot of thought into your beliefs. I'm just curious what your position is. PM me, if you don't want to get the thread knocked up in a bunch.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 8:47:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:44:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
This is of course subjective, but I get the strong impression here that the majority of atheists are very poorly acquainted with the works of those opposed to atheism.
Please do enlighten us!


I for one am very familiar with the sciences (primarily physics) and the vocal exponents of atheism, I do study their arguments, their books.
Really?
What have you read?

Many atheists here often describe or perceive "religion" in a very simplistic, likewise the Bible and the history of Christianity.
The historic analysis if the bible is a science, which mist chtistians disregard copletely.
There is a saying that the quickest way to atheism is through the study of theology.


I have no hard data, but I do often get this impression, that atheism is largely dismissive of anything religious without ever studying the arguments.
Your perception is correct. This is because most arguments fall into the category of simple wuh-wuh.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 1:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 12:55:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
...

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

That's science DJR, that's how it's done, read it and take notes my friend.

Yay for Behe. He finally gets a small win from all the failures he's had trying to push ID.

The line of thinking is not small, however. The argument has always been that sure, evolution is statistically unlikely, with with enough trials success is virtually guaranteed. Well, over the last few years several lines of actually "do the math" have shown that odds are, for all practical purposes, impossible. Even very small steps, like the one in the article, can be shown to be statistically impossible.

You'll actually see, if you follow closely, that the 'random mutation' model of evolution is being abandoned, even among the faithful. It is becoming clear that there must be a more deterministic explanation. Nobody has any idea what that explanation might be, but evolution is so firmly status quo at this point that few think that the lack of any possibility of Darwinian evolution should hinder their certainty of it.
This space for rent.