The percentage problem

[naitche]

On 3/29/2019 at 8:42 PM, Strange said:

Do you have any evidence for this?

Enough to convince me, but after trying to come up with examples I see it takes this thread far off topic so would need to be a new subject.

It would need a good look at the organisation as organism hypothesis, thought I see that hypothesis as missing the mark too..... (More like culture as organism)

And to define 'belief' or 'faith'.

On 3/29/2019 at 8:42 PM, Strange said:

Also, people hold a wide variety of beliefs and opinions so I doubt that has a significant effect.

In the singular I agree the effect is insignificant. When promoted culturally,  not insignificant.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

In the singular I agree the effect is insignificant. When promoted culturally,  not insignificant.

Again, you will need to provide evidence of this claim. Otherwise it can be dismissed as a baseless belief.

[DrP]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 5:25 AM, Ichthus said:

- I've been reading The God Delusion

Awesome book yea?

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 5:25 AM, Ichthus said:

So far Richard's argument seems to solely be, "I'm not smart enough to understand this, an almighty God could not possibly be smarter than me, therefore there is no God."

I never got that from his book at all.  Can you quote me the chapter and page number where he said that please - I'll look it up.

Edited April 2, 2019 by DrP
sp.

[iNow]

I think Dawkins also discusses the logical fallacy known as a strawman. Perhaps follow-up by reading that section 

[koti]

On 4/2/2019 at 1:28 PM, DrP said:

Awesome book yea?

To be honest, I lasted about 60 pages into the book, its just so agenda driven that even me, a binary hardcore blasphemer wouldn’t find interest in it.

[StringJunky]

59 minutes ago, koti said:

To be honest, I lasted about 60 pages into the book, its just so agenda driven that even me, a binary hardcore blasphemer wouldn’t find interest in it.

It should be clear what his agenda is from the title, so one shouldn't be surprised.

Edited April 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[koti]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It should be clear what his agenda is from the title, so one shouldn't be surprised.

Ofcourse youre right, I wasn’t accurate in my initial post, not agenda more of an obsession like approach. I know it’s bizzare that something like this comes out of my post after all I wrote in the religion section on this forum, I guess I just don’t like the hammering that Dawkins is doing, it becomes like playing sand with my 3 year old after a while and that while was 60 pages for me.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

Ofcourse youre right, I wasn’t accurate in my initial post, not agenda more of an obsession like approach. I know it’s bizzare that something like this comes out of my post after all I wrote in the religion section on this forum, I guess I just don’t like the hammering that Dawkins is doing, it becomes like playing sand with my 3 year old after a while and that while was 60 pages for me.

He's an evangelist for atheism.

[DrP]

14 hours ago, koti said:

To be honest, I lasted about 60 pages into the book, its just so agenda driven

.. the agenda being the removal of ignorance and the establishment of known facts.   ;-)

[koti]

30 minutes ago, DrP said:

.. the agenda being the removal of ignorance and the establishment of known facts.   ;-)

I agree, bad choice of words from me.

[DrP]

1 minute ago, koti said:

I agree, bad choice of words from me.

He does state certain things as fact that some people still like to argue are unknown. I think that clashes with their beliefs and the cognitive dissonance kicks in for many.

 

 

[koti]

30 minutes ago, DrP said:

He does state certain things as fact that some people still like to argue are unknown. I think that clashes with their beliefs and the cognitive dissonance kicks in for many.

 

 

Thats not it for me, like Stringy said hes an evangelist for atheism and I would prefer him give people more pure science information than keep on mangling the same semantical crusade. I was in love with Dawkins when I was younger and I don’t want to take anything away from him I just think he could be more efficient.

[naitche]

On 4/2/2019 at 9:55 PM, Strange said:

Again, you will need to provide evidence of this claim. Otherwise it can be dismissed as a baseless belief.

There is evidence surely in the impact of the politics of identity.

Where value is placed on cultural conditions.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, naitche said:

There is evidence surely in the impact of the politics of identity.

Where value is placed on cultural conditions.

In what way is that evidence for:

Quote

The direction of humanities Biology and evolution are going to be  influenced by the beliefs Humanity holds.

Belief limits direction.

Please support your answer with quantitative data (in other words, evidence) not just more vague platitudes.

[Intrigued]

On 4/9/2019 at 10:26 AM, koti said:

Thats not it for me, like Stringy said hes an evangelist for atheism and I would prefer him give people more pure science information than keep on mangling the same semantical crusade. I was in love with Dawkins when I was younger and I don’t want to take anything away from him I just think he could be more efficient.

True. When one is criticising others for populating their arguments with emotional rhetoric it makes sense to avoid it onself. Dawkins, in his enthusiasm, seems often to overlook this. Consequently he is generally just singing to the choir and, in the process, encouraging some people to join the a capella group down the road.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

True. When one is criticising others for populating their arguments with emotional rhetoric it makes sense to avoid it onself. Dawkins, in his enthusiasm, seems often to overlook this. Consequently he is generally just singing to the choir and, in the process, encouraging some people to join the a capella group down the road.

Well put.

I think Dawkins is attacking the wrong target, anyway. There are religious people who are rational, critical thinkers, good scientists, etc. And there are people who make irrational arguments, are anti-science and anti-knowledge for reasons other than religion (politics, power, etc).

Showing people the benefits that science brings, introducing them to critical thinking, etc. are more generally useful strategies than attacking religion.

[DrP]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Showing people the benefits that science brings, introducing them to critical thinking, etc. are more generally useful strategies than attacking religion

Is purely stating facts considered attacking religion though? If I state for a fact that the bible has holes in it and does not stand up to scrutiny then is that attacking religion or simply pointing out that rationality and the bible do not sit well together?  If I state that modern science shows that many of the claims of religion are obviously and demonstrably false - is that an attack on religion or simply a statement of observation? 

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 5:25 AM, Ichthus said:

(I know even many atheists think he's an 'arrogant jerk' in their own words

this is probably based on many of the popular video clips of him ridiculing or lambasting an opponent of his in one of his many debates. You have to take them in context. After an hour of going in circles with some pointing out that you deal with facts not woo how long before it gets heated. If you agree with him then you are more likely to see why he gets frustrated and turns occasionally to ridicule over patient explanation. People focus on these heated moments and say he is arrogant...   why should he pander ignorance when that is the very thing he is fighting against?

[Intrigued]

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

Is purely stating facts considered attacking religion though? If I state for a fact that the bible has holes in it and does not stand up to scrutiny then is that attacking religion or simply pointing out that rationality and the bible do not sit well together?  If I state that modern science shows that many of the claims of religion are obviously and demonstrably false - is that an attack on religion or simply a statement of observation?

Some good points. Here are some counterpoints.

• Some attacks on religion I have read or heard are not well researched and present as "facts" stereotypes, strawmen, misinformation, etc.
• If the Bible is said to be the inerrant Word of God thent pointing out the "holes in it" that do not "stand up to scrutiny" is valid. If, however, it is taken as in part at least a mythology conveying important moral and philosophical truths then many of those holes vanish.
• I have talked with several rational Christians who have no trouble reconciling the findings of science and the meaning of scripture. I suggest the charge of irrationality applies primarily to the those who insist upon a literal interpretation, such as the Young Earth Creationists.
• It would definitely be even more off topic to review which religious claims you believe are refuted by science, but I suggest again that may be restricted to those fundamentalist interpretations.

Note: we seem to be drifting off topic, so I have reported this post and asked for moderator guidance.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Intrigued

[DrP]

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Note: we seem to be drifting off topic, so I have reported this post and asked for moderator guidance.

How is it off topic? It directly applies to the points you claimed in the OP.

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Some attacks on religion I have read or heard are not well researched and present as "facts" stereotypes, strawmen, misinformation, etc.

Which ones  -  lets address them to see where you have misunderstood them or I have.

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

If the Bible is said to be the inerrant Word of God thent pointing out the "holes in it" that do not "stand up to scrutiny" is valid. If, however, it is taken as in part at least a mythology conveying important moral and philosophical truths then many of those holes vanish.

I disagree. The holes do not vanish - they prove the point it is not the infallible word of god. After that what have you got? There is some wisdom in it, but also some evil shit, which Christians turn a blind eye too or make lame excuses for.

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

I have talked with several rational Christians who have no trouble reconciling the findings of science and the meaning of scripture. I suggest the charge of irrationality applies primarily to the those who insist upon a literal interpretation, such as the Young Earth Creationists

Yep - I agree  -  the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

It would definitely be even more off topic to review which religious claims you believe are refuted by science, but I suggest again that may be restricted to those fundamentalist interpretations.

How is it off topic if we are discussing Dawkins? Claims made by him are surely integral to the conversation. It sounds like you are ducking out of something you know isn't going to go that well. ;-)

 

17 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

so I have reported this post and asked for moderator guidance.

I'll do the same as it is CLEARLY on the topic of the OP.

Edited April 11, 2019 by DrP
sp.

[Intrigued]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

How is it off topic? It directly applies to the points you claimed in the OP.

Who posted the OP? Who am I? You might want to check that out.

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

Which ones  -  lets address there to see where you have misunderstood them or I have

I am not speaking of generic attacks, but rather specific attacks. These are usually so whimsical one dismisses them on the spot. I would need to dig into posts on another forum to find examples. If you wish me to do so I shall make the effort. There are some instance of generic attacks. For example an individual makes the claim that science has proved there is no God. Since science is not in the business of proof and does not concern itself with the supernatural, this is a flawed attack.

10 minutes ago, DrP said:

I disagree. The holes do not vanish - they prove the point it is not the infallible word of god. After that what have you got? There is some wisdom in it, but also some evil shit, which Christians turn a blind eye too or make lame excuses for.

Not all Christians assert that every word in it is the infallible word of god. The holes remain if you adopt the view that only a fundamentalist interpretation is valid. As such, you fall into the same trap as the fundamentalists.

12 minutes ago, DrP said:

Yep - I agree  -  the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.

Irrelevant to what I said.

12 minutes ago, DrP said:

How is it off topic if we are discussing Dawkins? Claims made by him are surely integral to the conversation.

As I understood the OP we were discussing a specific question of Dawkins'. However, since the member seemed greatly taken by Dawkins style then our conversation here might just be relevant. That's why I asked for moderator guidance.

 

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

It sounds like you are ducking out of something you know isn't going to go that well. ;-) 

As someone who is atheistic towards the God of the Abrahamic religions, highly dubious about all the gods of other religions, despite an affection for Aphrodite, and agnostic to the general concept of gods I'm quite confortable with how things are going, apart from the limitations to the points you made in your earlier post. I've addressed those, so once you've figured out how misdirected your post was we can proceed.

[DrP]

29 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

drifting off topic

Unless you mean that you only wanted to discuss the percentage change of going from 0% eye to 0.0000001% eye.  In which case it would be hard to be exact as it all happened long before we even were.   I do not know the 'probability' of it happening....  but over several billion years you can bet that many many mutations were tried and rejected before that 0.0001% of an eye gave any evolutionary benefit enough to keep and develop I would assume.

[Intrigued]

Just now, DrP said:

Unless you mean that you only wanted to discuss the percentage change of going from 0% eye to 0.0000001% eye.  In which case it would be hard to be exact as it all happened long before we even were.   I do not know the 'probability' of it happening....  but over several billion years you can bet that many many mutations were tried and rejected before that 0.0001% of an eye gave any evolutionary benefit enough to keep and develop I would assume.

No. I think that may be what the OP only wanted to discuss. See my previous post.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Is purely stating facts considered attacking religion though?

I don’t know. But I still think it is pointless.

I know some religious people who are quite aware of such contradictions in the Bible and just shrug. Such inaccuracies are irrelevant to what they believe.

There are a small number of people who insist every word must be true (“if the Bible and reality are in conflict then it must be reality that is wrong”) but they are not going to be influenced by anything Dawkins says, anyway.

[DrP]

Just now, Intrigued said:

 I think that may be what the OP only wanted to discuss.

Maybe - but there were claims of arrogance without supporting evidence of arrogance (I know why people think he is arrogant and I think I have a right to defend him against such a claim...  not that I know him personally, but, for the reasons I stated I think people get the wrong idea due to the dissonance they feel as his arguments are counter to their beliefs).

Also - sorry - I did confuse you for the OP earlier somehow - not that it matters - I was addressing what you wrote and what the OP wrote.... so I still do not feel it is off topic.  I'll bow to the moderator's wisdom though. Maybe the OP did just want to discus the evolution of the eye.... if so, he could have left out the digs about the author of the book he is reading. Including such digs makes the author as much the topic of conversation as the eye percentage question - thus - not off topic imo.

11 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

The holes remain if you adopt the view that only a fundamentalist interpretation is valid. As such, you fall into the same trap as the fundamentalists.

this I agree could be wandering off topic and I am happy not to discuss it further, but I disagree that it falls into the same trap. If you take the line that it is myth when it suits you and true when it backs your point then it is a total cop out in my book and you can go in circles without end. IMO the argument is easily settled as to if there is a god or not... let him put up (show up) or shut up  -  so far no show.

 

14 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

I am not speaking of generic attacks, but rather specific attacks. These are usually so whimsical one dismisses them on the spot. I would need to dig into posts on another forum to find examples. If you wish me to do so I shall make the effort. There are some instance of generic attacks. For example an individual makes the claim that science has proved there is no God. Since science is not in the business of proof and does not concern itself with the supernatural, this is a flawed attack

All too broad to discuss without specific examples..  lets not bother.  But in another thread I would ask for the examples and address them  -  some are probably as you claim, but I reckon each one would need separate address.

Just now, Strange said:

I don’t know. But I still think it is pointless.

Although many things lead to my own 'conversion' from Christianity to atheism, Dawkins helped tip the balance and helped me think rationally and logically about the subject. I like his direct and to the point no nonsense style.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

know some religious people who are quite aware of such contradictions in the Bible and just shrug. Such inaccuracies are irrelevant to what they believe.

I know - I was one of them for a long time.

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are a small number of people who insist every word must be true (“if the Bible and reality are in conflict then it must be reality that is wrong”) but they are not going to be influenced by anything Dawkins says, anyway.

Again I disagree...  he talks directly to the fundamentalists. If you point out how ludicrous their arguments are then it chips away at their delusion slowly over time. He even confesses that ridicule played a big part in getting him to even consider that his religious beliefs could be wrong when he was younger.  

[Intrigued]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

Maybe - but there were claims of arrogance without supporting evidence of arrogance (I know why people think he is arrogant and I think I have a right to defend him against such a claim...  not that I know him personally, but, for the reasons I stated I think people get the wrong idea due to the dissonance they feel as his arguments are counter to their beliefs).

Also - sorry - I did confuse you for the OP earlier somehow - not that it matters - I was addressing what you wrote and what the OP wrote.... so I still do not feel it is off topic.  I'll bow to the moderator's wisdom though. Maybe the OP did just want to discus the evolution of the eye.... if so, he could have left out the digs about the author of the book he is reading. Including such digs makes the author as much the topic of conversation as the eye percentage question - thus - not off topic imo.

this I agree could be wandering off topic and I am happy not to discuss it further, but I disagree that it falls into the same trap. If you take the line that it is myth when it suits you and true when it backs your point then it is a total cop out in my book and you can go in circles without end. IMO the argument is easily settled as to if there is a god or not... let him put up (show up) or shut up  -  so far no show.

You've got over 3,000 posts. I've got just over fifty. I'm trying to find my way around the written and unwritten rules of the forum as fast as I can. You've made much the same points as I made in my report. I don't know. I think one of my strengths is knowing when I don't know and then either shutting up, or asking someone who does. That's what I did here. (Asked. Generally I don't shut up.)

9 minutes ago, DrP said:

this I agree could be wandering off topic and I am happy not to discuss it further, but I disagree that it falls into the same trap. If you take the line that it is myth when it suits you and true when it backs your point then it is a total cop out in my book and you can go in circles without end. IMO the argument is easily settled as to if there is a god or not... let him put up (show up) or shut up  -  so far no show.

 

9 minutes ago, DrP said:

All too broad to discuss without specific examples..  lets not bother.  But in another thread I would ask for the examples and address them  -  some are probably as you claim, but I reckon each one would need separate address.

Rebuttal would certainly take us off topic. I'm happy to agree to disagree, at least until a suitable venue comes up to pursue the discussion.

On your defence of Dawkins I stand by my earlier assertion that he pumps to much emotion into his rhetoric. I adored The Ancestor's Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable was good, but contained as I recall too many assumptions, or more probably too many gross simplifications. The Selfish Gene left me unconvinced in part because of his style that reminded me of a con man. I stumbled onto a documentary featuring him without knowing that the presenter was Dawkins. It took me about two minutes to ask myself, "who is this jerk?"

The point of the foregoing. I only saw the reactions to foolish YECs long after I had formed my opinion of the man - good storyteller (great in Ancestor), but too smug for his own good and overfond of show over substance. Remember, like your view, it's just an opinion.

18 minutes ago, DrP said:

Again I disagree...  he talks directly to the fundamentalists. If you point out how ludicrous their arguments are then it chips away at their delusion slowly over time.

You speak as if you have never dealt with fundamentalists. They don't have arguments. They have beliefs. These beliefs are unassailable. If it is a choice between the Bible and Reality, the Bible wins everytime. Circular arguments do not disturb them, since ultimately they have their faith.

The ones who can be reached are those who are undecided. Ridicule just drives them into the waiting arms of the fundamentalists. Calm, open, respectful argument, mindful of their nascent beliefs can bring rationality to their world. Dawkins style rhetoric, not so much.

Dawkins has perceived a genuine danger to Western Civilisation. It's just that his approach is exacerbating it.