RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2011,08:17   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 24 2011,07:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,11:30)
[/quote]
Hi everyone,

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..

Yes.  At least the in the US most people's sum total of science education is one class in 9th grade and one in 8th grade.

Not only that, but they are willfully ignorant.  Meaning that they don't want to know that they are wrong.

Quote

2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.


Yes, The ringleaders fall into two types (IME), the True Believer who is basically a fundamentalist and too ignorant to know anything about his beliefs and what he's saying.  But he's loud and a pretty good debater (unless you recognize and point out all the fallacies and rhetorical tricks.

The other type is the guy who knows he's wrong, but has sucked in some True Believers and either refuses to admit his mistake or is making some profit off of it.

Quote

3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.

Yes, yes, yes.  Until you discover that they are totally immune to knowledge, in which case a little humor at their expense can lighten the mood.

Quote

4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.

Yes.  Atheism has nothing to do with science.  IME, the creationists can't understand the difference between science, atheism, and religion.

In religion, they are told the truth by their pastors or church leaders.  They can't understand that science doesn't work like that.  It's why they attack Darwin and Dawkins so much. They think that by discrediting them, they are making headway against the science.

To, their entire worldview is fixed around religion being incorporated into their lives.  They have real difficulty separating religion (or non-religion) from anything else and can't understand that religion plays no role in science and vice versa.  Any attempt to combine the two is doomed to fail (including atheism).

Further, they can't understand that a scientist can say things as a non-scientist.  Dawkins is a good example of this.  He does good science.  He also does good philosophy.  The creationists often assume that by attacking one they can make headway against the other.  They are wrong and can't understand why.

Quote

5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.

A thousand times yes.  I'm glad it's working for you.

Strawman arguments are the basis of creationist attacks on science.  They can't argue against the actual science and they refuse to learn what it really is.

Quote

6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.

You're are very good at this.  That's the best way.

Quote


7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.


Just be VERY VERY careful to state that is is an analogy and that it is used to illustrate the point, not define it.

Analogies (like our discussion with forastero and the Big Bang) can cause lots of confusion, especially when the creationists attack the analogy instead of the science.
Quote

8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Yes.

[quote]
Just a few ideas.

Marty

Your points are all exactly on point.  Well done.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]