Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ichthus

The percentage problem

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

You speak as if you have never dealt with fundamentalists.

I used to be one.... and I forgive myself for it. I understand how easy it is to get sucked into that nonsense.

21 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

The ones who can be reached are those who are undecided. Ridicule just drives them into the waiting arms of the fundamentalists

So it appears... but they go away and think.  In their own terms it plants a seed that they could be wrong... so wrong in fact that most think their position absolutely ludicrous beyond reason. I am lucky to have snapped out of it and thankful for the likes of Dawkins for telling it as it is rather than tiptoeing around eggshells.

Dawkins himself said that ridicule is what made him challenge his own religious beliefs when he was younger. It clearly works for some... no one ever converts one way or the other from a single polite conversation. It takes years of discussion and debate... a lot of love... and a little bit of ridicule for some, lol. :D

Again - sorry for the confusion. I quoted the OP and you replied pretty quickly addressing what I wrote and confused you with the OP earlier. Dumb error on my part.

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrP said:

I used to be one.... and I forgive myself for it. I understand how easy it is to get sucked into that nonsense.

So it appears... but they go away and think.  In their own terms it plants a seed that they could be wrong... so wrong in fact that most think their position absolutely ludicrous beyond reason. I am lucky to have snapped out of it and thankful for the likes of Dawkins for telling it as it is rather than tiptoeing around eggshells.

Dawkins himself said that ridicule is what made him challenge his own religious beliefs when he was younger. It clearly works for some... no one ever converts one way or the other from a single polite conversation. It takes years of discussion and debate... a lot of love... and a little bit of ridicule for some, lol. :D

Again - sorry for the confusion. I quoted the OP and you replied pretty quickly addressing what I wrote and confused you with the OP earlier. Dumb error on my part.

Informative. I have learned something from you. I spent some time a few years back on a couple of Christian forums and based on the fundamentalists encountered there considered them "beyond hope". (The fence sitters, or those standing quite close to the fence could be recovered.) I now accept, based on your input that for some at least, Dawkins approach can work.

Don't worry about the confusion. It amused me and I hoped your probable discomforture might give me a slight edge in the ensuing discussion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Don't worry about the confusion. It amused me and I hoped your probable discomforture might give me a slight edge in the ensuing discussion. :)

haha - it might give you an edge... but in the interest of decent discussion lets start again on equal footing eh?  :D

Regarding the OP - I think his questions were answered, but I think many get stuck up on the 'improbability' of these mutations proving useful and are incredulous as to how something random can be useful... but they do not take into account the extreme timescales that it takes for these things to happen. They see an eye and think it would be impossible for it to come about by chance and feel it must be designed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

I now accept, based on your input that for some at least, Dawkins approach can work.

dawkins is the fundamentalist at the other end of the bell curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

dawkins is the fundamentalist at the other end of the bell curve.

What does it even mean to be a fundamentalist atheist?  I still think it's BS. I am guessing you are basing your opinion of him on a few selected highlights of him getting angry during 2 hour debates. He sticks to what we believe to be facts. Have you read his books? Have you watched the whole 2 hour debate that lead to his emotion? He claims to be an agnostic anyway... i.e. present him proof of god and hell listen... give him an old book full of errors he'll laugh in your face and for good reason.

I get he gets emotional  -  who wouldn't after 2 hours of debate hearing the same tripe over and over.  What leads you to the claim he is a 'fundamentalist'? The only 'fundamentals' of atheism are the belief in the absence of a god based on the evidence provided... in that sense EVERY atheist is a fundamentalist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, DrP said:

What does it even mean to be a fundamentalist atheist?

 

 

46 minutes ago, DrP said:

in that sense EVERY atheist is a fundamentalist.

most of us are indifferent...

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

most of us are indifferent...

I don't care what people believe either.  BUT, if we are going to discuss the existence god in a debate like scenario over a beer or over an internet forum then I am not just going say 'yeah, whatever' to any base less claim of the supernatural... especially as a member of a science forum. That's not extremist or fundamentalist (whatever that means) - it is conversation. So - I stand by saying that every atheist is a fundamentalist. (Unless you are changing the definition of the word fundamental).

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

dawkins is the fundamentalist

I would say he was an activist or something like that for sure. There are no fundamentals to atheism other than the belief that there is not a god. You believe that then you are a fundamentalist.  He does ACTIVELY go out to share his views though  - which shows he cares about the world and the people in it in my book (I could be wrong) rather than leaving people in their ignorance. The false belief in gods has 'held back' the world from progressing further into understanding and freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrP said:

The false belief in gods has 'held back' the world from progressing further into understanding and freedom.

freedom from what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrP said:

I don't care what people believe either.  BUT, if we are going to discuss the existence god in a debate like scenario over a beer or over an internet forum then I am not just going say 'yeah, whatever' to any base less claim of the supernatural... especially as a member of a science forum. That's not extremist or fundamentalist (whatever that means) - it is conversation. So - I stand by saying that every atheist is a fundamentalist. (Unless you are changing the definition of the word fundamental).

 

I would say he was an activist or something like that for sure. There are no fundamentals to atheism other than the belief that there is not a god. You believe that then you are a fundamentalist.  He does ACTIVELY go out to share his views though  - which shows he cares about the world and the people in it in my book (I could be wrong) rather than leaving people in their ignorance. The false belief in gods has 'held back' the world from progressing further into understanding and freedom.

I think this is the balanced position.

Quote

If you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other. In this situation neither science nor logic can be brought to bear on the question of the existence of God. The order of the universe could be mere happenstance or it could be the result of God. The question is logically undecidable.

 

You are free to reach your own conclusion, or forego a final conclusion. But do not deceive yourself that whatever conclusion you reach is based on rigorous logic, unless you formulate a sufficiently narrow definition of God to be able to apply empirical data. In any case you should recognize that, despite the marvelous progress of science, there is a lot that we don't know. If we knew everything the satisfaction and outright fun of scientific discovery would be lost.-  SFN Member DrRocket

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

freedom from what?

I could write an essay on it dim. Freedom from the ignorant laws still in place due to religion (it was only made illegal in the UK about 20 years ago to rape your wife due to what it says in the bible about man and wife being one and the others possessions etc)... and that is in the west  -  look at the middle east and how they treat their women - don't tell me religion hasn't held them back from developing their society.  

Also on a personal level - freedom from the grief and fear that everyone who does not believe is going to eternal hell. That shit is what drives Christians to be pests... they want to save your soul and cry buckets for you. I don't miss that bullshit at all. Freedom from the ridicule of your peers for believing such fairytales etc. There is a long list.

Dawkins hits the nail right on the head for me. Christopher Higgins too.... although I'll agree that sometimes he could come across as a miserable git, lol.  That aside - it doesn't mean I can't go through my days with love in heart for my fellow man or full of joy for the very existence of things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DrP said:

That aside - it doesn't mean I can't go through my days with love in heart for my fellow man or full of joy for the very existence of things.

;)

43 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think this is the balanced position.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

It looks to me like this is supported by physics, language and biology, but this is not the place to try and show why. Happy to be shown wrong, so I will try to answer in the Religon forum. ( What is faith?)

Edited by naitche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, naitche said:

It looks to me like this is supported by physics, language and biology, but this is not the place to try and show why.

I don't see why not. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. But feel free to say there is no evidence, it is just your opinion or belief.

I Looked at your post in the tore thread. I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no mention of any evidence (you know, data, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.