• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Richard Dawkins: Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixel Pete said:
For what it's worth, 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a Martin Rees quote. Carl Sagan used the quote quite effective in Demon Haunted World as you say, but he was referencing it himself.
Click to expand...
Ah, I never knew that.

The more you know. The first time I heard it was when Rumsfeld used it back in the day. I made a single, sustained for a few seconds, "HA." Then, I took a nap, because my head hurt.
 
Veezy said:
Just some background, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a quote from Carl Sagan saying that the absence of evidence that UFOs are NOT visiting the Earth is a completely insufficient reason to conclude that UFOs ARE visiting the Earth.
Click to expand...

I know, I just didn't understand what it had to do with what I was saying. I don't think its from Sagan (directly). But I now understood what you meant.

On topic, I just don't understand how we can just throw some sort of god out there and say "it could exist because we don't have a way to determine it doesn't."
Click to expand...

Thats not what I was doing. Its simply to help understand the nature of some things. I don't believe a God does exist because it could. Anymore than I believe in vampires, dragons or werewolves. But I am also aware that if a God did exist substantiation would not be possible empirically.

Even after explaining it many people do not understand this. But the big problem is people butchering what science is in these types of debates. You have dozens of people asserting science can substantiate all possible "real" things. That anything beyond the constraints of empirical verification are false.

And these are people championing critical thought and rationality. It just bothers me, the pretense of knowledge and thought while being so very very ignorant.
 
HeadlessRoland: could you provide an identifying labeling of the sort of rejection of naturalism you are assuming in your posts, or might you have a cliff-notes-style elaboration and/or justification of it?

Because as I'm sure you already appreciate, to just go back and forth without any kind of common ground is pretty pointless.
 
HeadlessRoland said:
Thats not what I was doing. Its simply to help understand the nature of some things. I don't believe a God does exist because it could. Anymore than I believe in vampires, dragons or werewolves. But I am also aware that if a God did exist substantiation would not be possible empirically.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to say we can't prove these types of things empirically now, and even if that were demonstrably false, then I must ask myself why bother in the first place? There are an infinite number of possible things we could imagine to exist logically, but cannot prove empirically. We wouldn't get anything done if we gave any of them credence without evidence.
 
slidewinder said:
HeadlessRoland: could you provide an identifying labeling of the sort of rejection of naturalism you are assuming in your posts.
Click to expand...

I will provide whatever I am able if you can rephrase this less ambiguously. I have absolutely no idea what "Rejection of naturalism" implies in this context, let alone if I am assuming it.

I'm tempted to say we can't prove these types of things empirically now, and even if that were demonstrably false, then I must ask myself why bother in the first place? There are an infinite number of possible things we could imagine to exist logically, but cannot prove empirically. We wouldn't get anything done if we gave any of them credence without evidence.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine an experience that would substantiate something that empiricism could not? I can so I try to keep my eyes and mind open. I have had no experiences that denote the existence of God so I have no beliefs concerning it. But I do not assume my experiences summarize all of humanity.
 
HeadlessRoland said:
Can you imagine an experience that would substantiate something that empiricism could not? I can so I try to keep my eyes and mind open. I have had no experiences that denote the existence of God so I have no beliefs concerning it. But I do not assume my experiences summarize all of humanity.
Click to expand...

I can imagine limitless such examples. So why is the idea of a deity any more relevant than those countless other musings, especially with the quantity and quality of evidence is more or less equal?
 
Pixel Pete said:
I can imagine limitless such examples. So why is the idea of a deity any more relevant than those countless other musings, especially with the quantity and quality of evidence is more or less equal?
Click to expand...

To me it is no different. Its one of an infinite amount of possibles, I have no attachment or investment in the concept at all. And I won't until I have some basis to lend it some additional consideration.
 
Pixel Pete said:
I can imagine limitless such examples. So why is the idea of a deity any more relevant than those countless other musings, especially with the quantity and quality of evidence is more or less equal?
Click to expand...
This, and your previous post, are where I was about to take the discussion.

One time, I shit you not, I put socks in the dryer. However, when I pulled my clothing from the dryer, a sock was missing. I only have two things I can think here, either I simply dropped the sock or it was stolen by sock gnomes. You can't prove empirically that magic gnomes don't teleport from dryer to dryer stealing socks for their demonic currency.

Most people who say "Veezy, you so crazy." However, this event occurred to me. I could not explain it. Therefore, you should entertain the idea that it could have happened. Right?
 
Pixel Pete said:
For what it's worth, 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a Martin Rees quote. Carl Sagan used the quote quite effective in Demon Haunted World as you say, but he was referencing it himself.
Click to expand...
Not really a fan of that quote. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
 
Veezy said:
This, and your previous post, are where I was about to take the discussion.
Click to expand...

But what does that example have to do with the conversation? A better example would be that you did in fact see a gnome steal your sock. And then trying to explain it to those who did not witness it, haha.

But absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

It is evidence at the very least.
 
HeadlessRoland said:
You don't understand why people bring up metaphysical concepts as an example for things that science by their nature cannot examine? Its not a defense, its an attempt to convey some understanding about the nature of different forms of knowledge.
Click to expand...

We don't understand why people bring up metaphysical concepts as an example for things that science by nature cannot examine, whenever the validity (reality) of evolution is called into question. 99% of the time, it's used an attempt to lend credence to intelligent design/creationism or to justify an individuals personal belief in god; neither of which has anything to do with the evolution of life on Earth.

You are probably the second/third person I've come across in one of these debates that seems to seriously want to discuss the the philosophy of knowledge. I take that back, you're the first.


Veezy said:
This, and your previous post, are where I was about to take the discussion.

One time, I shit you not, I put socks in the dryer. However, when I pulled my clothing from the dryer, a sock was missing. I only have two things I can think here, either I simply dropped the sock or it was stolen by sock gnomes. You can't prove empirically that magic gnomes don't teleport from dryer to dryer stealing socks for their demonic currency.

Most people who say "Veezy, you so crazy." However, this event occurred to me. I could not explain it. Therefore, you should entertain the idea that it could have happened. Right?
Click to expand...

lol
 
Cyan said:
Not really a fan of that quote. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. But absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

it's closer to evidence of improbability than of absence. So I agree with the quote.
 
HeadlessRoland said:
But what does that example have to do with the conversation? A better example would be that you did in fact see a gnome steal your sock. And then trying to explain it to those who did not witness it, haha.
Click to expand...
Quite true, they're fast sons of bitches. If I seem a bit all over the place I apologize. I'm missing a sock, you see, and my foot is cold. Difficult to collect one's thoughts with a cold foot.

In terms of the most recent conversation, and the OP topic as a whole, at what point, for you personally, would you say "that's not real, I need something more?"

Fairies? Dragons? Sock gnomes? God?

Entertaining things that cannot be empirically proven has been pretty disastrous in public policy. I believe that's why there's so many aggressive Atheists. I just don't understand why it's wrong to say to somebody "look, I get what you believe, but unless you can give me some facts as to why we should use it for such and such policy, it's irrelevant to the subject at hand." You say that we can’t use the excuse that “science cannot prove god doesn’t exist, therefore we should still entertain the idea that it might.” I say “until something shows, factually, a higher power is out there, I could care less about acknowledging it one way or the other.”

Perry believes evolution isn’t a fact because of his religious belief in the Abrahamic god and the man shapes educational policies in his state. Why is the fact I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist reason enough for me to entertain his delusions? At what point am I allowed to be blunt and say “Genesis didn’t happen and you’re wrong believing it did?”

I think we might be close to the same page, you just might be a bit more “open minded,” I use that loosely, than I am.
 
Since we're talking about evolution, I just thought I'd add these before the thread ends.


platypus_662_600x450.jpg


This is a beaver with a duck bill.


empswim.jpg



These are birds.
 
Ghost_Protocol said:
We don't understand why people bring up metaphysical concepts as an example for things that science by nature cannot examine, whenever the validity (reality) of evolution is called into question.
Click to expand...

Which is certainly true. I go out of my way to make it blatantly clear that is not what I am about. But even when I do so MANY still cannot grasp the topic.

In terms of the most recent conversation, and the OP topic as a whole, at what point, for you personally, would you say "that's not real, I need something more?"

Fairies? Dragons? Sock gnomes? God?
Click to expand...

It would depend on who is making the claim and the story they told me. Most religious/supernatural claims do have a means to refute. So my personal opinion generally isn't required. But I would be skeptical about any of those claims. Shit I am skeptical about ANY claim, haha.

But there is a vast distinction between being skeptical and straight up denial. How many Atheist leaning folks in this thread alone have made assertions about science and even simple logic that are flat out and easily shown as false?

Perry believes evolution isn’t a fact because of his religious belief in the Abrahamic god and the man shapes educational policies in his state. Why is the fact I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist reason enough for me to entertain his delusions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, my open mindedness doesn't involve this. Science obviously trumps supernatural claims of this nature because the claims being made can be addressed by science. Shit, this is true for MOST religious claims and certainly for any of the pseudo-scientific nonsense the religious spew. The scope of what I am talking about is entirely removed from the implementation of religious nonsense because "its may be true." I do agree people twist the inherent umm fluidity of theory to equate to false and its entirely wrong. But those people are stupid there really isn't much to debate or argue about.

The issue is when "atheists" go to the next step and just wholesale label anything and everything as "impossible", "refuted", "stupid", "false." Its offensive, its especially offensive because they have a facade of knowledge,understanding and critical thought.

You cant fight ignorance with ignorance. And I detest those who butcher science as some form of justification for being closed minded and ignorant.

The topic in the OP is so mind numbingly boring. The entire thread is dog piling on those silly enough to make some absurd claim about science and religion. But those dog piling tend to not be that much different in the way they think.

wait, what's non-physical about math? Concepts are physical things too.
Click to expand...

Its an abstract, sure abstract things do exist in some form. But not in the same way. The concept of a unicorn exists also for example.
 
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired.
 
Pixel Pete said:
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired.
Click to expand...

Take your lemons elsewhere.
 
Copan said:
BTW, anyone claiming that the God of the Old Testament is an atrociously immoral figure, I'd strongly recommend listening to this British radio program wonderfully uploaded to Youtube which broadcasted a debate between Paul Copan (Christian philosopher) and Norman Bacrac (Secular Humanist). Just listen to the debate, and figure out who was logically responding to the ethical dilemmas, and who was merely attacking the position.


BTW, Amir0x, you might find this debate between Bart Ehrman and Darrell Bock interesting.
Click to expand...

Copan didn't really grapple with the ethical dilemma, if that's what you're suggesting. He essentially said the Bible is not a reliable description of what was actually going on, drew a bizarre equivalence between opposing genocide and thinking slaughtering people for not being is morally acceptable. He also doesn't know what ethnic cleansing is.
 
Amir0x said:
i've never seen this before, holy shit lol
Click to expand...

just a small sample of the epic facepalm that is Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. I personally would have had extreme difficulty keeping my composure when trying to debate against those two.
 
Pixel Pete said:
just a small sample of the epic facepalm that is Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. I personally would have had extreme difficulty keeping my composure when trying to debate against those two.
Click to expand...
someone needs to make a gif of that dude shaking his head when crocoduck comes out.
 
Aristion said:
BTW, anyone claiming that the God of the Old Testament is an atrociously immoral figure, I'd strongly recommend listening to this British radio program wonderfully uploaded to Youtube which broadcasted a debate between Paul Copan (Christian philosopher) and Norman Bacrac (Secular Humanist). Just listen to the debate, and figure out who was logically responding to the ethical dilemmas, and who was merely attacking the position.


BTW, Amir0x, you might find this debate between Bart Ehrman and Darrell Bock interesting.
Click to expand...


I thought the debate was pretty bad. The Humanist didn't respond to a lot of the bad logic used, and the Philosopher brought up a lot of bad points. I can see how a believer would think its a good listen though.
 
Pixel Pete said:
just a small sample of the epic facepalm that is Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. I personally would have had extreme difficulty keeping my composure when trying to debate against those two.
Click to expand...

I think I would just start dying of laughter. I don't even know if I could keep debating after that.

MuseManMike said:
Really? Then this should blow your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf...3481305829426D
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer...A4EDBB8BC402BF
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of those Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? videos, but the other link is filled with fresh material. Thanks. I'll be up all night at this rate!
 
MorisUkunRasik said:
I thought the debate was pretty bad. The Humanist didn't respond to a lot of the bad logic used, and the Philosopher brought up a lot of bad points. I can see how a believer would think its a good listen though.
Click to expand...

It was on a Christian radio station and the host of the show describes himself as a 'Christian apologist'. Just putting that out there.
 
Salacious Crumb said:
It was on a Christian radio station and the host of the show describes himself as a 'Christian apologist'. Just putting that out there.
Click to expand...


Yea the intro was a warning, but I thought I should listen since two or three people here said they enjoyed it.

I realize those people are probably Christians, because the apologizing for God being an unethical, illogical monster would give me the warm and fuzzies if I wished that he ultimately loved me and all creation.
 
Pixel Pete said:
How anyone can see richard dawkins as anything other than supremely patient given the circumstances after seeing this video (let alone the wendy wright video) is beyond me.
Click to expand...
And he has a good sense of humor
PvAXQ.jpg
 
Oh man these videos are hilarious and a painful reminder of how ignorant people can really be. I lol'd hard at this:

"Our Earth happens to be in a perfect spherical orbit around our star"
 
Pixel Pete said:
Thanks MuseManMike, this video you posted is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU

How anyone can see richard dawkins as anything other than supremely patient given the circumstances after seeing this video (let alone the wendy wright video) is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how Dawkins' critics don't comment on this one?


What a bunch of hypocritical liars. Picking and choosing what evidence to believe and pretending not to see things that detract from their point.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Amir IDK how you do it. Dealing with idiots on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm glad someone out there has those qualities. I couldn't do that shit for longer than 30 seconds.
 
Pixel Pete said:
I'm saying absence of evidence is likely to be evidence of improbability more than it is likely to be evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not clear on what the distinction is.

I would consider "evidence of absence" and "improbability" to be more or less equivalent.
 
Cyan said:
I guess I'm not clear on what the distinction is.

I would consider "evidence of absence" and "improbability" to be more or less equivalent.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. There are tons of mathematical conjectures where the first counterexample is a big number.

ie: Pólya conjecture
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Katy Perry & Justin Truedeau go official in Paris
2
71
1K
Baemono replied
Is music evolution reaching an end?
Opinion  2
69
5K
Laptop1991 replied
do you pay attention to the moon?
44
1K
Tajaz2426 replied
Richard Chamberlain dies, there goeth a LEGEND.
21
2K
ClanOfNone replied
Katy Perry Says She’s Been ‘Battered and Bruised’ by Backlash: The Internet Is a ‘Dumping Ground for Unhinged and Unhealed’
2
80
2K
RoboFu replied
Top Bottom