Podcast for 6-13-2011

[VectorM]

By his utterly moronic logic, absolutely anything that you can think of can be good, since obviously SOMEONE thinks it's good. I guess if a gang of rapists think that abusing a 12 year old girl is the greatest thing ever, that's all just a matter of perspective, isn't it?

This guy is criminally full of shit. He freaking KNOWS how retarded that is, but will simply use every excuse in the book for his dogma.

[MrBogosity]

Asking how his methodology works is an ad hominem???

[AnCap Dave]

Of course it is! /sarcasm.

Remember that challenging their dogma is the same thing as threatening them as far as they're concerned.

[Travis Retriever]

Asking how his methodology works is an ad hominem???

Our old friend, the Ad hominem recursus.

[AnCap Dave]

@Dave I'm going to say this again: You're still using the ad hominem fallacy and failing to prove anything with your attacks. Unless you can come up with an argument that doesn't involve bashing us, I'm done arguing with you about it.

Translation:

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA!

Oh, and another person jumped in on this conversation trying to be the "medium" position. Claiming we should teach both.....(/facepalm)

Science turns up contradictory reports about the same thing all the time, though. Nothing is ever fact in science; it's only fact until some other experiment comes along and disproves it. This is bad for you -- wait actually it's good for y...ou! This will give you cancer -- wait actually this CURES cancer! And so on, and so forth. The scientific "truths" about our world are constantly changing; one could argue that this makes THEM unreliable.

Anyway, reading over the article again, I don't see anywhere it says they're teaching creationism as fact - they're simply not teaching evolution as fact either.

I think presenting both ways of thought alongside one another is a good way to encourage kids to draw their own conclusions, as well as gain a better understanding of the perspectives of their peers. And when it comes down to it, those two lessons will be of much more practical use in their lives than a solid biological history lesson.

Translation:

DERP

A new reply has been given:

@Dave: I'm saying ad hominem because you absolutely refuse to see outside of the bounds of modern science, and keep labeling Christianity as "hokey pseudoscience." As far as I'm concerned, evolution could be called the same thing. Were y...ou, or anyone running the tests there to see those animals alive? I trust a historic record way more than some ballpark estimate, even if there were parts that were supposedly abridged or omitted.

The point I'm trying to convey is that both evolutionary science and Christianity are two sides of the same coin. Both rely on core assumptions, both have tested their beliefs repeatedly against their own unique logic and found it to be true, and, for the most part, neither is willing to concede those beliefs, because doing so would go against their core ideology. As far as you're concerned, Christianity is pseudoscience and not able to be proved, and as far as a Christian is concerned, with the exception of population drift (which has been observed within a human lifetime to be true), evolution is pseudoscience and not able to be proved.

There you have it folks. Undeniable evidence that Christians feel legitimately threatened when science gives us information that challenges their bogosity.

[AnCap Dave]

Okay, so I just got home from my anger management group (what a crock of shit) and I log into facebook only to see these two idiotic responses to my earlier statements.

I'm not asking you to acknowledge any merits of Christianity, since it seems clear that you don't think there are many, if any at all. I'm simply asking you to look at the bigger picture, at the grand scope of things, not just things from ...the viewpoint of those who believe in evolution or those who believe in intelligent design. What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years. Creationists believe that the Bible is a book of promises and prophecies, most of which have either come true or are showing signs of coming true. Many of us believe in miracles, things that defy science and the logic of the scientist. It's because of these things that we're at an impasse. We believe that miracles can be proven based on what happens in our lives, you call it coincidence and lies. You believe evolution can be proven, we ask you if you saw it happen with your own physical eyes while it occurred. My point is, like I said before, it's based on whose rules we're judging them by. I'd also like you to refrain from comparing intelligent design to a criminal activity, seeing as I made no comparison of the sort about evolution. There is no "victim" of creationism, and I'm not going to say there's a "victim" of evolution. I didn't cry ad hominem because you didn't accept that creationist viewpoints are valid, I said it because you compared us to criminals, and that's an attack on the person, not the idea, thus constituting an ad hominem argument.

"We believe that miracles can be proven based on what happens in our lives, you call it coincidence and lies. You believe evolution can be proven, we ask you if you saw it happen with your own physical eyes while it occurred. My point is, ...like I said before, it's based on whose rules we're judging them by."
^This. How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith? Both have their own methods of showing themselves to the person who wants to believe in them, so neither is any less valid than the other. You only see what you want to believe because that's all you're looking for, and that's why this argument can never truly be rectified in any one side's favor.

And so I'm going to reiterate: Why not teach them both? Why not teach the kids to be critical of information, no matter the source? Why not teach the kids to be open to and respectful of different viewpoints instead of feel threatened by them? Why not teach the kids to draw their own conclusions and think for themselves? Isn't that way of thinking the entire foundation of modern science?

The whole "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's the way it is" mentality is how the world ended up in the state it's in. There is no one answer that is right for everyone, so teaching one answer as the "right" one will only ensure that in ten years those kids will still be letting perfectly good debates like this one degrade into petty personal attacks because nobody will have learned to respect somebody else's viewpoint.

I might need to go back to anger management because I'm reaching a 10 on the anger meter.

[MrBogosity]

"What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years."

Yes, one side insists on believing in fairy tales, and the other side wants to examine evidence objectively and reach logical conclusions.

"How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith?"

Because you can repeat the experiments. Can you repeat a miracle?

[AnCap Dave]

"What I'm trying to get you to see is that, in these arguments, the only thing that's happening is the gridlock that's been going on for years."

Yes, one side insists on believing in fairy tales, and the other side wants to examine evidence objectively and reach logical conclusions.

"How is blindly believing what the science magazines tell you has been proven through experiments any different from blindly believing what the Bible tells you will be proven through faith?"

Because you can repeat the experiments. Can you repeat a miracle?

What qualifies as proof changes with the context. Beliefs based on tangible reality need to be proven within the parameters of tangible reality, like science. Beliefs based outside of tangible reality, like religious beliefs and philosophie...s, can't be held to the same standard because they are not to be taken in the same context. That's why this debate has reached an impasse; you are insisting that things that admit to having elements that do not operate within tangible reality be put under the same magnifying glass as something that does, and that is why you come up with results that do not satisfy a mindset based strictly around the five senses.

And I don't believe that's wrong, I just wish you wouldn't try to make other people believe that they're wrong, or belittle them because they believe something different than you. There are two sides to every coin, and you can only really look at one at a time, but that doesn't make the other side not worth seeing.

That's why I'm glad that they're teaching the two theories together, and that no amount of griping on the Internet is going to change that. ♥

I DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES DERPADERPADERPADERPA

[MrBogosity]

I think it's time for the big question:

What kind of evidence would you require in order for you to change your beliefs?

[AnCap Dave]

I think it's time for the big question:

What kind of evidence would you require in order for you to change your beliefs?

It's funny that you mention that.

You don't have to believe it. Nobody said you did. But that doesn't mean it's necessary to try to get them not to believe it if believing it makes them happy. The one point I have been trying to get across this whole time is that it IS all ...a matter of opinion, and that's okay; people are free to think what they want regardless of how irrational it may seem, and nobody is going to "concede" to anyone who asserts otherwise because freedom is what North America is allegedly all about.

Anyway, I consider debates over when one side tries to tell the other how to think, so I'm going to exit this conversation and wish you the best in...whatever you're trying to accomplish with this.

By the way, that was hippie chick who wants us all to get along. As for Mr. Creationist, here was his final remark:

There is one thing I'd like to point out: faith is supposed to often fly in the face of conventional logic. You have to believe it before you can see the evidence of it. I've seen too much evidence to think otherwise, but it's impossible ...to reproduce the results of a person's faith because everyone's faith is different. Call me crazy, call me a kook, call me blind, call me naive, call me a hypocrite call me whatever you wish; it's not going to change my mind, and I didn't walk into this conversation expecting to change yours. I came in hoping to iterate something like Cabron said and hoped you would understand. I'm done here.

[MrBogosity]

How arrogant are people like that? The inevitable consequence of that statement is that they know everything there is to know, and have nothing else to learn. The ultimate know-it-all!

[AnCap Dave]

How arrogant are people like that? The inevitable consequence of that statement is that they know everything there is to know, and have nothing else to learn. The ultimate know-it-all!

Of course, but these people are also continuing the old practice of covering their ears and screaming "I can't hear you."

[AnCap Dave]

I know this topic is really old, but this is quite related to a story that was posted in this thread.

Apparently the city of Philadelphia has followed suit in regards to feeding the homeless outdoors.

[yt]6X6HDnXufQk[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

There's another atrocity regarding the homeless in the next podcast.