Richard Dawkins on debating creationists

Originally posted by @vivify
If religion was simply like believing in Santa, where no one is hurt from believing in it, then I'd agree.

Unfortunately, religion has had disastrous effects all throughout history until the present day. Women are still being stoned to death for accusations of not being a virgin. People have died from abortion clinics being bombed, or shot up. Childr ...[text shortened]... ...etc., etc.

Religion must be fought against because it's affects only make the world worse.

Yes, bad things have been done in the name of religion. I will say, though, that religious exemptions for vaccinations is somehow becoming more common in the US while religious affiliations is going down dramatically. Why is that?

Do you think the disasters will all go away if you remove religion from the equation? Would everyone be vaccinated?

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
You aren't equating the temporal funny story of Santa (explained to be fake when they are still children and still impressionable) to the lifelong religious stories and threats that are told to be the absolute undisputed truth, are you??

We could come up with a useful comparison if you had an example and not a straw man.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
We could come up with a useful comparison if you had an example and not a straw man.

I'm confused. What strawman, and why do we need a comparison?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I will say, though, that religious exemptions for vaccinations is somehow becoming more common in the US while religious affiliations is going down dramatically. Why is that?

The rise of conservative media, most notably, Fox News, which came to prominence in the early 2,000's. As they become more and more popular, their misinformation (like vaccines causing autism) reached a wider and wider audience, made up largely of Christian conservatives.

Do you think the disasters will all go away if you remove religion from the equation? Would everyone be vaccinated?

Will gun control eliminate murder? Will condoms eradicate STDs? Will vaccines make sickness go away? Probably not, but they're good things to pursue and a step in the right direction. Likewise with removing religion.

Originally posted by @vivify
Will gun control eliminate murder? Will condoms eradicate STDs? Will vaccines make sickness go away? Probably not, but they're good things to pursue and a step in the right direction. Likewise with removing religion.

I couldn't agree more, especially when it comes to religious brainwashing of children; at the very least that should be stopped.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yes, bad things have been done in the name of religion. I will say, though, that religious exemptions for vaccinations is somehow becoming more common in the US while religious affiliations is going down dramatically. Why is that?

Do you think the disasters will all go away if you remove religion from the equation? Would everyone be vaccinated?

It's not only the things Viv brought up, My main concern is the drive to Iranicize the US but for Christianity. The incessent drive to kill evolution as a science and to force schools to teach creationism as if it were a science, IN A SCIENCE CLASS, that is the first of their cynical goals.
If they acheive that, they would go further and try to kill the idea of separation of church and state, like in Iran where Islam IS the government and would be that way in any country they manage to take over completely. In the US, Muslims are mainly tamed and would not respond to an Imam calling for arms and rebellion and such. Not so in contries controlled by Islam.

Christians here would LOVE to have the US completely convert to a religious government, prayer in every school, bible classes in every school and so forth.

Of course that will in all probability never happen because of what you mentioned, the downtrend of religion in the US which is a VERY good thing, because it limits the amount of political power the religious nutter set can get.

So far they have lost almost all the battles over evolution but their latest try is 'freedom of speech' defense and I sincerely hope judges will see through that scam as easily as the rest of them like trying to say 'Intelligent design' rather than goddidit. That one fell like a lead pony.

I think, however, about Dawkins, he has lost some luster by his other antics outside the realm of evolution and creationism.

Originally posted by @vivify
The rise of conservative media, most notably, Fox News, which came to prominence in the early 2,000's. As they become more and more popular, their misinformation (like vaccines causing autism) reached a wider and wider audience, made up largely of Christian conservatives.

[b]Do you think the disasters will all go away if you remove religion from the equa ...[text shortened]... ey're good things to pursue and a step in the right direction. Likewise with removing religion.

Pretty off topic from what we were discussing. But... anti-vaxxers are clearly more associated with the non-religious political left.

Reference: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
I'm confused. What strawman, and why do we need a comparison?

It's pretty clear from the thread. You based your contention that Dawkins was not an extremist byconstructing an idea of religion that consisted of "Filling your child's head with life changing lies" instead of what religion really is. You created an easier target to tear down. I brought up Santa to illustrate this.

Religion is more than indoctrination and Santa. The simple fact that it's important and comfortable and visceral and cultural to so many people who deserve to also know about the scientific method should be enough to convince you that we should look for a solution and not create straw men.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It's not only the things Viv brought up, My main concern is the drive to Iranicize the US but for Christianity. The incessent drive to kill evolution as a science and to force schools to teach creationism as if it were a science, IN A SCIENCE CLASS, that is the first of their cynical goals.
If they acheive that, they would go further and try to kill the ...[text shortened]... ins, he has lost some luster by his other antics outside the realm of evolution and creationism.

All reasonable positions, I think. But I don't think it's productive or appropriate to run to your corner during a contentious debate and refuse to address why other people think and feel differently than you. As I replied to vivify, I think that by addressing the distinct qualities of answerable questions, it allows us to all move forward with a greater appreciation for the benefits of scientific inquiry. It should be able to work.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
It's pretty clear from the thread. You based your contention that Dawkins was not an extremist byconstructing an idea of religion that consisted of "Filling your child's head with life changing lies" instead of what religion really is. You created an easier target to tear down. I brought up Santa to illustrate this.

Religion is more than indoctrination ...[text shortened]... od should be enough to convince you that we should look for a solution and not create straw men.

In other words, since the scam has been going on for thousands of years, get over it, join the party, what's your PROBLEM?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
In other words, since the scam has been going on for thousands of years, get over it, join the party, what's your PROBLEM?

Not even close. Convince people who disagree with you that you have something interesting to say.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Not even close. Convince people who disagree with you that you have something interesting to say.

What can you say interesting about the abrahamic religions? You mean try to find commonalities between religion and science? Points that both can agree on? Like what? The fact they may be alive because of advances in medical sciences, that kind of thing? If so, how would that tie to religion?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
What can you say interesting about the abrahamic religions? You mean try to find commonalities between religion and science? Points that both can agree on? Like what? The fact they may be alive because of advances in medical sciences, that kind of thing? If so, how would that tie to religion?

For starters, you can find lots of prominent religious organizations (including Catholicism) who accept evolutionary theory. https://ncse.com/media/voices/religion. Many people who reject evolution may not know that their own church already accepted it. Evolution is not atheism.

Or try this: If God made the world, one should not be afraid to see it as it is. Genesis is a puzzle with lots of missing pieces. If you're reading a bible literally (Young earth), you're projecting a modern sense of time onto our history, which is an objectively false assumption. You can't define how long a day is without the Sun and Earth. Did God really create a tree, fully formed, with rings and all in a day, and also create a mechanism for trees to cross-pollinate, grow from a seed, adapt, and sprout and form rings over long periods of time? How does that work? Science fills in the knowledge gaps that genesis leaves out. How do Christians claim to know what God meant by time in the bible when it didn't exist before day 1? Why can't day 1 of genesis be a metaphor for the 9 billion years after the big bang?

Education is key. If you can engage people without threatening their faith, then you can present the evidence to open ears.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
For starters, you can find lots of prominent religious organizations (including Catholicism) who accept evolutionary theory. https://ncse.com/media/voices/religion. Many people who reject evolution may not know that their own church already accepted it. Evolution is not atheism.

Or try this: If God made the world, one should not be afraid to see it as ...[text shortened]... n engage people without threatening their faith, then you can present the evidence to open ears.

I tried the 1 day is 7 billion years and just got met with derision. I also pointed out nobody would fight against a believe that god puffed in the entire universe or however they want to call it, 14 billion years ago, like it cast the dice and let it roll with no further interferance, that went over like a lead balloon. Nope, Earth is 6000 years old.
I pointed out pictures of rock formations bent over 180 degrees, you can find dozens of examples on the net to no avail. I pointed out how the magnetic field of Earth is recorded where the continents are spreading apart, when the magma cools down it records the magnetic lines with it like a geological tape recorder, showing millions of years of spreading and also showing how the magnetic field of Earth flips whatever it is, every couple hundred years? Something like that, or the tree rings showing 8,000 years of history recorded there because you can see the narrowing and wider rings depending on drought conditions and so forth where older trees can be matched with younger ones by matching the patterns in the rings, met with derision like all the rest.

I tried an energy analysis, like if all the continents came together within the last 6000 years the amount of energy expended would have left every life form on Earth burned up and crushed under continuous Richter 12 earthquakes, goddidit in 6000 years, don't care WHAT you use as arguments.

It's not like I haven't tried those arguments, it is just that I am almost like PTSD over it by now. How many times can you get slapped in the face using such arguments when I start hating the whole crowd?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I tried the 1 day is 7 billion years and just got met with derision. I also pointed out nobody would fight against a believe that god puffed in the entire universe or however they want to call it, 14 billion years ago, like it cast the dice and let it roll with no further interferance, that went over like a lead balloon. Nope, Earth is 6000 years old.
I p ...[text shortened]... times can you get slapped in the face using such arguments when I start hating the whole crowd?

Certainly not worthy of scientific discussion. Ask them to point to Biblical evidence that supports their opinion, though, and they might have trouble. It's only one interpretation. Young earth is a relatively new religious phenomenon. And this position necessarily means that God purposefully planted fake evidence to throw us off the trail of the real "evidence" he wrote up, cryptically, in the Bible. Huh?