Great video on Openmindedness

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Great video on Openmindedness

 Here's a ten minute explanation of why it's silly to call scientists or atheists closed-minded, and why once again, it's just theist projection.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
yea I saw that on Matt

yea I saw that on Matt Dillahunty's facebook page a few hgours ago, pretty interesting.

 

btw I wouldn't label it "theist projection" since atheists can (and do) the same thing on occassion. You don't have to have a god belief to believe in supernatural things.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 That's gold. I love it.

 That's gold. I love it.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Yes, Ciarin, you're

 Yes, Ciarin, you're correct that atheists do it, too.  I should have been more specific in saying that I wanted to apply this specifically to the theist's position.  Personally, I don't waste a lot of my time arguing with UFOlogists, psychics, animists, pagans, or other such people.  It's not that they aren't doing the same things theists are.  It's that on balance, theists are doing a lot more damage by thinking that way.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I like it. Too bad anybody

I like it. Too bad anybody who is closed minded will just reject the ideas presented without thinking about them...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Yes,

Hambydammit wrote:

 Yes, Ciarin, you're correct that atheists do it, too.  I should have been more specific in saying that I wanted to apply this specifically to the theist's position.  Personally, I don't waste a lot of my time arguing with UFOlogists, psychics, animists, pagans, or other such people.  It's not that they aren't doing the same things theists are.  It's that on balance, theists are doing a lot more damage by thinking that way.

 

 

Lol since when are pagans not theists? I'm pagan btw.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Isn't there a godless

 Isn't there a godless version of paganism? I thought "pagan" was the early Christian term for "anything but Christianity". Is there now a stricter definition?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
According to neo-pagans,

According to neo-pagans, yes.

Though most tend to be neo-Theurgists anyway.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Win.

Win.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
LOL @ neo-theurgists

LOL @ neo-theurgists


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
As soon as I can get

As soon as I can get permission from QualiaSoup to do it, I'm burning this to VideoCD and showing it at the life-skills class I teach. Clearest video on the subject I've seen yet.

 

(And you just have to love that name "QualiaSoup".)

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Great!

I think this video does the one thing it intended to accomplish very well, but the idea of changing a close-minded individual's definition of close-mindedness is kinda difficult no?  Would providing evidence to a close-minded individual about their incorrect yet assumed definition of close-mindedness change their personal use of the term?

Is language use not one of the largest issues with discussing religion?  I find that simple definitions are most often skewed to fit the speakers intended message (with or without intention).  Seems like most arguments would benefit from simply having their intended definitions of key words stated prior to explaining any message to avoid confusion, but this would result in a lot more debunked "theories". So, let's just add more rhetoric to hide everything! 

 

BTW Hi!

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi! Welcome to the forum.I

Hi! Welcome to the forum.

I saw that video on Youtube earlier. I highly recommend all of QualiaSoup's videos.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
To play the devil's advocate

To play the devil's advocate here, we accept scientists claims all the time without evaluating the evidence.

 

For example, my education is in math physics and psychology. I know practically nothing about geology, or evolutionary biology etc....

 

 

So if a bio-chemist posses a paper that X compound say encourages health then cites some complex bio-chemical mechanism to prove it, I will be un-able to evaluate that evidence and just take it for his word.

 

Even if he was a respectable biochemist, and the resources was published, just means it's an argument from authority as I would be unable to evaluate the evidence myself.

 

 

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:To play

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
To play the devil's advocate here, we accept scientists claims all the time without evaluating the evidence.

True, but the option is at least open.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
For example, my education is in math physics and psychology. I know practically nothing about geology, or evolutionary biology etc....

So if a bio-chemist posses a paper that X compound say encourages health then cites some complex bio-chemical mechanism to prove it, I will be un-able to evaluate that evidence and just take it for his word.

All you have to do is take it as probable that his word has merit. If you took the time, you are still able to falsify his arguments.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Even if he was a respectable biochemist, and the resources was published, just means it's an argument from authority as I would be unable to evaluate the evidence myself.

You would still have the opportunity to evaluate his statements, and the evidence for his statements would be available in scientific journals in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Currently lacking adequate information or resources to falsify a claim is a far cry from not being able to falsify it at all. An argument from authority would claim truth or falsehood based solely on the authority of the person making the claim. In your example, there's ample opportunity to learn more about the process the bio-chemist is discussing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: To play

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

To play the devil's advocate here, we accept scientists claims all the time without evaluating the evidence.

For example, my education is in math physics and psychology. I know practically nothing about geology, or evolutionary biology etc....

Good so far...

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So if a bio-chemist posses a paper that X compound say encourages health then cites some complex bio-chemical mechanism to prove it, I will be un-able to evaluate that evidence and just take it for his word.

Even if he was a respectable biochemist, and the resources was published, just means it's an argument from authority as I would be unable to evaluate the evidence myself. 

This is where the argument fails. It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence. If the biochemist publishes a paper that is not consistent with reality it will be proven wrong in a reasonable amount of time, provided the scientific method is properly executed. Just because you haven't personally contested it, doesn't mean it hasn't been, won't be, or can't be challenged. Also, if the scientific method is executed properly, the theory will not be considered infallible. Some new thinker will probably come along and elaborate on, or even overturn the previous "fact."

Remember Newtonian Physics vs Relativity? When science is done right, no theory is ever considered absolutely true.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:This is

spike.barnett wrote:

This is where the argument fails. It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence. If the biochemist publishes a paper that is not consistent with reality it will be proven wrong in a reasonable amount of time, provided the scientific method is properly executed. Just because you haven't personally contested it, doesn't mean it hasn't been, won't be, or can't be challenged. Also, if the scientific method is executed properly, the theory will not be considered infallible. Some new thinker will probably come along and elaborate on, or even overturn the previous "fact."

Remember Newtonian Physics vs Relativity? When science is done right, no theory is ever considered absolutely true.

 

 

 

But the proof it was wrong will also involve complex nomeclature that a non-biochemist couldn't understand.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
You're absolutely right,

You're absolutely right, Alison.

 

May as well shut down every airport terminal and encourage everyone to get an old broomstick for international travel, since I guess being able to demonstrate that a given principle (like, say, Bernoulli's Principle) through application somehow doesn't count.

 

 

...What school did you go to, again?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin, not everything is as

Kevin, not everything is as easy to demostrate as Bernoulli's Principle.

 

Even the "Y  predicts X. X occurs therefore Y is true" doesn't work, it's not as simple as that.

 

If for example Y contained a mathematical mistake in it's derevation, it doesn't matter if X occurs, Y is invalid.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Y'know what? I don't even

Y'know what? I don't even care anymore.

 

Sit at home doing Sudokus and believe whatever woo woo crap you like. In the meantime, real scientists and engineers will be getting shit done.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But the

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But the proof it was wrong will also involve complex nomeclature that a non-biochemist couldn't understand.

The non-biochemist would have to learn, then. The information is there, so the onus is on the curious person to determine something for themselves.

Laziness isn't really an argument for anything.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But the

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But the proof it was wrong will also involve complex nomeclature that a non-biochemist couldn't understand.

This is exactly why the argument fails. There is nothing that prevents you from understanding it, provided that you want to. Everything in science is falsifiable. If you wanted to, you could learn the biochemistry and falsify the findings yourself. That is the essence of open-mindedness. The ability to question and challenge established belief.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But the proof it was wrong will also involve complex nomeclature that a non-biochemist couldn't understand.

The non-biochemist would have to learn, then. The information is there, so the onus is on the curious person to determine something for themselves.

Laziness isn't really an argument for anything.

Dammit... I didn't scroll down far enough to see you already answered it!

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

Dammit... I didn't scroll down far enough to see you already answered it!

Really, she's baiting us anyway. Tricked again! Damn you, Jessica Alba!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, Alison.  I hope

 Wow, Alison.  I hope you're just being facetious.  If you're not, this is probably the dumbest argument you've made on these boards.

I'll call this the "The World Revolves Around Alison" argument.  If Alison can't do it herself, it doesn't exist.

For fuck's sake, Alison!  Some areas of science are harder than others, and that's why there are fewer elite scientists than grocery baggers.  It takes decades to learn to do all the scientific evaluation of very complicated experiments.  That's why we invented this thing called "Peer Review" where we searched the world over for all the people who can do a particular kind of science.  When someone claims something, we get all the people who know enough to be able to evaluate the claim, and we have them evaluate it.

You know how we know it works?  Because people call bullshit.  You know how long it takes me to spot a poser on philosophy, or music, or evolution?  About as long as it takes them to say something boneheaded that they wouldn't say if they knew what they were talking about.  If you put ten people who know biochemistry in a room and one that doesn't, give them ten minutes, and you'll get a consensus on who the poser is.  The proof comes from corroborating evidence.

Didn't anyone teach you about the weight of corroborating evidence, and how that is the foundation of the scientific method?

Sheesh.  Sometimes I think you just hate the idea of atheism so much you will say anything so long as it allows you to hold onto some woo-woo shit.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Are you serious

I could be wrong, but I think Alison's point was more that as individuals we all take some things as true based on the fact that the people who say they are true have been given authority to say so. So if any of you can say that you don't hold anything to be true that you haven't verified yourself then you can talk other wise drop it.

Now for my own personal opinion I agree with the entire video, but atheist, in reference to this site, have been just as guilty of closed mindedness as theist. Several times I've had responses that made me think did they read what I wrote or am I just that hard to understand. So many times I've been reading through treads to see a theist ask what would be excepted as evidence only to see theist respond sarcastically. I mean what is the big deal about laying out some ground rules about what would be acceptable evidence. Please don't give me some you should already know crap because certain types of evidence acceptable in other situations or obviously not accepted in this. For example literary evidence for Jesus is completely thrown out. You have relegated any writings of Josephus dealing with Jesus to, I don't even know, forgery perhaps.

I'm not saying that if one disproves evolution one proves God, but you never consider evidence against evolution from what I've seen. Of course, to be fair I have yet to see any of the hard hitting evidence against it presented in these forums. So my point is you at least have to be willing to set out your criteria for evidence to be open mind.

Not to mention the whole "Believe in God? We can fix that." slogan. I know that out in the world theist, especially those claiming Christianity, are more closed minded then atheist but let's admit it closed mindedness runs high here so both side could use this reminder.

 

 

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.