On 23-4-2011 22:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die
>>>> hard creationists then we better leave it at that.
>>>
>>> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
>>> because it means abandoning their belief.
>>
>> That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it
>> because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.
>
> Because they *believe* some of the assumptions are "wrong".  Like the
> "assumption" that there is no creator.  Since that flies in the face of
> their belief that there is a God, they reject it because "it can't
> possibly be right that there is no God."
>
>>> That's the problem.
>>
>> Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me
>> God does exist.
>
> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
> evidence.

No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend 
contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence 
my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true 
for other atheists as well.

> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>
> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced there
> is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the question of
> whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.

I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them 
and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am 
defending the truth and they a fallacy.

>> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science
>> and research.
>
> I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still
> developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in
> thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your
> way' through a situation.

That is sort of what I meant too.

> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
> students to think about problems in a rational way.

Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?

> There's a reason why US students view themselves as more confident than
> students in other parts of the world - they're taught to believe in
> themselves, regardless of how well they do with 'facts'.  Hence, low
> scores on exams, but high confidence.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message