[luke warm]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Dawkin's essay "why I won't debate creationists" comes to mind.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-...Richard-Dawkins

hasn't dawkins debated several creationists? maybe not, but i seem to remember a few... i might be thinking of others, gordon stein etc

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on Mar 30 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

Mikeh, jdonn, hrothgar, et. al.:

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position if, by some chance, the remains of a big boat that is full of animal droppings was discovered tomorrow?

Or when faced with the "facts", if you would continue to maintain your version of it, simply because it is what "you believe to be true".

Just something to think about.

I, for one, would be thrilled if a big boat full of animal dropping were discovered...

Eternal paradise? All the white raisins I can eat?
Sign me up! Please!

In all seriousness, the salvation myths preached by Islam and Christianity are really attractive. I don't think that any rational person wouldn't wanted to be "saved".

The question isn't whether one desires the big boat full of animal dropping to be true. Rather, the question is whether or not one finds the evidence compelling.

I, for one, don't...

For what it's worth, I suspect that most of the agnostics on these forums have changed our opinions at least once. I was raised in a religious household. (My mother still attends church semi-regularly).

I participated in Sunday School
I served as an acolyte
I went through confirmation classes
I was chosen to deliver a couple sermons to the congregation a St John's Evangelican Lutheran Church in Poughkeepsie New York
I even went through with the confirmation ceremony (admittedly, this was largely to make my mom and grandmother happy)...

Despite all this early teaching, I ended up drifting away from the Church.

This had nothing to do with the members of the congregation - nice folks one and all. This had nothing to do with politics, desire for a community of beleivers, or anything like that.

At the end of the day, I just couldn't swallow it all...

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

I believe the position is correct. The latest evidence of a conservative journalist was carbon-dated to just before the renaisance, and his DNA signature links him to modern TV priests rather than journalists.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Mar 30 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

I, for one, would be thrilled if a big boat full of animal dropping were discovered...

Eternal paradise? All the white raisins I can eat?
Sign me up! Please!

In all seriousness, the salvation myths preached by Islam and Christianity are really attractive. I don't think that any rational person wouldn't wanted to be "saved".

The question isn't whether one desires the big boat full of animal dropping to be true. Rather, the question is whether or not one finds the evidence compelling.

I, for one, don't...

For what it's worth, I suspect that most of the agnostics on these forums have changed our opinions at least once. I was raised in a religious household. (My mother still attends church semi-regularly).

I participated in Sunday School
I served as an acolyte
I went through confirmation classes
I was chosen to deliver a couple sermons to the congregation a St John's Evangelican Lutheran Church in Poughkeepsie New York
I even went through with the confirmation ceremony (admittedly, this was largely to make my mom and grandmother happy)...

Despite all this early teaching, I ended up drifting away from the Church.

This had nothing to do with the members of the congregation - nice folks one and all. This had nothing to do with politics, desire for a community of beleivers, or anything like that.

At the end of the day, I just couldn't swallow it all...

I think there's a lot of truth in this post. I have a couple of close friends on the flip side, btw (Christians (intelligent, educated ones, even) who were not "brainwashed" since birth, but rather embraced Christianity from agnoticism, in one case, and from a sort of go-through-the-motions Judaism, in the other). I think to a large extent, it's a question not simply of "unwillingness to accept compelling evidence," but rather of what evidence one is predisposed to find "compelling." On both sides. I think human nature is such that (almost?) all of us lean toward accepting/embracing that evidence that reinforces our positions. Are there really unbiased people among us?

Yes, we do (most of us, anyway) change our positions from time to time. But when an article like the one on the Pope and condoms comes out, I do think there's a natural reaction among people who oppose condom programs to say, "See!" and among people who don't to immediately point out the distinction because correlation and causation, and whatever flaws are inherent in the study. If the conclusion is the opposite, so are the people willing to accept the study at face value, for the most part. Not because they comprise a group that is more objective, but because of the ultimate conclusion. Those conclusions that go against are beliefs are scrutinized far more closely. I've seen it repeatedly, in many venues on many topics, throughout the entire spectrum from casual debate to higher education.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

Wall Street Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, Houston Chronicle, NY Post, Washington Times, Denver Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Tuscaloosa News, Lexington Herald-Leader, Idaho Statesman, Las Vegas Sun, Akron Beacon-Journal, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Rockford Register, Nashua Telegraph, Concord Monitor, Columbia Daily Tribune, Eugene Register-Guard, Arlington Daily Herald, Burlington Free Press, Mid-Columbia Tri-City Herald, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose
b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief
therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Many people still think that the main-stream media has a "liberal bias."

What's the evolution-level evidence that contradicts this position?

That's a silly thing to say. What's the evolution-level evidence that shows it? (Also for lukewarm's hypothetical example above.) The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

So all those parents who, over the millenia, tried to teach their children to do the right thing were wasting their time?

Should the Golden Rule really read "Do unto others before they do unto you"?

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion.

I don't know much about development psychology, but intuitively I would think that having been taught the moral norms generally accepted in the society one grows up in, increases the chance of happiness. I am sure there are examples of professions in which it is better not to be constrained by ethics, but I think those would be exceptions. ("Vice president under G.W." may or may not be such an example, I dunno).

I didn't reach a conclusion, I asked a couple of questions, in an effort to discover to what conclusion I should come. Or perhaps, to what conclusion one should be led by Winston's comment that "There is difference between what is right and what is real."

[fred]

hrothgar, on Mar 30 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

I served as an acolyte

Your religous history is not so unusual, but I am amazed by the tranformation you have gone through as a bridge bidder

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

fred, on Mar 30 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 30 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

I served as an acolyte

Your religous history is not so unusual, but I am amazed by the tranformation you have gone through as a bridge bidder

There is hope for everyone

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Mar 30 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

It's all in the framing of the question.

I wasn't making the claim that the mainstream media has a liberal bias; I was imposing the burden of proof on Passed for asserting that it's "unchallenged foolishness" to believe that it does.

The "biased media" question is inherently subjective enough to be subject to all manner of interpretation, of course. It's a perfect question to illustrate the "hooray for my side" notion of "accepting evidence to the contrary" of one's position. There are all sorts of studies out there that demonstrate exactly what the people conducting them want to demonstrate. Whatever the appropriate criteria are, you'd probably have to formulate them before the fact. Which candiates get the most press? Which candidate gets more photographs? Which candidate gets photographed smiling more often? What's the party affiliation of most of the writers? WHat's the party affiliation of most of the editors? Is the newsroom happy or unhappy when certain candidates win? Which candidate gets the most endorsements? Which positions get the most endorsements? Even then, to what extent is that "media bias" vs. marketing a product to its target audience. Orange County (CA) newspaper readers are different demographically than Los Angeles County readers; is it "bias" to cater to that?

I think there are some useful ways to consider the question, and I think that different criteria will provide some useful evidence. For example, if Candidate A beats Candidate B by 1% of the popular vote, but Candidate A received 3 times as many newspaper endorsements (or endorsements in newspapers with 3 times the circulation) as Candidate B, I think that's suggestive of bias. If Candidate A appears twice as often, or appears more in "positive" stories than negatives ones, I think that's suggestive of bias, also. Or if photos of Candidate A always show him smiling, and photos of Candidate B always show him frowning.

I also think, though, that it's really difficult to even conceive of it as an issue that's subject to conclusive proof.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 30 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

It's all in the framing of the question.

I wasn't making the claim that the mainstream media has a liberal bias; I was imposing the burden of proof on Passed for asserting that it's "unchallenged foolishness" to believe that it does.

He seems to have provided a fair amount of evidence. Whether it constitutes proof is up to the individual, I guess.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Mar 30 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

I also think, though, that it's really difficult to even conceive of it as an issue that's subject to conclusive proof.

I agree with this statement and much of the rest of your post. However, the claim of liberal bias in the mainstream media has been trumpeted over and over by propagandists so much that it has been accepted as a proved fact by many.

Responding to your request, I gave more than two dozen mainstream media counter-examples that do not demonstate a liberal bias (to say the least). And in my experience, rural and small-town newspapers and radio shows tilt strongly conservative.

But really now, only a small percentage of reporting by the mainstream (and other) media is amenable to being classified as political at all. Much of it is designed simply to attract potential customers to advertisements, and much is sheer crap, no matter the political leanings of the producers.

The mainstream media exercises considerable self-censorship to avoid alienating advertisers and the government. Sometimes writers and reporters are barred by management from publishing or airing a story that will offend a revenue source. Well known examples include 60 Minutes yanking the Brown & Williamson story and PBS yanking a Noam Chomsky interview (so close to airtime that it was replaced with a long musical interlude). In general, the corporate managers of mainstream media outlets control what is disseminated (and naturally so), and the writers and reporters must perform within corporate guidelines regardless of their personal views.

The New York Times shilled shamelessly for the Bush administration in the runup to the Iraq war.

Finally, objectivity often has an inherent bias. Suppose one candidate smiles a lot more than his or her opponent. Does it really show bias when photos reflect that?

And suppose someone being interviewed puts forward an absurd proposition (liberal or conservative)? Does it show bias if the interviewer responds honestly?

I'm not a particular fan of Lou Dobbs, but I remember an interview he had once with a corrupt old Texas politician, Tom Delay. Tom said that the way to reduce the mounting Bush deficits was to cut taxes again. Lou asked innocently, "How much would we have to cut taxes to eliminate the deficit entirely?"

My point was and is that letting people get away with foolish unchallenged assertions creates serious problems for the community.

[jdonn]

By the way, anyone see the most recent Family Guy, where Lois became a reporter for Fox News? It was really funny, one of the better recent episodes.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 30 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose
b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief
therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious... btw, how is premise 'b' wrong?

Quote

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

not necessarily, it depends on the question... for example, you and i could hold a debate on "do invisible floating pink elephants exist" and we would both rightly have to present arguments for whichever side we took

[TimG]

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

Don't forget to invite the LOLs.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Mar 30 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

It's too bad that unchallenged foolishness gains acceptance so easily, but I'm done with ignoring it.

Maybe Mikeh can make a post on the first of every month stating his position in opposition to Luke_Warm's and anyone who wants to can add a "me, too, wtp" post.

Nope: I'm not playing anymore

However, and as a constructive exercise for those possessed of critical faculties, anyone interested is more than welcome to try to think of what my response would be. In the unlikely event that anyone takes me up on that, please don't post it... as I wrote earlier, my new-found position is that I will not respond to Lukewarm's non-bridge posts.

Edit: I am abashed at the idea that I seem to be perceived as being akin to Lukewarm in the tenor of my posts... abashed and mortified. So that should help me to keep my promise to myself. And I apologize to those who have formed the opinion that I am as close-minded as I see Lukewarm as being.

[Winstonm]

Quote

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious...

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more corretly defines the position.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm curious if any of you would be willing to change (or at least reconsider) your position

This is truly an odd question and I think gets to the heart of the misunderstanding. For most of us here, we don't have a "dog in this fight", i.e., we do not carry an emotional stake on the outcome. How can you ask those whose minds are swayed by evidence if evidence would sway their minds?

Can it be so hard to grasp that we simply weigh the preponderance of the evidence in order to shape our concept of reality, and thus are always willing to alter that concept when and if the evidence changes?

That's what took me from a believer to a non-believer - the preponderance of the evidence. If the evidence changes, I will change my mind. What will you do, sir?