Credulous skeptics

[Hop_David]

. . . don’t you think fundamentalist Christianity in the US must bear considerable responsibility for the needless animosity between opposing camps?

Yes. There are some Christians and self proclaimed Christians that I regard as dangerous and bat **** crazy.

 

[Hop_David]

View attachment 65057

Nope i am demonstrating that i cannot be bothered with bigotry and deliberate ignorance

Oh my goodness! A double face palm meme. And calling me ignorant and bigoted.

But still not a shred of evidence defending Tyson's false histories that he uses to attack religion.

Yours is exactly the sort of post I was hoping for. It supports my talking points. Keep them coming!

 

[ChristineM]

Oh my goodness! A double face palm meme. And calling me ignorant and bigoted.

But still not a shred of evidence defending Tyson's false histories that he uses to attack religion.

Yours is exactly the sort of post I was hoping for. It supports one of my talking points. Keep them coming!

Yeah well, when its deserved, you know what i mean

Whatever excited you. I dont really care for spam as i made clear in my first post on this thread

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ghazali did not ban anything. Stop it with Tyson's fiction. Islamic math and science kept on going strong in Ghazali's time and in the centuries following Ghazali.

And it's pretty clear what Ghazali meant by exact sciences. This waffle word argument is just as bogus your literal-vs-figurative smoke screen.

Ghazali said don't deny the exact sciences. Pretty much the opposite of him saying "math is the work of the devil".

Back to using strawman arguments again.
If you want a discussion, tell me. And you need to work on your reading abilities.

 

[Augustus]

I agree that science vs religion is a false dichotomy, but don’t you think fundamentalist Christianity in the US must bear considerable responsibility for the needless animosity between opposing camps?

It's not just a false dichotomy, but an impediment to thought.

Once people buy into the dichotomy and start identifying with 'team science' or 'team religion', critical thinking tends to go out of the window as it does with nay trial loyalty.

I used to be like that myself in my "New Atheist" days, it's only when you get out of that mindset you realise how much it distorts your thinking

 

[Hop_David]

Yeah well, when its deserved, you know what i mean

Whatever excited you. I dont really care for spam as i made clear in my first post on this thread

Telling me i deserve your insults and calling me a spammer.

But still not a shred of evidence defending Tyson's false history. The false histories he uses to attack religion.

You don't like it that I point to my list of Tyson's errors? Okay. I'll point to other sources.

The Washington Post
Thony Christie -- Entertaining!
Mohammed Hijab -- Also entertaining!
Joseph Lumbard
Luke Barnes

And I could go on and on.

Please -- keep sending me your insults that are utterly free of evidence.

Attacking me does nothing to counter my arguments. Rather it supports my opinion that Tyson's defenders tend to use ad hominem.

 

[Hop_David]

It's not just a false dichotomy, but an impediment to thought.

Once people buy into the dichotomy and start identifying with 'team science' or 'team religion', critical thinking tends to go out of the window as it does with nay trial loyalty.

Exactly. The Red Team/BlueTeam mentality.

To be sure there are Christian nut jobs. Muslim nut jobs. Every large group has interesting characters towards the edges of their bell curve.

But to suggest there are atheist nut jobs? The "skeptics" here seem to think their **** don't stink. They lose their **** when I suggest otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly. The Red Team/BlueTeam mentality.

On a wide variety of topics related to the history of religion, especially 19th C Conflict Thesis type myths that have long been rejected by modern scholars, many "rational sceptics" tend to be so out of step with scholarly opinion, and so consistently refuse to actually address this evidence that they share many things in common with the fundies.

It's not really surprising that as our strongly held partisan beliefs can even alter our perception of reality and block the ability to think critically.

I find the last 2 sentences of this quote particularly interesting.

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

There is extensive evidence that people engage in motivated political reasoning, but recent research suggests that partisanship can alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgments. We propose an identity- based model of belief for understanding the influence of partisanship on these cognitive processes. This framework helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth... Because people believe that they see the world around them objectively, members of other parties who disagree with them are seen as uninformed, irrational, or biased [25]...

In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...

 

[KWED]

Exactly. The Red Team/BlueTeam mentality.

To be sure there are Christian nut jobs. Muslim nut jobs. Every large group has interesting characters towards the edges of their bell curve.

But to suggest there are atheist nut jobs? The "skeptics" here seem to think their **** don't stink. They lose their **** when I suggest otherwise.

I'd be interested to see your evidence for your claim that sceptics on here claim that all atheists are necessarily rational, level-headed, critical thinkers.

What's that? It was just an unfounded assertion made in an attempt to support your argument?
Ouch!

 

[Hop_David]

I'd be interested to see your evidence for your claim that sceptics on here claim that all atheists are necessarily rational, level-headed, critical thinkers.

I have the temerity to suggest a certain atheist clique is endorsing a source of false history. And some folks on here are going nuts. Calling me a liar, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, a spammer, biased, irrational, etc. etc.

A long stream of insults, some of them even true.

However not a shred of evidence countering my arguments.

Has anyone found that Bush speech?
Has anyone found that Ghazali text, yet?
Has anyone found evidence Newton wrote Principia before he turned 26?

Nope. No evidence whatsoever against my arguments. Nothing but ad hominem.

How dare I suggest some of the atheists on this forum lack critical thinking skills!

 

[Augustus]

I have the temerity to suggest a certain atheist clique is endorsing a source of false history. And some folks on here are going nuts. Calling me a liar, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, a spammer, biased, irrational, etc. etc.

A long stream of insults, some of them even true.

However not a shred of evidence countering my arguments.

Has anyone found that Bush speech?
Has anyone found that Ghazali text, yet?
Has anyone found evidence Newton wrote Principia before he turned 26?

Nope. No evidence whatsoever against my arguments. Nothing but ad hominem.

How dare I suggest some of the atheists on this forum lack critical thinking skills!

It's not even about the quotes themselves. The argument has basically been even if the quote is made up, he is still essentially correct as long as AG had some degree of impact on the end of the GA. So, unless you can prove he had no impact, criticising him is simply being churlish.

Now imagine a creationist celebrity made the following argument:

Many Jewish people were successful and integrated members of German society. Then Darwin said "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races", which boosted white supremacism then the Nazis started exterminating Jews and other untermenschen.

Now the above quote is actually real, and there is plenty of evidence scientific theories of evolution played some role in scientific racism and eugenics. As such, the above argument is at least as accurate as Tyson's (it's actually significantly more accurate, but that's beside the point).

The thing is, it is still obviously misleading due to how the information is framed, and what it leaves out in terms of context and other far more significant causes.

The same people who think Tyson should be afforded the most ludicrously generous interpretation of his words, would, correctly, swarm all over the celebrity creationist's argument and see it as either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. They would view with absolute contempt a popular celebrity who, over many years, made such an argument to attack science.

It's pretty easy to work out how they would respond to being told they were merely taking it too literally, and any criticism is simply evidence of their personal biases and animosities.

 

[Hop_David]

The same people who think Tyson should be afforded the most ludicrously generous interpretation of his words, would, correctly, swarm all over the celebrity creationist's argument and see it as either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. They would view with absolute contempt a popular celebrity who, over many years, made such an argument to attack science.

It's pretty easy to work out how they would respond to being told they were merely taking it too literally, and any criticism is simply evidence of their personal biases and animosities.

Just so. The unreasonable defense of Tyson demonstrates this red team/blue team mentality.

I have some friends who would crow about unprecedented economic growth under Trump each time the Dow passed a number with some zeroes at the end. I would point out to them that there was more economic growth under Obama and Clinton.

This would anger some of my friends while others would applaud.

But then I will turn around and point out Tyson's false histories that he uses to attack religion. Thus making myself persona non grata among most my friends.

But there seems to be a growing number of people that are rising above tribalism when examining claims. I hope so, at least.

We live in a culture that values celebrity and entertainment more than truth. Where we let tribalism distort our perceptions. The goal is likes and retweets and more views. Who cares if a viral video is false? The notoriety means more revenue.

This disregard for truth is undermining the foundations of an informed democracy. I'm anxious for the future. Maybe I should be grateful I have no grandchildren.

 

[KWED]

I have the temerity to suggest a certain atheist clique is endorsing a source of false history. And some folks on here are going nuts. Calling me a liar, ignorant, bigoted, hateful, a spammer, biased, irrational, etc. etc.

A long stream of insults, some of them even true.

However not a shred of evidence countering my arguments.

Has anyone found that Bush speech?
Has anyone found that Ghazali text, yet?
Has anyone found evidence Newton wrote Principia before he turned 26?

Nope. No evidence whatsoever against my arguments. Nothing but ad hominem.

How dare I suggest some of the atheists on this forum lack critical thinking skills!

You seem very confused here.
Your accusation was that atheists on here believe all atheists are necessarily rational, level-headed, critical thinkers.
I asked you for evidence to support your claim (because it is obvious nonsense).
Instead you claim that you have been repeatedly insulted by atheists (which again, I see no evidence for).

So we can assume that your initial claim about atheists was indeed just a deliberate exaggeration or fabrication for effect. The very thing you started this thread to decry and condemn.

 

[KWED]

It's not even about the quotes themselves. The argument has basically been even if the quote is made up, he is still essentially correct as long as AG had some degree of impact on the end of the GA. So, unless you can prove he had no impact, criticising him is simply being churlish.

Now imagine a creationist celebrity made the following argument:

Many Jewish people were successful and integrated members of German society. Then Darwin said "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races", which boosted white supremacism then the Nazis started exterminating Jews and other untermenschen.

Now the above quote is actually real, and there is plenty of evidence scientific theories of evolution played some role in scientific racism and eugenics. As such, the above argument is at least as accurate as Tyson's (it's actually significantly more accurate, but that's beside the point).

The thing is, it is still obviously misleading due to how the information is framed, and what it leaves out in terms of context and other far more significant causes.

The same people who think Tyson should be afforded the most ludicrously generous interpretation of his words, would, correctly, swarm all over the celebrity creationist's argument and see it as either ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. They would view with absolute contempt a popular celebrity who, over many years, made such an argument to attack science.

It's pretty easy to work out how they would respond to being told they were merely taking it too literally, and any criticism is simply evidence of their personal biases and animosities.

Wrong.
I don't care if Tyson's quote is inaccurate or fabricated or whatever.
The issue for me is whether A-Ghazali's work is considered to have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age (which you and Hop seemed to be arguing against).
Everyone now seems to be in agreement that it was, to some degree.
That is all. My work here is done.

 

[KWED]

Just so. The unreasonable defense of Tyson demonstrates this red team/blue team mentality.

This was an attempt at satire, I presume?

 

[Augustus]

The issue for me is whether A-Ghazali's work is considered to have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age (which you and Hop seemed to be arguing against).
Everyone now seems to be in agreement that it was, to some degree.
That is all. My work here is done.

You seem very confused here (again). Your comprehension surely can't be that bad.

No one has agreed to that.

The only "evidence" presented in favour of the idea AG contributed to then end of the GA is based on an obvious misrepresentation. This has already been explained to you multiple times. Seeing as no one can offer any other reasons or evidence he contributed to a societal decline, why should it be assumed true?

The likely stems from a 19th C error that has simply been cited by other academics until it becomes 'fact'. It's easy to find countless examples of this in history texts.

You may uncritically accept this as fact because it's ideologically convenient, but I don't.

If your work here is done, then I can only assume your job is to read poorly and be consistently wrong due to your ideological biases

You seem very confused here.
Your accusation was that atheists on here believe all atheists are necessarily rational, level-headed, critical thinkers.
I asked you for evidence to support your claim (because it is obvious nonsense).

You might be the one who is confused here (again).

Might want to try reading the passage carefully and try to work out why it doesn't necessarily mean what you are claiming here.

Given your fetish for crying "fallacy!", you certainly wouldn't want to be misrepresenting someone again...

 

[Hop_David]

I don't care if Tyson's quote is inaccurate or fabricated or whatever.

Thank you! You are acknowledging the truth of one of my complaints.

The issue for me is whether A-Ghazali's work is considered to have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age (which you and Hop seemed to be arguing against).

I acknowledge there are orientalists who blame Ghazali for contributing to a decline. Of course there are some scholars take this position.

You have me denying their existence? Thank you! This is one of more ridiculous straw men I've seen.

Everyone now seems to be in agreement that it was, to some degree.

Absolutely false.

I have been saying it's an open question. Again: Did Ghazali help advance progress? I don't know. Did he hinder progress? Again, I don't know.

You, on the other hand, seem to maintain there is no question that Ghazali contributed to a decline.

And you are admittedly okay with Tyson inventing history to support this position.

That is all. My work here is done.

You have indeed clarified some things. Thank you!

 

[Hop_David]

This was an attempt at satire, I presume?

ClarkePoe's Law: Any sufficiently inflated ego is indistinguishable from satire.

 

[Hop_David]

The only "evidence" presented in favour of the idea AG contributed to then end of the GA is based on an obvious misrepresentation.

Hey, every body knows Ghazali contributed to the end of the Golden Age. This is New Atheist dogma. Don't question it, heretic!

 

[Hop_David]

Some more bad history from Tyson's Ghazali routine:

...these three words are Arabic words: algebra, algorithm. Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Those are the numerals we use. All traceable to that period because they basically invented algebra

The zero and our base 10 numbering system comes from India.

The Arabs may have come up with the word algorithm. But India and many cultures had step by step procedures to carry out calculations. Some algorithms are very old. So, no, the Arabs didn't invent the notion of algorithms.

Brahmagupta's work with negative numbers and zero were a major contribution to the development of algebra.

It seems Neil noticed people from India calling out his errors.

So he made a video saying yeah, the Indians came up with zero and our base 10 numbering system. But they didn't do much with it. It was the Arabs that took India's ideas and ran with them.

Which earned Neil some ridicule from historian Thony Christie.

Exaggerating Arab accomplishments from 800 to 1100 is part of Neil's argument that there was a precipitous drop in 1100.