Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.
Also, have people seen this:

http://richarddawkins.net/index.php

Love to the Dawkins x

Cool, I'm getting this today!

A snippet that should give all those of us with a rational outlook a real cause for concern -

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . .Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and *intellectual emergency.

From the article my guess would be that we each like a little snip of here n there. Well my favorite snip:

* America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over real people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be ‘raptured’ up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds.*

Sad, sad, that this is so true!

Dawkins is a wonderful man. I shall buy. Screw my classes.

Lovely title!

It gets my vote, although I wonder how well it will sell in the US?

He's an ignorant prick and needs to go live in his teapot around the moon.

He's an ignorant prick and needs to go live in his teapot around the moon.

Are you being serious, or is this not so clever sarcasm..?

Both.

I expect a 'say what you see' sort of book that is as usual accurate, but will people listen? Or label him an 'extremist'?

Are you being serious, or is this not so clever sarcasm..?
Im not meaning im against his atheism per se, im also a strong atheist.

Im not meaning im against his atheism per se, im also a strong atheist.

There are weak atheists?

Well there are those who stray onto the path of agnosticism.

A link to a video interview with Richard Dawkins speaking about his new book.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/dawkins-newsnight-p1.php

Good to see ......
Somebody is spreading the undeniable fact, that believing in god/religion is a delusion in their minds.............

;)

Good to see ......
Somebody is spreading the undeniable fact, that believing in god/religion is a delusion in their minds.............

;)
Yes that part is good, but will it help end religion? No! nothing will! that is because religion is not only a delusion it is an evolved predispotion - that is a synopsis that the Dawkster and the likes cannot even entertain

round where i live there's no such thing as a 'strong atheist'. You either for religion or passively against it; the answer is obvious to each side and no-one really sees the point in arguing against each other. I really find it strange when i see how much some places, particulary what i've heard of America, love to argue the freakin hell out of it. anyway, back on topic...

I'll read the book, i've read most of his other's so why not. I love his books, particulary the selfish gene... in fact i just love good books on evolution... the arguments and ideas within them are so incredibly simple and evident, and just like evolution itself you kick yourself for not having thought of it already.

However I doubt Dawkin's ability to right a book on religion. For his own sake, he needs to open up his mind. I'm not saying that as a religious advocate, i'm atheistic myself and agree to a limited extent with what he says; but his arguments against religion just aren't general enough to actually work. For his own sake he needs to accept a wider base of premises, from which he could really demolish religion. At the moment the only people he convinces are those who already agree with him... not much use, as Imaplanck mentioned.

Besides that, the rhetoric and religious misunderstandings (it isn't apparent that half the american population believes that) doesn't bode too well, neither does the political commentary. But to be fair, that is all i've read of the book so far.

Good to see ......
Somebody is spreading the undeniable fact, that believing in god/religion is a delusion in their minds.............

;)

Yet- the very scientists who aim to prove God is an illusion and write books on Selfish genes, also entertain delusions of secularism and humanism.

Sad indeed.

Yet- the very scientists who aim to prove God is an illusion and write books on Selfish genes, also entertain delusions of secularism and humanism.

Sad indeed.could you explain for the idiots amongst us, how you can have delusions of a political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship and delusions of a system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
thank you.

sam,

Yet- the very scientists who aim to prove God is an illusion and write books on Selfish genes, also entertain delusions of secularism and humanism.

Sad indeed. Well that's among the most stupid things you've said recently.

Secularism exists, humanism exists, gods however, have yet to be observed. Not quite sure why you think anyone has to prove gods are illusions since without any observation they are clearly illusionary, or can you show one to prove they aren't?

sam,

Well that's among the most stupid things you've said recently.

Secularism exists, humanism exists, gods however, have yet to be observed. Not quite sure why you think anyone has to prove gods are illusions since without any observation they are clearly illusionary, or can you show one to prove they aren't?

I've discussed this idea in the problem of religion thread, if you care to see what I mean.

Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.
Also, have people seen this:

http://richarddawkins.net/index.php

Richard provides some good visibility into the outcomes of the problem and I really wish he would delve deeper into the causes as well as start creating and experimenting with solutions.

sam,

I've discussed this idea in the problem of religion thread, if you care to see what I mean. But here in this context it is simply stupid. So no I'm not inclined to go searching for something that I don't see how you can justify.

sam,

But here in this context it is simply stupid. So no I'm not inclined to go searching for something that I don't see how you can justify.
well she just indicated how you can see how she is justified but you don't want to look

Refusing to look at evidence that is clearly valid... sounds like something a creationist might do.

Yes that part is good, but will it help end religion? No! nothing will! that is because religion is not only a delusion it is an evolved predispotion - that is a synopsis that the Dawkster and the likes cannot even entertain

I think Dawkins and his like do entertain that, as do I. It's almost undeniable since the evidence is all around us!
Dawkins view is that belief in a God is not the problem as such, it's the blurring of religion and reality that can lead to social problems on a large scale. Perhaps religion is out of date, maybe human society no longer needs religion to function and grow, it could even be harming societies and the environment.

I've discussed this idea in the problem of religion thread, if you care to see what I mean.

Except, that Lord Insane just shot your ideas into smithereens !!!

;)

Refusing to look at evidence that is clearly valid... sounds like something a creationist might do.
And what of a molecular evolutionist behaving in the same fashion?

Except, that Lord Insane just shot your ideas into smithereens !!!

;)

On the contrary he just took the liberty of joining two schools of scientific thought, namely the philosophical aspect of psychology and the reductionist paradigm of physicists, that are not actually compatible - so every time he was getting cornered in one side he would jump to the other

I think Dawkins and his like do entertain that, as do I. It's almost undeniable since the evidence is all around us!
Dawkins view is that belief in a God is not the problem as such, it's the blurring of religion and reality that can lead to social problems on a large scale. Perhaps religion is out of date, maybe human society no longer needs religion to function and grow, it could even be harming societies and the environment.
As far as I know of his work, he indeed doesn't believe religion is any more than a behaviour brought about by pure nurture, that is to say a behaviour resulting merely from bible pounding to an innocent child . All I can say is he convinces himself and others that this is true due to a deeply held belief that it can be eradicated or even curtailed.
As you say, look around you and see how it has spurted up in (as far as I know) every culture on earth, predominated virtually every culture and lived on through the renaissance, scientific revolution and is still alive and flourishing in the space/communication age.

On the contrary he just took the liberty of joining two schools of scientific thought, namely the philosophical aspect of psychology and the reductionist paradigm of physicists, that are not actually compatible - so every time he was getting cornered in one side he would jump to the other

That´s funny , Light .....
No doubt, that Sam was the reductionist in this discussion , Sam tried to reduce EVERYTHING in human life down to evolution , by taking that standpoint she actually cornered herself ........She was dead wrong !!!!!!!!!!!

Lord just informed her, how things had a much more complex structure than that - genes are not responsible for everything .....

HOW did you reach this conclusion - please explain it to me .....I am very curious about how you think ....
Also please explain to me about the two "schools" of scientific thoughts .....
AND MOST OF ALL , PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME , WHY THESE THOUGHTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:p

Do you believe some scientific thoughts to be more valuable than others - and not compatible to others .....when they are in the same field ....

That´s funny , Light .....
No doubt, that Sam was the reductionist in this discussion , Sam tried to reduce EVERYTHING in human life down to evolution , by taking that standpoint she actually cornered herself ........She was dead wrong !!!!!!!!!!!

Lord just informed her, how things had a much more complex structure than that - genes are not responsible for everything .....

HOW did you reach this conclusion - please explain it to me .....I am very curious about how you think ....
Also please explain to me about the two "schools" of scientific thoughts .....
AND MOST OF ALL , PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME , WHY THESE THOUGHTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:p

Do you believe some scientific thoughts to be more valuable than others - and not compatible to others .....when they are in the same field ....


I wonder if you can even see the fallacy you are indulging yourself in?

As far as I know of his work, he indeed doesn't believe religion is any more than a behaviour brought about by pure nurture, that is to say a behaviour resulting merely from bible pounding to an innocent child . All I can say is he convinces himself and others that this is true due to a deeply held belief that it can be eradicated or even curtailed.
As you say, look around you and see how it has spurted up in (as far as I know) every culture on earth, predominated virtually every culture and lived on through the renaissance, scientific revolution and is still alive and flourishing in the space/communication age.

He does acknowledge that in our evolutionary and social history a belief in a higher power may have given our ancestors an advantage. He also believes as you say, that many people in this age are brainwashing their children into believing fairy tales, which in turn breeds another generation of theists.

Yet- the very scientists who aim to prove God is an illusion and write books on Selfish genes, also entertain delusions of secularism and humanism.

Sad indeed.
Secularism and Humanism aren't beliefs.

Dawkins is an imbecile…lightgigantic? ….brilliant.

Dawkins is an imbecile…lightgigantic? ….brilliant.
Not such an imbecile... his book is No1 on Amazon UK, and making it to No.1 on Amazon.com. I think he's pretty shrewd - spreading his memes AND making £££s.

However, portraying himself as a persecuted and 'stigmatised' minority from the comfort of his Chair at Oxford University is stretching martyrdom a bit far.

Secularism and Humanism aren't beliefs.
Then what are they?

Not such an imbecile... his book is No1 on Amazon UK, and making it to No.1 on Amazon.com.

Amazing. I never thought books slating the god delusion would be so popular. Also, Sami Harris' book is out in which he answers hate mail from Christians who read his first book. Currently ranked #4 on Amazon.com. I wonder if they will succeed in giving the passively religious something to think about...

I think he's pretty shrewd - spreading his memes AND making £££s.

You would never see a preacher doing that.

He does acknowledge that in our evolutionary and social history a belief in a higher power may have given our ancestors an advantage. .
Really? where? quote me happy?

Philosophers stone

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
On the contrary he just took the liberty of joining two schools of scientific thought, namely the philosophical aspect of psychology and the reductionist paradigm of physicists, that are not actually compatible - so every time he was getting cornered in one side he would jump to the other ”



That´s funny , Light .....
No doubt, that Sam was the reductionist in this discussion , Sam tried to reduce EVERYTHING in human life down to evolution , by taking that standpoint she actually cornered herself ........She was dead wrong !!!!!!!!!!!
perhaps says more about molecular evolutionists than Sam :p

Lord just informed her, how things had a much more complex structure than that - genes are not responsible for everything .....
I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously

HOW did you reach this conclusion - please explain it to me .....I am very curious about how you think ....
Also please explain to me about the two "schools" of scientific thoughts .....
AND MOST OF ALL , PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME , WHY THESE THOUGHTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc) and the nature of consciousness (free will etc) owes its credibility to the philosophical part of psychology - they are not compatible because according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will



Do you believe some scientific thoughts to be more valuable than others - and not compatible to others .....when they are in the same field ....
Obviously they are in the same field when they operate out of the same paradigms - for instance to adopt a world view of molecular evolutionists (ie that everything is reducable to molecules, electrons etc) and then to tag the findings of human psychology on to that (free will etc) you would have to establish how human psychology (consciousness) is a molecular phenomena - in case you haven't noticed there seems to be a lack of evidence - for instance a molecular evolutionist would be hard pressed to give a molecular explanation why a mother crocadile puts her eggs in her jaws (that can break a buffalo's bone) and gently rolls them to enable them to hatch.

Light, will you buy a copy of The God Delusion?

Light, will you buy a copy of The God Delusion?

Or will you watch episode 2 of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7430337603450194321&q=carl+sagan+cosmos+duration%3Along+is%3Afree) I watched it last night and thought of you, LG .

At least you should come away thinking that everything currently known about evolution, genes, dna or "molecular evolution" are not guesses.

Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.

Philosophers stone


perhaps says more about molecular evolutionists than Sam :p


I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously


Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc) and the nature of consciousness (free will etc) owes its credibility to the philosophical part of psychology - they are not compatible because according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will




Obviously they are in the same field when they operate out of the same paradigms - for instance to adopt a world view of molecular evolutionists (ie that everything is reducable to molecules, electrons etc) and then to tag the findings of human psychology on to that (free will etc) you would have to establish how human psychology (consciousness) is a molecular phenomena - in case you haven't noticed there seems to be a lack of evidence - for instance a molecular evolutionist would be hard pressed to give a molecular explanation why a mother crocadile puts her eggs in her jaws (that can break a buffalo's bone) and gently rolls them to enable them to hatch.

Thank you, for taking your time to answer my question - and not attacking me personally ;)

perhaps says more about molecular evolutionists than Sam :p


I know you do not like the idea of evolution - still it works surprisingly well in real life ..... ;)

I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously



It might be because Sam started talking about, that human action is ONLY
defined by needs .........that is ofcourse false - a statement invented by Sam herself ....
Lord pointed out that actions were also caused by emotions - as you can see in this link ( it is about the human , and if you go a little down you can find the headline : Motivation and emotion .....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

As you can see - Lord was spot on :" Motivation is the driving force of desire behind all actions . Motivation is based on emotion "!!

Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc)

Well , but that is only part of the credibility of evolution - the neutral theory of molecular evolution is even considered by some to contradict the evolution by natural selection .....

;)

according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will

I seem to have difficulties in finding a link to the reductionist paradigm -
please provide me with a link - so that I can read all about it !!!

;)

Dawkins is a legend.

Dawkins is a man.

Dawkins is a God.

Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381/sr=8-2/qid=1159624712/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=books

Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan

Later, I may deal with his weak points.

If those were his strong points, I'm all ears. Am looking forward to your critique.

Have you seen this?
http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381/sr=8-2/qid=1159624712/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=booksNo. I was unaware of it. This is from one of the reviews:
Thus this book is not so much a critique of Darwinism as a critique of philosophy and ideology masquerading as science. Dawkins should know as well as anyone that science has limits, and questions of God's existence do not fall within those limits. Yet the works of Dawkins are permeated with emotive and irrational attacks on faith and religion. This misuse and abuse of science by Dawkins in this regard is a major theme of this volume.

Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I'll add it to my reading list.

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381/sr=8-2/qid=1159624712/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=books

Reading the some of the customer reviews for that book is very interesting indeed ;)

Now why would religion suffer emotive and irrational attacks? It's just not fair is it?

Reading the some of the customer reviews for that book is very interesting indeed ;)

Indeed!

...science is far from the neutral, totally objective scenario that Dawkins paints. It deals with evidence and observations, yes, but also deals in probabilities as much as in certainties. The constant revision and overturning of scientific theories means that scientists should remain humble, not arrogant. So too of course should Christians, who need to continually refine and clarify their theological convictions. Both involve elements of faith and reason. Both should be approached with care and humility.

The replicators of ideas and beliefs - what Dawkins calls memes - the cultural equivalent of genes, are also critiqued by McGrath. The truth is, they are not the fruit of scientific discovery but philosophical postulation. Dawkins says people believe in God, not because he exists, but because of God memes. The idea of God, says Dawkins, like a virus, is passed along and replicated in culture, just as physical traits (in the form of DNA) are passed along by means of genes.

But as McGrath rightly points out, is this God meme concept just another meme, another virus, another false belief being passed along? And if there is a God meme, could there not be an atheist meme as well? The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism. But as McGrath establishes, Darwinism does not necessarily entail atheism. Nor does it necessarily entail theism for that matter.

Science in general and evolutionary biology in particular can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Such questions lie outside of the purview of science. But Dawkins' hatred of religion leads him to blur the boundaries of where science leaves off and other disciplines (theology, philosophy) begin.

What one makes of Darwinism is a matter of scientific debate. The evidence can be weighed and considered. But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
Will you buy the book? :cool:

Dawkins is a God.

If Dawkins is a god - then he must be delusional ........ :p


Anyway - believing is easy - to realise that your belief was an illusion is the hard part :

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/152624/criss_angel_and-half-a-woman/

No. I was unaware of it. This is from one of the reviews:
Thus this book is not so much a critique of Darwinism as a critique of philosophy and ideology masquerading as science. Dawkins should know as well as anyone that science has limits, and questions of God's existence do not fall within those limits. Yet the works of Dawkins are permeated with emotive and irrational attacks on faith and religion. This misuse and abuse of science by Dawkins in this regard is a major theme of this volume.

Interesting review, but from the same reviewer we find this:

"The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism.

But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.

The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."

Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.

Careful some would have him burned at the stake (or worse) like other naysayers, philosophers and scientists before him.

The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."

If any of this was "designed" I see no evidence of intelligence particularly with the introduction of humans. no intelligent being would have let us loose on the blue planet!

But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work
If someone insists pink elephants exist, it perfectly valid to say all scientific search has never found them and the mind is such that it can quite easily convince itself of that it wishes to be real, to be real! All one is doing is making something up out of thin air. Like I could pluck out of thin air that a bus load of brunettes are at my door right now with a £billion check with my name on it and an invitation to be ruler of the world. It has a probability of being true but FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFF!

The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."
LMAO like the irreducable complexity pseudo scientific adaption to evolution I guess he means? :rolleyes: This guy is a joke!

If someone insists pink elephants exist, it perfectly valid to say all scientific search has never found them and the mind is such that it can quite easily convince itself of that it wishes to be real, to be real! All one is doing is making something up out of thin air. Like I could pluck out of thin air that a bus load of brunettes are at my door right now with a £billion check with my name on it and an invitation to be ruler of the world. It has a probability of being true but FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFF!

Boy you are obsessed with those pink (http://www.newlow.org/JPGS/Roadside/PinkElephant.jpg) elephants aren't you?




This guy is a joke!


Dawkins, the author or the reviewer?

Boy you are obsessed with those pink (http://www.newlow.org/JPGS/Roadside/PinkElephant.jpg) elephants aren't you?





Dawkins, the author or the reviewer?
The reviewer.

The reviewer.

Do you disagree with ALL the points he made?

Interesting review, but from the same reviewer we find this:

"The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism.
But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."So?

Dawkins, the author or the reviewer?

Are you asking because you are unable to make the distinction yourself?

Are you asking because you are unable to make the distinction yourself?

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.

still waiting for the weak points to be dealt with ophio

So?

I would be interested in the reviewers comments, or yours, in regards to those "telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice" from ID? Or why it is "disengenous" of science to seek evidence in regards to the existence of gods? Or how the reviewer considers atheism as a belief system?

Do you disagree with ALL the points he made?
In that I would give the chance of peoples invention of god being right as say 1-10^10000000000000000000000000000000000 but if some atheists say science has disproven god. I would say he has a point and science hasn't disproven god, but big deal!

In that I would give the chance of peoples invention of god being right as say 1-10^10000000000000000000000000000000000 but if some atheists say science has disproven god. I would say he has a point and science hasn't disproven god, but big deal!

So you think that using a philosophical argument in a scientific method is alright?

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.

Really? Could you actually even write a paragraph on that topic?

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.
So you dont plan for the book to adhere to the scientific process itself then? :p

Really? Could you actually even write a paragraph on that topic?

Yup.

So you dont plan for the book to adhere to the scientific process itself then? :p

Are you saying it does not? :)

Yup.

Go for it. I'd like to see at least one paragraph.

So you think that using a philosophical argument in a scientific method is alright?
I made a philosophical arguement? Thats news to me. :)

Are you saying it does not? :)
I am saying you cant fill a book with 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' and remain true to such processes. :)

I would be interested in the reviewers comments, or yours, in regards to those "telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice" from ID? Or why it is "disengenous" of science to seek evidence in regards to the existence of gods? Or how the reviewer considers atheism as a belief system?
"telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice"
ID has delivered no telling blows to anything, nor is it capable of so doing. IDism is a philosophical, or religious position. The latter cannot refute something that is derived through science. (Just as science cannot refute something that is derived through philosophy.)

The evolutionary edifice is shaky. If you think otherwise you have failed to understand the evolution of evolutionary theory. The shakiness of the edifice is one of its immense strength, since it relates to the progressive widening and deepening of understanding of the mechanisms involved. Such progress is a consequence of recognising the inconsistencies and contradictions within the edifice.

why it is "disengenous" of science to seek evidence in regards to the existence of godsFor the same reason that master chefs should not comment upon ressucitation methods, using their experience of preparing sauces.

Or how the reviewer considers atheism as a belief system?Dawkins has certainly turned it into one.

imaplank, if you wish to explore 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' then read the works of Dawkins (except Ancestor's Tale) with an objective eye and not the posture of a sycophant.

I am saying you cant fill a book with 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' and remain true to such processes. :)

I can discuss the scientific method philosopically.

Can you discuss philosophy scientifically?

So you think that using a philosophical argument in a scientific method is alright?

Philosophy as well as science has theories which challenge theism.

I can discuss the scientific method philosopically.

Can you discuss philosophy scientifically?

yes

Philosophy as well as science has theories which challenge theism.

The argument is not theism.

The argument is: can you use a scientific method in a philosophical argument?
And call it empiricism?

Or to be clearer: is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?

Is this science?

imaplank, if you wish to explore 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' then read the works of Dawkins (except Ancestor's Tale) with an objective eye and not the posture of a sycophant.




Really? No I have no desire to waste my time and objectivism to an abstract that is in all likelyhood biasedly critisiced by a kiss ass masquarading as a serious scientist, who should practice before preaching.

yes

Please scientifically discuss the selection process in the transmission of the meme of "dude" (a catch phrase or slang term).

I can discuss the scientific method philosopically.

Can you discuss philosophy scientifically?
Well yes, obviously I can.

Well yes, obviously I can.

Pls refer to "dude" post above.

I'm curious.

Pls refer to "dude" post above.

I'm curious.
I cant recall what the term means? Briefly, what is it referring to?

The argument is not theism.

The argument is: can you use a scientific method in a philosophical argument?
And call it empiricism?

Or to be clearer: is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?

Is this science?

Yes. Scientific methods can be used to investigate anything. Those who would present religion as science should be prepared to have science used against them. Religion isn't philosophy it is one of several philosophies which have always been open to debate.

Really? No I have no desire to waste my time and objectivism to an abstract that is in all likelyhood biasedly critisiced by a kiss ass masquarading as a serious scientist, who should practice before preaching.Then we are in agreement.

Yes. Scientific methods can be used to investigate anything. Those who would present religion as science should be prepared to have science used against them. Religion isn't philosophy it is one of several philosophies which have always been open to debate.


Then it should be easy for you to answer these questions, that I am opening up for debate, as they are being presented as a science:

Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?

I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.

Using a scientific method.

Then we are in agreement.
No, Im not referring to Dawkings. Im referring to your agnostic butt.
How did you miss that? :bugeye:

Im referring to your agnostic butt.


Is it pink? :D

(we may get to the root of your obsession with pink elephants yet!)

Is it pink? :D

(we may get to the root of your obsession with pink elephants yet!)


the root was a meme of 'pink elephant' :D

the root was a meme of 'pink elephant' :D

Oh goody!

Prove it, please, using a scientific method.

Oh goody!

Prove it, please, using a scientific method.
No! dont have to! :p

Please scientifically discuss the selection process in the transmission of the meme of "dude" (a catch phrase or slang term).

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture

No! dont have to! :p

Oh and why not? Scientific curiositically speaking?

Faith:

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture

Identify language of word>locate geographical region or spread of language spoken>research history searching for early references to word "dude">cross reference the methodology of the lexographer

or another angle for investigative research -brain development>language development>local dialect>family>culture

to relate to evolution cross reference - brain development>cognitive>behavioral>language>dialect>family>culture


The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)


These are all observations (or at a stretch, correlations).

Where is the test of validity/falsifiability?

Can you predict the outcome of this meme as you can a gene?

Go for it. I'd like to see at least one paragraph.

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

No, Im not referring to Dawkings. Im referring to your agnostic butt.
How did you miss that? :bugeye:Perhaps because your writing routinely lacks precision, and as such requires interpretation to understand your point(s). On this occasion, even knowing the target of your observations, your remarks make little sense.

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.



No you would rather show it to somone who licks your pretty little ass. ;)

No you would rather show it to somone who licks your pretty little ass. ;)

Is this me or Ophiolite?

Whose butt are you obsessing on here?

edit: I see you added the quote.

If you look at my prodigious output, you'll see ass licking is a separate and distinct pastime for me, not to be confused with my convictions.

Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
No.

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
depends if you in need of scientific proof or religious one.

I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.
Memes suck.

Using a scientific method.
Description is scientific method.

Perhaps because your writing routinely lacks precision, and as such requires interpretation to understand your point(s). On this occasion, even knowing the target of your observations, your remarks make little sense.
Well I dont attempt to make sense to every retard, just to those that can project a description onto an unbiased array of subjects and choose the most likely intended contingent.

Do you pray, by the way?

Is a meme (as a unit of cultural information) equal to a gene (as a unit of heredity)?
No.

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
depends if you in need of scientific proof or religious one.

I would also like you to define a meme, its discrete unit and how you would assess for it.
Memes suck.

Using a scientific method.
Description is scientific method.


Thanks spurious.

I've been reading up on evolution and on Dawkins.

I'm puzzled as to why there is no line between science and opinion (or conclusions and theory) in much of his polemic.

Regardless of theism or atheism, what do you think of his practice of using a theory (meme) as a genetic analogy to explain everything under the sun?

Do you think description is always scientific?

I mean when I am differentiating NIH 3T3L1 cells an 80% confluence as judged by me is subjective as compared to when judged by someone other (since it is visual).

But would a poem describing the qualities of a lover be science?

These are all observations (or at a stretch, correlations).

Where is the test of validity/falsifiability?

Can you predict the outcome of this meme as you can a gene?

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room. Come into my laboratory and then I'll prove it. In the memetime why don't you prove scientifically that "curiositically" is an actual word.

The development of language directly correlates to brain development. So?

Science is based on observations. If I observe/study the usage of the word "dude" for all it's current meaning then yes I would be able to set up a test which might predict future usage:
I predict that the word "dude" means either a), b) or c)
If I observe any additional interpretations of the word "dude" against these prerecorded results I would test again to see whether or not this was an anomaly. I might even challenge other scientists to replicate my tests and then compare results. That's science.

Now that is your first paragraphs written would you like me to write the rest of the book for you?

Is this me or Ophiolite?

Whose butt are you obsessing on here?



.
I doubt Ophs butt has been pretty in decades. :eek: He posted quickly before I posted the reply to your post.

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room. Come into my laboratory and then I'll prove it. In the memetime why don't you prove scientifically that "curiositically" is an actual word.

The development of language directly correlates to brain development. So?

Science is based on observations. If I observe/study the usage of the word "dude" for all it's current meaning then yes I would be able to set up a test which might predict future usage:
I predict that the word "dude" means either a), b) or c)
If I observe any additional interpretations of the word "dude" against these prerecorded results I would test again to see whether or not this was an anomaly. I might even challenge other scientists to replicate my tests and then compare results. That's science.

Now that is your first paragraphs written would you like me to write the rest of the book for you?

Sure science is based on observations. So apparently is pseudoscience.

But without experimental evidence, they are merely anecdotal.

One does not consider observations, musings, intuition, deductions, hypotheses and theories to be science unless they can be experimentally proved and replicated under controlled conditions or replicated by several parties under similar conditions.

I'm merely surprised that a theory would gain popularity in the scientific community due to emotional appeal rather than rational thinking.

As for the word its just been invented. A mutation of the meme. Copyright addressed to me.

Do you pray by the way?Only in instances where it appears my life is in imminent danger. Why would you ask? Are you tired of being the butt of butt jokes?
Or, did you mean to ask if I pray by the wayside?
Or, do I prey, by the way?
Or,,,,,,,,,,

Sam, The meme concept is clever, but likely too clever for its own good. It represents everything that is wrong with Dawkins: conjecture dressed up in the robes of well founded theory, but underneath as naked as the Emperor in his new clothes.

Strange how your goalposts keep widening. First you ask whether something can be discussed scientifically. Then you ask how something might be discussed scientifically. Then you ask me to prove something scientifically on an internet 'science' chat room.Strange how you are upset by the normal progression of a discussion, wherever that is held: the pub, an internet chat room, or a laboratory. Sam is seeking information (as far as I can see) not trying to win an argument. Were it the latter the mobile goalpost accusation might have some validity.

Sam, The meme concept is clever, but likely too clever for its own good. It represents everything that is wrong with Dawkins: conjecture dressed up in the robes of well founded theory, but underneath as naked as the Emperor in his new clothes.

I admit its incredibly attractive but as you said, shed of all the window dressing, its only a concept, nothing more. I have ideas like this every week when we brainstorm in our lab sessions. My advisor has to constantly say "Earth to Sam" to bring me back!

Maybe I should write books instead of practising science!

do I prey, by the way?

Yes, I just wanted to find out if you actively participate in worship.
Hey! Dont call the grammar police on me, will you? O.K. I dont always take due care in my puntuation, but I'm sure I could find mistakes in yours too.

A scientific theory is a scientific theory. Some scientific theories proved to be correct years, even centuries after they were created (planets orbiting the sun, earth round not flat, etc) because the theorists lacked the necessary tools to provide the proof.

A philosophical theory is a philosophical theory also open to rigorous testing by argument and debate.

Perhaps the scientific community is becoming a little emotional. Perhaps because of the very real threat posed by those emotionally connected to religion in its various guises. Once upon a time as mentioned previously scientists were burned at the stake for daring to question musings, intuition and other bible stories.

I'm merely surprised that a theory would gain popularity in the scientific community due to emotional appeal rather than rational thinking.
It is a disturbing trend in the scientific community. An upcoming article in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge) talks about String Theory and how it has caused a similar situation among physicists.

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?

In such a case, the mechanism of reproduction (and I suppose the meme itself) should be discernible from ordinary human behavior as described by current psychological and sociological theories. Is that the case with meme theory? If not, I think the most that can be said about it is that it is a fashionable synonym for fad.

It is a disturbing trend in the scientific community. An upcoming article in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/061002crat_atlarge) talks about String Theory and how it has caused a similar situation among physicists.

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?

In such a case, the mechanism of reproduction (and I suppose the meme itself) should be discernible from ordinary human behavior as described by current psychological and sociological theories. Is that the case with meme theory? If not, I think the most that can be said about it is that it is a fashionable synonym for fad.


Yes I am disturbed too.

There seems to be a lack of rigor in the practice of science today.

Popular science appears to supercede laborious experimentation.

Negative results have become unfashionable and appear to hamper funding.

The labour of previous scientists which survived and was acceptable chiefly due to their dedication to the process of science rather than the acceptability of their theories in the period it was founded seems to have escaped all those who appear to embrace popular concepts without subjecting them to a similar scrutiny.

It's a shame.

edit: from what I understand in The Selfish Gene (an excellent read, BTW), a meme is a unit of cultural information. So your definition seems right.

Strange how you are upset by the normal progression of a discussion, wherever that is held: the pub, an internet chat room, or a laboratory. Sam is seeking information (as far as I can see) not trying to win an argument. Were it the latter the mobile goalpost accusation might have some validity.

I'm not upset merely pointing it out just in case the latter is true....

Yes, I just wanted to find out if you actively participate in worship.
Hey! Dont call the grammar police on me, will you? O.K. I dont always take due care in my puntuation, but I'm sure I could find mistakes in yours too.Why would I actively particpate in worship when I am not a member of any recognised religion? The last time I looked there were no places of worship in Yellow Pages under the heading Devout Agnostic.

I was unaware I was criticising your grammar. I was investigating alternative meanings to your question by varying punctuation and using paronomasia. If you had difficulty discerning this I can only refer you to your own words, addressed to me.
Well I dont attempt to make sense to every retard,

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

Ah, as suspected, nothing again is forthcoming, just hot air. ho-hum.

Yes I am disturbed too.

There seems to be a lack of rigor in the practice of science today.

Popular science appears to supercede laborious experimentation.

Since you've never shown to follow anything more than pseudoscience, that's not surprising.

Negative results have become unfashionable and appear to hamper funding.

Pseudoscientists hamper funding.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

I apologize profusely for not seeing your arguments from the side of fantasy.

Why would I actively particpate in worship when I am not a member of any recognised religion? The last time I looked there were no places of worship in Yellow Pages under the heading Devout Agnostic.

.
I was just checking! Although It's not unheard of that people who don't recognize an orgonized religion, pray to their personal idea of god.

Ah, as suspected, nothing again is forthcoming, just hot air. ho-hum.


Since you've never shown to follow anything more than pseudoscience, that's not surprising.

Pseudoscientists hamper funding.

I apologize profusely for not seeing your arguments from the side of fantasy.

You can do it like this, saves bandwidth.

.... who licks your pretty little ass. ;)

i say!
so samcd is a chick?

/pant

so samcd is a chick?


She was when she showed the boys her jugs!

But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."

So, is it ok for religion to step into arguments about science?

So, is it ok for religion to step into arguments about science?

Sure, why not? But, I'm not sure where you're going with that? Can you provide examples?

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....
He is not a kind person - but at least his logic is exceptional, he sees through complicated issues in seconds (or at least minutes) - then again , he is in favour of secularism - he might be biased ..........
Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree........

:)

She was when she showed the boys her jugs!

WHAT ??????????

Did I miss something ?

:confused:

WHAT ??????????

Did I miss something ?

:confused:
Yep.

It was awesome.

Sweet Saaaaaaaam .......

May I see them too ??????

:o

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.
Let us know when it's published :)

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?
I would guess you'd have to do it statistically. But does just one planet provide a big enough sample?

But would a poem describing the qualities of a lover be science?
Is it falsifiable?

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?
Surely the meme would have to be considered in its context (the human mind) just as evolution has to be considered in the context of a big planet near a sun with lots of water? And then finer details like different levels of CO₂ in the air over the years?

Surely the meme would have to be considered in its context (the human mind) just as evolution has to be considered in the context of a big planet near a sun with lots of water? And then finer details like different levels of CO2 in the air over the years?
Of course there is the consideration of context, but the question is not context but distinction. You can easily separate a gene (semantically or physically) from its organism. Is the same true of memes?

Point of information (from wikipedia):

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Of course there is the consideration of context, but the question is not context but distinction. You can easily separate a gene (semantically or physically) from its organism. Is the same true of memes?
Does a separated gene have the same meaning? I suppose most carbon based life on earth is sufficiently similar that you can potentially look at a gene from an (unspecified) organism and say something useful about it. But couldn't there be an alien species with the same genes and a completely different way of processing them? (I remember reading an essay to that effect...)

So could you say: genes are only meaningful in context, but on earth there seems to be only one, ubiquitous context so we can pretty much always assume it?

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....
He is not a kind person - but at least his logic is exceptional, he sees through complicated issues in seconds (or at least minutes) - then again , he is in favour of secularism - he might be biased ..........
Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree........

:)

Are you in love with him?


Does a separated gene have the same meaning? I suppose most carbon based life on earth is sufficiently similar that you can potentially look at a gene from an (unspecified) organism and say something useful about it. But couldn't there be an alien species with the same genes and a completely different way of processing them? (I remember reading an essay to that effect...)

So could you say: genes are only meaningful in context, but on earth there seems to be only one, ubiquitous context so we can pretty much always assume it?

Doesn't a separated gene have the same meaning? :confused:

If I am running a PCR, yes, the seperated part of a gene is very meaningful to me.

I can separate it. copy it, multiply it, insert it in a vector and put it back in a cell and see the same effects as it produces in an organism (i.e. the expression of the gene products). I can even combine it wth a completely different promoter and use transcription factors from the host cell to make gene products that are unnatural to the host cell. e.g. in luminescence studies that I do, I can guage the activity of a transcription factor by adding its promoter to a gene for luciferase. The cell will then produce the product luciferase which fluoresces, and I may use the production of luciferase to quantify the transcription factor or its activity.

Can I do this for a meme?

Light, will you buy a copy of The God Delusion?
Probably not - just as you are equally unlikely to purchase any titles I care to mention

But anyway feel free to add excerpts or points that you find relevant and if I have the time I will respond

Or will you watch episode 2 of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos"? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7430337603450194321&q=carl+sagan+cosmos+duration%3Along+is%3Afree) I watched it last night and thought of you, LG .

At least you should come away thinking that everything currently known about evolution, genes, dna or "molecular evolution" are not guesses.
I am already quite informed on the chemical processes of information utilized by living organisms

I know you do not like the idea of evolution - still it works surprisingly well in real life ..... ;)

Actually I wasn'teven contending evolution in this thread


Even if you want to accept evolution - evolution tells us nothing about human psychology and human psychology tells us nothing about the push -pull forces of physics that evolution is based upon - at least not in terms of the empirical processes that they utilize to establish their credibility

Its just like the same murky water you get in when you attempt to merge the findings of etmylogical history and fossil dating history - merging different paradigms of empiricism is an act of faith

I seem to have difficulties in finding a link to the reductionist paradigm -
please provide me with a link - so that I can read all about it !!!

;)
Anything to do with physics applied to observation (electrons,molecules etc) is the reductionist paradigm - basically it works under the premise that all observations of phenomena can be reduced to push/pull laws of electrons etc etc

I am saying you cant fill a book with 'the detrimental effects of atheism on science' and remain true to such processes. :)
Do a web search on scientific fraud and you will find dozens of people who already have

Are you in love with him?



Go play with your pink elephant , and let Bob have a go too !!!!! :p

Oooops , did I really write this :o

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....

Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree.......

That is correct, I would agree with anyone who could show atheism is detrimental to science.

I've pondered it, but fail to see how not believing in gods will somehow have a negative impact to science?

C'mon sam, one paragraph, if you can?

"Lord Insane" - I like that.

That is correct, I would agree with anyone who could show atheism is detrimental to science.

I've pondered it, but fail to see how not believing in gods will somehow have a negative impact to science?

C'mon sam, one paragraph, if you can?

"Lord Insane" - I like that.

It really is all about you, huh? :rolleyes:

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=21117

It really is all about you, huh?

It did appear he was referring to me. Sorry. My bad. An inherent problem of internet forums when quotes are not identified.

So, will that paragraph be forthcoming?

Non-belief in gods detrimental to science? I am all a quiver.

I am all a quiver.

Why?

Why? If you could actually demonstrate that not believing in the supernatural is detrimental to science, that would be an earth shattering revelation. Who wouldn't be all a quiver?

Of course, you can't even produce a paragraph let alone write a book. My quiver was not forthcoming, as was the paragraph.

*poot*

Why? If you could actually demonstrate that not believing in the supernatural is detrimental to science, that would be an earth shattering revelation. Who wouldn't be all a quiver?

Of course, you can't even produce a paragraph let alone write a book. My quiver was not forthcoming, as was the paragraph.

*poot*

You need to work on your persuasion skills. *yawn*

You need to work on your persuasion skills. *yawn*

No need to persuade you to make an a$$ of yourself, you accomplished that all on your own.

No need to persuade you to make an a$$ of yourself, you accomplished that all on your own.

Always glad to be a source of amusement.

Hope you had a good time, sweets. ;)

Doesn't a separated gene have the same meaning? :confused:

If I am running a PCR, yes, the seperated part of a gene is very meaningful to me.

I can separate it. copy it, multiply it, insert it in a vector and put it back in a cell and see the same effects as it produces in an organism (i.e. the expression of the gene products). I can even combine it wth a completely different promoter and use transcription factors from the host cell to make gene products that are unnatural to the host cell. e.g. in luminescence studies that I do, I can guage the activity of a transcription factor by adding its promoter to a gene for luciferase. The cell will then produce the product luciferase which fluoresces, and I may use the production of luciferase to quantify the transcription factor or its activity.

Can I do this for a meme?
Interesting. I suppose it's a more general analogy. The wikipedia article on meme says it's analogical to the "evolutionary idea of a gene as an abstract piece of biological information" or somesuch rather than the biochemist's idea of a gene.

Is evolution considered unscientific, though? I know you can experiment with the theory of "natural selection" with so-called genetic algorithms. And you can watch bacteria evolve, or at least specialise. But evolution of other species is supposed to take too long to be visible in a human lifetime, isn't it?

Interesting. I suppose it's a more general analogy. The wikipedia article on meme says it's analogical to the "evolutionary idea of a gene as an abstract piece of biological information" or somesuch rather than the biochemists idea of a gene.

Is evolution considered unscientific though? I know you can experiment with the theory of "natural selection" with so-called genetic algorithms. And you can watch bacteria evolve or at least specialise. But evolution of other species is supposed to take to long to be visible in a human lifetime, isn't it?

Evolution is a theory that has gained acceptability based on available evidence which cannot be falsified.

Memes are conjecture, tying a philosophical construct to this theory.

And this is science?

Evolution is a theory that has gained acceptability based on available evidence which cannot be falsified.

Memes are conjecture, tying a philosophical construct to this theory.

And this is science?
Perhaps evolution is more like history - trying to work out what happened in the past. You can make rational arguments for different points of view, but you can't directly repeat or falsify history the way you would an experiment.

Or could you say evolution would've been falsified if other mammals had been discovered to have completely different DNA, rather than the huge overlap they have with humans? Hmm...

However, the theory of natural selection - "that which is more likely to exist is more likely to continue to exist" - can probably be shown rigorously given certain assumptions. Using probability theory of some sort?

Perhaps evolution is more like history - trying to work out what happened in the past. You can make rational arguments for different points of view, but you can't directly repeat or falsify history the way you would an experiment.

Or could you say evolution would've been falsified if other mammals had been discovered to have completely different DNA, rather than the huge overlap they have with humans? Hmm...

However, the theory of natural selection - "that which is more likely to exist is more likely to continue to exist" - can probably be shown rigorously given certain assumptions. Using probability theory of some sort?

The presence of regions of DNA conserved across species is the best evidence of evolution. The same code produces the same products in all species ( with some fine tuning). As yet, there has been no falsification of this.

Natural selection on the other hand presupposes the existence of an environment that continues to favor the persistence of a species regardless of minor fluctuations; it also presupposes the presence of random mutations which will confer favorable traits that enable an organism (or a sub-species of a species) to survive and reproduce in the presence of these minor fluctuations. In addition these traits must be heritable to enable the survival of future offspring as well.

e.g. individuals resistant to HIV can survive an epidemic of AIDS, but if their children do not inherit this trait, then they won't.

The situation may be complicated further if the trait is regulated by several genes rather than one gene.

So the independent variables are:

the mechanism of selection
the effects of selection

And the dependent variables are:

fitness
fecundity

There is no "direction" here and success is relative.

natural selection - fitness for purpose in an ever changing environment

change or die (out)

DNA evidence and fossil records demonstrate an ability to do this (or not)!

NYAS has Richard Dawkins speaking on his book, The God Delusion


http://www.nyas.org/podcasts/snc/dawkins.mp3

While I basically agree with Dawkins, I think attempts to rapidly exterminate religion are more dangerous and wrong than simply trying to understand why people need it and dealing with problems as they arise.

Religion is the foundation of many a personality or belief system.

It's simply unfair and IMO, unwise to pretend they don't have the right to be themselves, or that they should agree with that which is ultimately also faith-based.

He is not saying people have no right to be themselves. Religion enjoys the freedom of which it is expected upon every citizen to become religious. Whereas in many occassions or in many countries you are not free to be an atheist. Most people aren't really aware of the alternative of non-belief is actually acceptable in other occassions. In fact I think atheists in America are the outcasts of society, and George Bush sr even suggested (allegedly) that atheists are not even American citizens since the nation of America is one, under God.

He is not saying people have no right to be themselves. Religion enjoys the freedom of which it is expected upon every citizen to become religious. Whereas in many occassions or in many countries you are not free to be an atheist.

Or to hold opposing opinions including other faiths. Some humans seem to handle dissent rather badly. This is why I beleive that faith should be a purely personal matter kept seperate from affairs of state. Certainly has no place in science based discussions aside perhaps from philosophy.

I hope one day that humanity will put away these religions of blind faith in a grand diety(s) and put that faith into ourselves, each other, and humanity.

and George Bush sr even suggested (allegedly) that atheists are not even American citizens since the nation of America is one, under God.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

While I basically agree with Dawkins, I think attempts to rapidly exterminate religion are more dangerous and wrong than simply trying to understand why people need it and dealing with problems as they arise.

Religion is the foundation of many a personality or belief system.

It's simply unfair and IMO, unwise to pretend they don't have the right to be themselves, or that they should agree with that which is ultimately also faith-based.

Me too. Do you think Dawkins advocated such a thing? I'm halfway though the book, and so far it's very good.

Me too. Do you think Dawkins advocated such a thing? I'm halfway though the book, and so far it's very good.

He did not advocate so in the podcast I linked above.

Me too. Do you think Dawkins advocated such a thing? I'm halfway though the book, and so far it's very good.

I was speaking more to posters (in regards to their comments) than Dawkins, since as far as I know he doesn't post here.

It is interesting that Dawkins when attacking traditional religions, fails to point out that Scientific industrialism has also not been wholly a blessing to mankind. Look at the development and mass production of weapons and the tremendous loss of life they produced in World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) and World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).

Donella H. Meadows, Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College, said in her article "Quality of Life" about "scientific industrialism", "The founders of scientific industrialism, in order to prevail over the doctrinaire irrationality of the Middle Ages, emphasized specialization, reductionism, logic, and quantification. In doing so they restored a much needed balance and then went too far. For the sake of objectivity they condemned intuition, holism, spirituality, everything unmeasurable and indefinable. That condemnation has lasted for centuries and has shaped us all. ... it is clear that the industrial society that has dominated the world over that period is obsessed not with Quality but with quantity."

In another part of the same article she says, "People may be properly nourished and fully employed, but if they are granted no personal dignity and are trained to no standard of character or excellence, if there is no Quality at the core of their lives, they will either withdraw sullenly into themselves or pursue material extravagance and sensual stimulation as shallow substitutes for Quality."

So does Dawkins see atheism and the Scientific method as the big ideas that will not only reverse the excesses created by scientific industrialisation but also prevent further excesses by future generations?

And does he believe that atheism is sufficient to provide all men with the "personal dignity" and "standard of character" necessary to prevent the sullen withdrawal or pursuit of material extravagance and sensual stimulation as substitutes for this Quality?

And since scientists are the ones known for their atheism and agnosticism more than any other group, why doesn't their superior rational outlook prevent them from developing and improving on weapons on mass destruction when they know, better than anyone else what their effects will be and that such weapons will result chiefly in the deaths of civilians and noncombatants?

PS I haven't read the God Delusion yet, just the reviews and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F) entry in wiki on which my questions are based.

It is interesting that Dawkins when attacking traditional religions, fails to point out that Scientific industrialism has also not been wholly a blessing to mankind. Look at the development and mass production of weapons and the tremendous loss of life they produced in World War I and World War II.

So the loss of life in todays society due to advanced weapons somehow outnumbers those of men with spears and swords in ancient times?

And since scientists are the ones known for their atheism and agnosticism more than any other group, why doesn't their superior rational outlook prevent them from developing and improving on weapons on mass destruction when they know, better than anyone else what their effects will be and that such weapons will result chiefly in the deaths of civilians and noncombatants?

Because a military force remains important to a country. Obviously it would be great if no country needed a military, but such a day is far away in the future. It is up to the politicians to use their reasoning, something that can not be said about those who happen to be deeply religious.

It is up to the politicians to use their reasoning, something that can not be said about those who happen to be deeply religious.

Incorrect. What is unfortunate is that so many politicians are deeply religious. Therefore not rational, therefore they use those weapons for their idialogical BS.

So the loss of life in todays society due to advanced weapons somehow outnumbers those of men with spears and swords in ancient times?

You don't believe artillery, missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons are capable of killing more people than swords?


Because a military force remains important to a country. Obviously it would be great if no country needed a military, but such a day is far away in the future. It is up to the politicians to use their reasoning, something that can not be said about those who happen to be deeply religious.


Incorrect. What is unfortunate is that so many politicians are deeply religious. Therefore not rational, therefore they use those weapons for their idialogical BS.

Actually Dawkins does not believe that politicians are truly as religious as they portray themselves. According to him, they feign religiosity to garner votes/favor from the people.

And they still need scientists to design, develop and make bigger and better, more lethal weapons.

Incorrect. What is unfortunate is that so many politicians are deeply religious. Therefore not rational, therefore they use those weapons for their idialogical BS.
To be a successful politician, you must possess a certain degree of rationality. A politician's ideological bullshit is designed to play on the irrational, fanatic behaviors of potential supporters; this is the primary reason why I find election years to be insufferable. Stay away from the television!

EDIT: I see sam beat me to it.

So the loss of life in todays society due to advanced weapons somehow outnumbers those of men with spears and swords in ancient times?
Absolutely, and without question. As an example, there are more people living in China today, than inhabited the entire world approximately 150 years ago.

I'm fairly certain that I heard a statistic somewhere that said, of the 80 billion or so human beings that have ever lived, something like 70-80% of them have lived in the 20th century. Maybe that's slightly off, but you get the point. Modern weaponry has killed far more people than ancient weaponry. There is simply no contest.

Absolutely, and without question. As an example, there are more people living in China today, than inhabited the entire world approximately 150 years ago.

I'm fairly certain that I heard a statistic somewhere that said, of the 80 billion or so human beings that have ever lived, something like 70-80% of them have lived in the 20th century. Maybe that's slightly off, but you get the point. Modern weaponry has killed far more people than ancient weaponry. There is simply no contest.

There are also increased incidents of putting women and children on the battleline since these scientific weapons require little training - they can lay down fire power reasonably enough - If they go to the museums with swords shields and maces they could hardly even lift them up much less wield them with heroism and determination

There are also increased incidents of putting women and children on the battleline since these scientific weapons require little training - they can lay down fire power reasonably enough - If they go to the museums with swords shields and maces they could hardly even lift them up much less wield them with heroism and determination
I take it you've never wielded a decent sword/shield/mace reproduction. All it takes is a proper education and dedication. I'm talking about women, of course. Children are a different story. If by children you mean teenagers, then they have only been considered children since very recent times.

On the whole, of course, you're right. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, since the purpose of simplifying the use of weaponry is to allow for the greater utilization of manpower.

Jaster Mereel

I take it you've never wielded a decent sword/shield/mace reproduction.
i have picked up a double handed sword - hardly the sort of thing I can imagine most women using

All it takes is a proper education and dedication.
it takes ALOT od training and dedication - this is why imperial japan strived for years to keep gunpowder out of the country




On the whole, of course, you're right. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, since the purpose of simplifying the use of weaponry is to allow for the greater utilization of manpower.

Unfortunately in a situation of industrial war the main strategy is resupply - its not clear how it leads to a greater utilization of manpower

If they go to the museums with swords shields and maces they could hardly even lift them up much less wield them with heroism and determination
Sure they could. A sword is not that heavy. World War II Japan had both women and children ready to fight with said heroism and determination, to the last drop of blood, with medieval weapons if necessary. From history class I recall video clips of rows of Japanese children lined up across a street, performing rather mean-looking synchronized cuts with wooden swords that are very similar in weight and mass distribution to the real thing. (I happen to have personally handled both as well.)

But just a few men in a B-29 could have taken out them all and their entire city with the drop of a single bomb. And that's another characteristic of modern warfare: If you are unfortunate to find yourself on the business end of a modern weapon, your chances of surviving are far lower than in ancient combat, where if defeated in face-to-face combat with your adversary, you may be spared your life and turned into a slave.

EDIT: I see Jaster beat me to it.

i have picked up a double handed sword - hardly the sort of thing I can imagine most women using
Your average two-handed sword, unless you're talking about monstrous processional swords, only weighs between 2-4 pounds. Not heavy at all.


it takes ALOT od training and dedication - this is why imperial japan strived for years to keep gunpowder out of the country
Yea, but anyone can learn to use them.


Unfortunately in a situation of industrial war the main strategy is resupply - its not clear how it leads to a greater utilization of manpower
Resupply of personnel to the front, where the killing takes place. You know, the main focus of warfare?

Jaster Mereel

Your average two-handed sword, unless you're talking about monstrous processional swords, only weighs between 2-4 pounds. Not heavy at all.




Yea, but anyone can learn to use them.
a gun is even easier - and lighter



Resupply of personnel to the front, where the killing takes place. You know, the main focus of warfare?
machine guns tend to greatly reduce the ability for chivalry, what to speak of the options a veteran has at their disposal during a high altitude aerial bombing attack - hence modern warfare is essentialy about resupply (I remember talking to one anti tank machine gunner who was trained to understand that in a combat situation he would have 15 seconds to be "active")

Sure they could. A sword is not that heavy. World War II Japan had both women and children ready to fight with said heroism and determination, to the last drop of blood, with medieval weapons if necessary. From history class I recall video clips of rows of Japanese children lined up across a street, performing rather mean-looking synchronized cuts with wooden swords that are very similar in weight and mass distribution to the real thing. (I happen to have personally handled both as well.)

But just a few men in a B-29 could have taken out them all and their entire city with the drop of a single bomb. And that's another characteristic of modern warfare: If you are unfortunate to find yourself on the business end of a modern weapon, your chances of surviving are far lower than in ancient combat, where if defeated in face-to-face combat with your adversary, you may be spared your life and turned into a slave.

EDIT: I see Jaster beat me to it.

The point is that it is far easier to pick up a gun than it is to pick up a sword - didn't the wild west use the term the "equaliser" for the six shooter - the idea is that any weasily guy suddenly becomes a force to be reckoned with

Questions:

1. How many people keep a sword in the house?

2. Between a man with a gun and a man with sword, who is likely to emerge alive?

Technology makes killing easier, no doubt about it.

Look at the spree of school shootings.

a gun is even easier - and lighter
An AK-47 weighs about ten pounds, much heavier than most swords.

But I get what you mean. You're right, modern weaponry levels the playing field a bit in terms of skill, since it is at least somewhat easier to intently kill someone more martially skilled than yourself with a gun than with a sword.

"This is your standard blaster, simple point and click interface." -- Penguin hunter to Leela, Futurama

You don't believe artillery, missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons are capable of killing more people than swords?

They can, but do they? Perhaps even with such advanced weapons around, war is a deterant on both sides and has forced more allies. Do you think the EU, UN, NATO etc would exist if every country just had simple weapons like olden times? No, perhaps war would be as flippant as ever and we would return to battlefields of tens of thousands of soldiers with swords and pea shooters. Afterall, there's no nuclear bomb for the politicians who wage war, to fear. Hence why I question deaths from advanced weapons is actually higher than that of 1,000 years ago (bearing in mind population growths).

Actually Dawkins does not believe that politicians are truly as religious as they portray themselves. According to him, they feign religiosity to garner votes/favor from the people.

Well then we have a [i]larger[/] problem with religion don't we? Even if George Bush is an atheist (which I very much doubt), he only gets away with what he does by pandering to that of the very strong religious right who support absurd policies.

They can, but do they? Perhaps even with such advanced weapons around, war is a deterant on both sides and has forced more allies. Do you think the EU, UN, NATO etc would exist if every country just had simple weapons like olden times? No, perhaps war would be as flippant as ever and we would return to battlefields of tens of thousands of soldiers with swords and pea shooters. Afterall, there's no nuclear bomb for the politicians who wage war, to fear. Hence why I question deaths from advanced weapons is actually higher than that of 1,000 years ago (bearing in mind population growths).



Well then we have a [i]larger[/] problem with religion don't we? Even if George Bush is an atheist (which I very much doubt), he only gets away with what he does by pandering to that of the very strong religious right who support absurd policies.

Still need scientists to design and make the weapons, more lethal and with the capability to kill more people.

And if the scientists and politicians are not religious, are they not the biggest misusers of power?

Since they are ones who appear to be deluding the people and making the weapons of war?

Regarding deterrent, it only appears to work when both sides are well matched.

Do you believe all countries should have a nuclear weapon, then?

And what advantages does atheism confer here?

So does Dawkins see atheism and the Scientific method as the big ideas that will not only reverse the excesses created by scientific industrialisation but also prevent further excesses by future generations?
Basically no, except for it's ability to figure out why some industrial processes are unhealthy, and how they may be improved. I think he suggested that something else is required, and that is our challenge. He mentions the study of ethics, especially scientific ethics.

Still need scientists to design and make the weapons, more lethal and with the capability to kill more people.

Well if you're expecting an attack of morals among certain individuals, t