I was an evolution agnostic, until I discovered the power of Genetic Algorithms. Using random "mutations" and crossover "breeding" one mimics the evolutionary process. Guess what - it works very well to solve very difficult problems. So is this proof? No? But I would argue far more convincing that a preacher giving "the Word of the Lord".
Richard Dawkins on why science is better than myth
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Maybe the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning. Best to keep an open mind. Maybe guys will realise there are other things in the world besides pussy.so you know it is just luck or coincidence, 100% of the time that premonitions are reported? Talk about blind faith in rationality. Glad you have an open mind.
I have read a number of his popularly published works. I can give you a list if you like.You simply made all this shit up. I caught you before claiming that you read his and other's work when in fact you clearly had not. You are full of shit.
I can also prove that he intentionally misquoted a major historical figure in order to mislead his readers in "The God Delusion." It was so bad his publishers made him correct it in later editions. Fortunately I own a first edition hard cover.
On this issue, you are lying, or guessing wrong. But I am not surprised. Do you find it difficult when your hero is dishonest to the public?
You mean like where you denied the truthful statements I made about Dawkins?Too funny.
For pete's sake. It saddens me to observe the lack of rudimentary common sense and intelligence in our world.
Do you disagree that he intentionally mislead his readers in the hardcover of God Delusion? IT was his anti-American arrogance that got him in trouble again...
Like ass and mouth?Maybe guys will realise there are other things in the world besides pussy.
Are you saying you believe in a higher power, but think that that higher power has nothing to do with nature ( which science studies)? Any complete understanding has to integrate these 2 realities ( or prove that one or both is wrong or false). The physical world, the body , the mind and the spirit must be included or the understanding is incomplete. Or is this compartmentalization just a way of embracing two world views which are at odds with each other, so you don't have to deal with the incongruency? Kind of like multiple personality disorder...Not an atheist but a scientist. I don't dispute religion and higher powers. I just recognize they have nothing to do with science, fact, or evidence.
Beer?Or pizza and beer?
Beer is the path to the dark side
Beer leads to drunkenness
Drunkenness leads to beer goggles
Beer goggles leads to dirty women
Once you have a dirty girl on your jock
forever will she dominate your destiny.
In the way that you mean it...complete understanding appears impossible.Are you saying you believe in a higher power, but think that that higher power has nothing to do with nature ( which science studies)? Any complete understanding has to integrate these 2 realities ( or prove that one or both is wrong or false). The physical world, the body , the mind and the spirit must be included or the understanding is incomplete. Or is this compartmentalization just a way of embracing two world views which are at odds with each other, so you don't have to deal with the incongruency? Kind of like multiple personality disorder...
Especially where you suggest that science or religion, either one of them, is capable of being proven "false". Science is a method, not a set of facts or assumptions. Religion is a belief system about spirituality and how to live in light of concepts of the divine.
Neither, to my mind, can be proven false.
Nor are they incongruent as you suggest.
For some reason the expression "non-overlapping magesterium" comes to mind...
what do you mean by "the divine"? Does the divine have any influence on nature or creation ? Is there a divine intelligence permeating all things?In the way that you mean it...complete understanding appears impossible.
Especially where you suggest that science or religion, either one of them, is capable of being proven "false". Science is a method, not a set of facts or assumptions. Religion is a belief system about spirituality and how to live in light of concepts of the divine.
Neither, to my mind, can be proven false.
Nor are they incongruent as you suggest.
For some reason the expression "non-overlapping magesterium" comes to mind...
Was there a beginning?
Tell you what, I will answer those questions for you right after you explain how either religion or science can be proven false.what do you mean by "the divine"? Does the divine have any influence on nature or creation ? Is there a divine intelligence permeating all things?
Was there a beginning?
I'm not sure they could be proven false, I just put that in as an alternative to the unified view, anticipating the response from committed atheists who would say that religion is pure crap so how could science and religion merge in a complete understanding of reality.Tell you what, I will answer those questions for you right after you explain how either religion or science can be proven false.
Science attempts to explain why things are the way they are, religion tells us they are that way for a reason determined by a capricious ( likes floods, pestilence, talk about collateral damage) lazy ( takes days off ), sexist ( doesn't think women should be entrusted to collect his money ), racist ( all those of you not touched by his official messiah or following the approved manual can go to hell, and lets face it somewhat uncaring i.e. see famine in Somalia, aids victims in Africa, residents of Gary Indiana, or anybody unlucky enough to have read all of Fuji's posts, individual. Sign me up.
Not too bad. Just three things I have to disagree with:Science attempts to explain why things are the way they are, religion tells us they are that way for a reason determined by a capricious ( likes floods, pestilence, talk about collateral damage) lazy ( takes days off ), sexist ( doesn't think women should be entrusted to collect his money ), racist ( all those of you not touched by his official messiah or following the approved manual can go to hell, and lets face it somewhat uncaring i.e. see famine in Somalia, aids victims in Africa, residents of Gary Indiana, or anybody unlucky enough to have read all of Fuji's posts, individual. Sign me up.
a) you are assuming the Abrahamic traditions, there are plenty of other religions out there; and
b) there is nothing really racist in the NT or OT for that matter.
c) there is nothing really gender biased in the the NT.
And since I suspect you take days off...you won't mind if I call you lazy from now on.
Since the most energy has gone into the invention and promotion of the new and old testament they were my example. No doubt the poor bastard who was sacrificed to the Aztec Sun God would have preferred another justification for his sacrifice other than his will be done.
Not kkk racist, but any religion that denies salvation just because you were born on a different continent where you may be sacrificed to a sun god seems a bit ethno centric at best.
Well Eve doesn't come off very well and surely political correctness could have mandated one female disciple, and no one on this board believes if a woman has to have a messiah couldn't she at least get laid.
Guilty as charged
Not kkk racist, but any religion that denies salvation just because you were born on a different continent where you may be sacrificed to a sun god seems a bit ethno centric at best.
Well Eve doesn't come off very well and surely political correctness could have mandated one female disciple, and no one on this board believes if a woman has to have a messiah couldn't she at least get laid.
Guilty as charged
S
I bet he would have preferred one of those nasty Abrahamic faiths too...ince the most energy has gone into the invention and promotion of the new and old testament they were my example. No doubt the poor bastard who was sacrificed to the Aztec Sun God would have preferred another justification for his sacrifice other than his will be done.
Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Christians deny salvation on that grounds. Almost every denomination suggests that good people who were never exposed to "the word" will make it go heaven. Each religion thinks that they are "right", the OT and NT faiths are no different, but don't base their rightness on "faith". They are no more racist than opposite sides of the capitalism/socialism debate.Not kkk racist, but any religion that denies salvation just because you were born on a different continent where you may be sacrificed to a sun god seems a bit ethno centric at best.
There are two creation stories in the OT and Eve does better in one than the other, but as I said there is nothing sexist in the NT. In fact the important role of women is stressed in the NT, And Mary surely got laid because Jesus had brothers and sisters. And I bet you get serious orgasms if you have immaculate conception...Well Eve doesn't come off very well and surely political correctness could have mandated one female disciple, and no one on this board believes if a woman has to have a messiah couldn't she at least get laid.
Me too, and the OT says god created us in his image.Guilty as charged
What I am saying that I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of something out there. I'm not a believer but who knows if I'll see things different later in life.Are you saying you believe in a higher power, but think that that higher power has nothing to do with nature ( which science studies)? Any complete understanding has to integrate these 2 realities ( or prove that one or both is wrong or false). The physical world, the body , the mind and the spirit must be included or the understanding is incomplete. Or is this compartmentalization just a way of embracing two world views which are at odds with each other, so you don't have to deal with the incongruency? Kind of like multiple personality disorder...
As it is though, science is an area of knowledge based on evidence and testing of theories. Spirituality is based solely on things that can't be measured or proven. Spirit has nothing to do with science and is in no way needed for a scientific understanding of the way the universe works. Spirituality without science would mean we'd still be independent groups of hunter/gatherers. Faith is a personal thing that is different to different people. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. Science is common to us all whether you choose to accept it or not.
This is an important point that many people miss. Well said.What I am saying that I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of something out there. I'm not a believer but who knows if I'll see things different later in life.
As it is though, science is an area of knowledge based on evidence and testing of theories. Spirituality is based solely on things that can't be measured or proven. Spirit has nothing to do with science and is in no way needed for a scientific understanding of the way the universe works. Spirituality without science would mean we'd still be independent groups of hunter/gatherers. Faith is a personal thing that is different to different people. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. Science is common to us all whether you choose to accept it or not.
but if there is a god or intelligent design of some kind , that probably would have an impact on the way things are, evolution, nature and........ready for it?...science.What I am saying that I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of something out there. I'm not a believer but who knows if I'll see things different later in life.
As it is though, science is an area of knowledge based on evidence and testing of theories. Spirituality is based solely on things that can't be measured or proven. Spirit has nothing to do with science and is in no way needed for a scientific understanding of the way the universe works. Spirituality without science would mean we'd still be independent groups of hunter/gatherers. Faith is a personal thing that is different to different people. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. Science is common to us all whether you choose to accept it or not.
