Is Dawkins Right?
-
I did have a look, then I had a glance through the rapidly racist comments, then I went looking for the real information. I do like the way they added together all the variations of Mohammed, but didn't do the same thing with all the 'British' names, but then that wouldn't have allowed them to whip up a little bit of extra anti-Moslem hatred that is really useful in the UK right now.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
Not sure you are right though ... Here's a piece[^] saying even specific variations rate rather high by themselves. I personally think that the flames in the UK haven't even started... :sigh: but I am a well known pessimistic.
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality. That means of course that they don't exist. However, they do!
∫(Edo)dx = Tzumer ∑k(this.Kid)k = this.♥
-
Not sure you are right though ... Here's a piece[^] saying even specific variations rate rather high by themselves. I personally think that the flames in the UK haven't even started... :sigh: but I am a well known pessimistic.
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality. That means of course that they don't exist. However, they do!
∫(Edo)dx = Tzumer ∑k(this.Kid)k = this.♥
What am I not right about? In the top 100 names variations on Mohammed were in three times, and added together came towards the top. Oliver and Ollie added together beat them, as I think did Charles and Charlie. Thomas and Tommy, James and Jamie were all up there too when added together. However, those three Mo's were the only 'non-British' names in the top 100. What it really shows is the lack of imagination in choosing boys names amongst Muslim parents rather than an impending invasion force being bred under our very noses. If you are that concerned why not download the raw data and analyse it yourself rather than just believing the bits that the media choose to tell you.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
What am I not right about? In the top 100 names variations on Mohammed were in three times, and added together came towards the top. Oliver and Ollie added together beat them, as I think did Charles and Charlie. Thomas and Tommy, James and Jamie were all up there too when added together. However, those three Mo's were the only 'non-British' names in the top 100. What it really shows is the lack of imagination in choosing boys names amongst Muslim parents rather than an impending invasion force being bred under our very noses. If you are that concerned why not download the raw data and analyse it yourself rather than just believing the bits that the media choose to tell you.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
Actually it looks like the did add the names which is why the title claimed that Muhammad\Mohammed etc rated 2nd place - second to Oliver\Ollie
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality. That means of course that they don't exist. However, they do!
∫(Edo)dx = Tzumer ∑k(this.Kid)k = this.♥
-
Actually it looks like the did add the names which is why the title claimed that Muhammad\Mohammed etc rated 2nd place - second to Oliver\Ollie
It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality. That means of course that they don't exist. However, they do!
∫(Edo)dx = Tzumer ∑k(this.Kid)k = this.♥
-
But Harry is still way out in it's own in 1st place, even without all the variations on that name.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No, of course science doesn't prove that there is no god. It doesn't have to. Science does not (so far) use any deities to explain known phenomena, so there is no good reason (for some suitable definition of "good reason") to assume any deity exists.
Implicitly wrong. Science, every single branch, is based on assumptions. That is something that is accepted without proof. And one can certainly make the assumption that a deity exists and derive from that other logical proofs.
harold aptroot wrote:
They believe in god not because evidence convinced them that god exists, but just because they want to, and they'll make up some random reasons when pressed.
Which is true for everyone - including atheists. For example they believe (the healthy ones) that without question that when they go to bed that they will wake the next morning and that they will continue to do so for the next 20, 40, 60 or even 80 years. Despite the "proof" that they are very likely will not do so (because they will die from something first.) Humans can't base their entire lives on hypotheticals and probabilities. If for no other reason because every single decision is one of probability and calculating it every time is impossible. So humans make intuitive guesses based on nothing more than some limited experiences that they have had in the past.
Positive Proof? There usually isn't any, and it certainly isn't required in order to belief something. What we have instead, usually, is a theory that is somehow useful and that hasn't been disproved yet. Like Newtonian physics, it could very well hold up for a long time and still turn out to be somewhat incorrect. Usually only somewhat, otherwise it would never have worked to begin with. So, do I believe I'll wake up tomorrow? Well I would never put it that way. I'm going to bet that I will, for various reasons: 1) experiment has shown that that's what usually happens. 2) in the event that I'm wrong, it still isn't a problem.
jschell wrote:
Humans can't base their entire lives on hypotheticals and probabilities.
Unfortunately, that's true. If you don't make approximations, you spend more time calculating probabilities than actually doing stuff. But that's for day-to-day affairs. For serious business, you can afford to actually analyze things and come to solid conclusions, rather than just taking a guess and hoping for the best. So then, where does god factor into this picture.. well that seems like Serious Business to me. Great, so we can think about it without wasting our time. So let's treat the existence of God as a theory for explaining.. something. A proper definite theory that makes a testable prediction, preferably a prediction that can't be made with other known theories. Then, if that prediction matches experiment, it'll start to look a little better. After some more testing, atheists would be grudgingly forced to accept the validity of the theory, although I'm sure that many of them would reject it anyway, because let's be honest, many of them have atheism as a real religion rather than as a default position. I would be really interested in that result, though I don't expect it. It's been tried. A lot. The theory hasn't been proved incorrect, of course, and indeed it seems specially designed to make that impossible - which is a rather suspicious quality in a theory. Implicitly wrong? No. Just no. Yes, there are assumptions, in the scientific method itself they are things like "observations tell us something about reality", "events in the physical universe have causes that can be found in the physical universe", "the effect a cause will have is predictable". If you're not going to assume things like that, you just get stuck and you can never really conclude anything. The last one does have some small problems if you look dee
-
Purgatory! I went through a phase of being lambasted for posting duplicate thread topics. I was obliged to declare myself unclean, dead and/or alive, hence Leslie Nielsen, and I'm contracting the name. When I reach the point of singularity I will start expanding again but who knows where that will lead? I don't really know myself. ;)
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
What do you with your
[STA_Cover_Flow*](http://stackoverflow.com/)account then? they only let you change once per month :sigh: * Its not a dirty word here is it?It is a paradox that paradoxes would actually exist in reality. That means of course that they don't exist. However, they do!
∫(Edo)dx = Tzumer ∑k(this.Kid)k = this.♥
-
Positive Proof? There usually isn't any, and it certainly isn't required in order to belief something. What we have instead, usually, is a theory that is somehow useful and that hasn't been disproved yet. Like Newtonian physics, it could very well hold up for a long time and still turn out to be somewhat incorrect. Usually only somewhat, otherwise it would never have worked to begin with. So, do I believe I'll wake up tomorrow? Well I would never put it that way. I'm going to bet that I will, for various reasons: 1) experiment has shown that that's what usually happens. 2) in the event that I'm wrong, it still isn't a problem.
jschell wrote:
Humans can't base their entire lives on hypotheticals and probabilities.
Unfortunately, that's true. If you don't make approximations, you spend more time calculating probabilities than actually doing stuff. But that's for day-to-day affairs. For serious business, you can afford to actually analyze things and come to solid conclusions, rather than just taking a guess and hoping for the best. So then, where does god factor into this picture.. well that seems like Serious Business to me. Great, so we can think about it without wasting our time. So let's treat the existence of God as a theory for explaining.. something. A proper definite theory that makes a testable prediction, preferably a prediction that can't be made with other known theories. Then, if that prediction matches experiment, it'll start to look a little better. After some more testing, atheists would be grudgingly forced to accept the validity of the theory, although I'm sure that many of them would reject it anyway, because let's be honest, many of them have atheism as a real religion rather than as a default position. I would be really interested in that result, though I don't expect it. It's been tried. A lot. The theory hasn't been proved incorrect, of course, and indeed it seems specially designed to make that impossible - which is a rather suspicious quality in a theory. Implicitly wrong? No. Just no. Yes, there are assumptions, in the scientific method itself they are things like "observations tell us something about reality", "events in the physical universe have causes that can be found in the physical universe", "the effect a cause will have is predictable". If you're not going to assume things like that, you just get stuck and you can never really conclude anything. The last one does have some small problems if you look dee
harold aptroot wrote:
So let's treat the existence of God as a theory for explaining.. something. A proper definite theory that makes a testable prediction, preferably a prediction that can't be made with other known theories.
Wrong. You are trying to insert God as a factor rather than as an assumption. By any mainstream Christian definition God is an assumption. Here is a an assumption that science often makes - everything is measurable and repeatable (and I didn't say always I said often.) If I deny that assumption then you are going to be hard pressed to prove the vast majority of existing scientific knowledge. If I deny that "proofs" in fact prove anything then all of science, theoretical and practical, goes out the window.
harold aptroot wrote:
If you're not going to assume things like that, you just get stuck and you can never really conclude anything. The last one does have some small problems if you look deep enough, but it's really just meant to imply that a true theory will predict things that are true.
No there are far more assumptions than that.
harold aptroot wrote:
The branches of science make assumptions that are usually entire reasonable
Irrelevant. An assumption is an assumption. Reasonableness is just a factor in terms of the current world view of the participants. What is "reasonable" today is far different than what was reasonable 200 years ago.
harold aptroot wrote:
That is on no level the same thing as just assuming that God exists.
Wrong. Again an assumption is an assumption. The 'quality' of the assumption is solely based on the world view the current participants. And the only thing that matters is whether the participants accept the assumption or not.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So let's treat the existence of God as a theory for explaining.. something. A proper definite theory that makes a testable prediction, preferably a prediction that can't be made with other known theories.
Wrong. You are trying to insert God as a factor rather than as an assumption. By any mainstream Christian definition God is an assumption. Here is a an assumption that science often makes - everything is measurable and repeatable (and I didn't say always I said often.) If I deny that assumption then you are going to be hard pressed to prove the vast majority of existing scientific knowledge. If I deny that "proofs" in fact prove anything then all of science, theoretical and practical, goes out the window.
harold aptroot wrote:
If you're not going to assume things like that, you just get stuck and you can never really conclude anything. The last one does have some small problems if you look deep enough, but it's really just meant to imply that a true theory will predict things that are true.
No there are far more assumptions than that.
harold aptroot wrote:
The branches of science make assumptions that are usually entire reasonable
Irrelevant. An assumption is an assumption. Reasonableness is just a factor in terms of the current world view of the participants. What is "reasonable" today is far different than what was reasonable 200 years ago.
harold aptroot wrote:
That is on no level the same thing as just assuming that God exists.
Wrong. Again an assumption is an assumption. The 'quality' of the assumption is solely based on the world view the current participants. And the only thing that matters is whether the participants accept the assumption or not.
Hey, I can be you, look here's my impression
jschell wrote:
Again an assumption is an assumption.
Wrong. Fallacies fallacies fallacies. See how well that worked? It didn't. You sir, are not arguing. You're just stating falsehoods and working from there. That's a surprisingly good tactic, because you can of course infer anything from a falsehood. Assumptions are assumptions? Tautologically true, but the meaning behind that is of course "and all assumptions are equal". Well, they aren't. For example: assume that the Earth is flat. What's the problem with that? It's testable. Why assume something that could be proven and/or disproven? Oh yes, in order to make incorrect claims or to be sloppy with correct claims. So don't do that. If it can be tested, it's not an assumption, because it doesn't have to be. The basic assumptions of the scientific method can not be proven. If you suspend them temporarily in order to prove them, the ability to prove anything about reality goes right out the window. That has nothing to do with culture or 200 years or whatever. If you want to talk about reality, you need those three assumptions. And that things fall downwards was probably known, well, always. So the assumption that sedimentary rocks are deposited bottom-first was always reasonable, too. Ok so there are some assumptions that weren't always reasonable, but that's not a very strong objection: they're reasonable for some reason, and it has to be a pretty good reason to make them reasonable. That the reason wasn't always known or realized is no obstacle.
jschell wrote:
If I deny that assumption then you are going to be hard pressed to prove the vast majority of existing scientific knowledge.
In your words: Irrelevant. Or course if you deny the assumptions, the proof goes away. Nothing new here.
jschell wrote:
By any mainstream Christian definition God is an assumption.
Ok so we can stop this because that means that this debate isn't a debate, but just a fight. No one is going to get convinced of anything, not me (because I'm right - ha, take that, my lamest argument yet) and you because you've already decided what you're going to assume and that it's a good assumption according to the flat metric of "all assumptions are created equal". I will not reply to any further messages from you. This is not admitting defeat, it's admitting the
-
Hey, I can be you, look here's my impression
jschell wrote:
Again an assumption is an assumption.
Wrong. Fallacies fallacies fallacies. See how well that worked? It didn't. You sir, are not arguing. You're just stating falsehoods and working from there. That's a surprisingly good tactic, because you can of course infer anything from a falsehood. Assumptions are assumptions? Tautologically true, but the meaning behind that is of course "and all assumptions are equal". Well, they aren't. For example: assume that the Earth is flat. What's the problem with that? It's testable. Why assume something that could be proven and/or disproven? Oh yes, in order to make incorrect claims or to be sloppy with correct claims. So don't do that. If it can be tested, it's not an assumption, because it doesn't have to be. The basic assumptions of the scientific method can not be proven. If you suspend them temporarily in order to prove them, the ability to prove anything about reality goes right out the window. That has nothing to do with culture or 200 years or whatever. If you want to talk about reality, you need those three assumptions. And that things fall downwards was probably known, well, always. So the assumption that sedimentary rocks are deposited bottom-first was always reasonable, too. Ok so there are some assumptions that weren't always reasonable, but that's not a very strong objection: they're reasonable for some reason, and it has to be a pretty good reason to make them reasonable. That the reason wasn't always known or realized is no obstacle.
jschell wrote:
If I deny that assumption then you are going to be hard pressed to prove the vast majority of existing scientific knowledge.
In your words: Irrelevant. Or course if you deny the assumptions, the proof goes away. Nothing new here.
jschell wrote:
By any mainstream Christian definition God is an assumption.
Ok so we can stop this because that means that this debate isn't a debate, but just a fight. No one is going to get convinced of anything, not me (because I'm right - ha, take that, my lamest argument yet) and you because you've already decided what you're going to assume and that it's a good assumption according to the flat metric of "all assumptions are created equal". I will not reply to any further messages from you. This is not admitting defeat, it's admitting the
harold aptroot wrote:
Wrong. Fallacies fallacies fallacies.
You are claiming science is not based on assumptions?
harold aptroot wrote:
assume that the Earth is flat.
What's the problem with that? It's testable.Sigh...apparently you don't understand what an assumption is nor even what I already said. An assumption is something that you accept without proof. Two parts 1. Acceptance. 2. Without proof. You are providing an example that specifically VIOLATES both of those. And since I understand those concepts and have ALREADY stated them it of course has nothing to do with what I have said. When you challenge the assumption which is EXACTLY what "testable" means then you are REJECTING the assumption. And it doesn't matter WHY one rejects the assumption because they are assumptions. It is common teaching technique for classical logic to present assumptions which are obviously false yet used in a proof to demonstrate the concept of what assumptions mean. You are doing nothing than demonstrating exactly what an assumption means. And failure to understand what assumptions are and what assumptions are being made is a very common problem especially in this type of discourse.
harold aptroot wrote:
because you've already decided what you're going to assume and that it's a good assumption according to the flat metric of "all assumptions are created equal".
If you think that you can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist then I suggest that you might want to get that published right. Otherwise it remains an assumption and a fundamental one. And it is one that if one allows it as an assumption, per the definition of assumption, then every contrary scientific argument attempting to dispute it is easily and logically dismissed. But to do that one must in fact understand what assumptions really mean.