Is Dawkins Right?
-
No, the egregious professor for the public misunderstanding of science is not right. He is seldom, if ever right. I'm not getting involved in the detail or a flame war but suffice it to say that even the secularists have disowned him as a religious zealot. On that at least, they are right.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
The perfect answer. Intelligent people will already understand the reasons, and religious idiots will just ignore it and go away.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
religious idiots will just ignore it and go away.
:omg: That's slanderous I'm just an Idiot :-D
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
religious idiots will just ignore it and go away.
:omg: That's slanderous I'm just an Idiot :-D
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
Nobody could accuse me of being religious, but... Hmm. Probably best to just end that sentence there.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
One argument: If you don't understand why something is happening and say/believe it is the will of god(s) why should you want to find reasons for that? If you don't understand something and you don't believe in gods and if you're curious (that makes a difference) this will eventually let you dig deeper into science to find reasons why something might happen. Religious institutions like the christian church have been proved wrong many times and have been showing to be brakes for inventions and science. Thank god (oh the irony :D) that it hasn't that great an influence anymore (at least in western europe, I don't know how this is in other countries/continents) Religion has done more harm than good in my opinion (think of all the wars fought in the name of one god or another). We would probably be better of without any religion at all Note: I did not intend to offend anyone who might be religious. This is merely my opinion.
I hear your point Nicholas, though: The Christian church may have been proven wrong, but that does not shed any light on the existence of god question. Another interesting thing to notice is that there are quite a number of prophecies in the old testimony which (up to now as far as I know) have stood their ground completely, which I must say, is quite amazing for a book 3,300 years old (roughly). Further more, around 95% of History's top scientists believed in god. You can believe or not but it is sure foolish to think that your choice of the two is backed up with any scientific finding or that it is smarter to think one way or the other.
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.♥
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
religious idiots will just ignore it and go away.
:omg: That's slanderous I'm just an Idiot :-D
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
He didn't mean all religious people are idiots, he meant all of them who are idiots. Some of us are, that's the truth :-O
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.♥
-
From 'Posting Rules for the Lounge': 4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk.
-
Statistically speaking: 1. If god exists: a. the the believers have 50% to get to heaven. b. the non-believers have 0%. 2. If god does not exist: - Both have 0% to get to heaven. If is was suitcases and money what would you choose?
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.♥
-
I hear your point Nicholas, though: The Christian church may have been proven wrong, but that does not shed any light on the existence of god question. Another interesting thing to notice is that there are quite a number of prophecies in the old testimony which (up to now as far as I know) have stood their ground completely, which I must say, is quite amazing for a book 3,300 years old (roughly). Further more, around 95% of History's top scientists believed in god. You can believe or not but it is sure foolish to think that your choice of the two is backed up with any scientific finding or that it is smarter to think one way or the other.
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.♥
Maimonides wrote:
You can believe or not but it is sure foolish to think that your choice of the two is backed up with any scientific finding or that it is smarter to think one way or the other.
Well actually.. 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. Believing something for bad reasons is not a very smart thing to do. That doesn't actually mean that religious people are stupid. In my experience, they tend to be selectively stupid - usually smart, and suddenly willfully stupid when it comes to religion. 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. </foolish>
-
From 'Posting Rules for the Lounge': 4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk.
From 'Unofficial Rules for the Lounge.' Amendment VII : All regulars are excused from the above rules. Amendment XI b.) : Regulars will be the most incensed when the above rules are broken by a newbie. Amendment XI c,) : Regulars will feel most aggrieved when the newbie mentioned in (Amendment XI b.) is of a non-western descent and will vote to remove the member from the site permanently.
-
Statistically speaking: 1. If god exists: a. the the believers have 50% to get to heaven. b. the non-believers have 0%. 2. If god does not exist: - Both have 0% to get to heaven. If is was suitcases and money what would you choose?
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.♥
-
That's great. By that same logic, you'd better worship the Greek and Roman gods too, and the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, etc.. Just in case any of them exist.
-
That's great. By that same logic, you'd better worship the Greek and Roman gods too, and the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, etc.. Just in case any of them exist.
By Thor, I think you're right.
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier -
Mark_Wallace wrote:
religious idiots will just ignore it and go away.
:omg: That's slanderous I'm just an Idiot :-D
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
-
Statistically speaking: 1. If god exists: a. the the believers have 50% to get to heaven. b. the non-believers have 0%. 2. If god does not exist: - Both have 0% to get to heaven. If is was suitcases and money what would you choose?
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.♥
-
Statistically speaking: 1. If god exists: a. the the believers have 50% to get to heaven. b. the non-believers have 0%. 2. If god does not exist: - Both have 0% to get to heaven. If is was suitcases and money what would you choose?
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.♥
IIRC that was Blaise Pascals answer to the inquisition (no not the Spanish one, no one would have expected that) So what happens if you add some more religions and hell to that equation?
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! Abraham Lincoln
-
From 'Posting Rules for the Lounge': 4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions. Or if you must, use the Back Room[^] - but enter at your own risk.
If he had bothered with rule 4 he would have noticed it's a repost.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! Abraham Lincoln
-
IIRC that was Blaise Pascals answer to the inquisition (no not the Spanish one, no one would have expected that) So what happens if you add some more religions and hell to that equation?
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES! Abraham Lincoln
-
No, the egregious professor for the public misunderstanding of science is not right. He is seldom, if ever right. I'm not getting involved in the detail or a flame war but suffice it to say that even the secularists have disowned him as a religious zealot. On that at least, they are right.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Dawkins is more irritating than almost any religionist. Basically IMHO now, he is wrong, regardless of what it is he says, and regardless of how readily I might agree with it had it been said by someone else.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Maimonides wrote:
You can believe or not but it is sure foolish to think that your choice of the two is backed up with any scientific finding or that it is smarter to think one way or the other.
Well actually.. 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. Believing something for bad reasons is not a very smart thing to do. That doesn't actually mean that religious people are stupid. In my experience, they tend to be selectively stupid - usually smart, and suddenly willfully stupid when it comes to religion. 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. </foolish>
Science explains HOW the plain flies from A to B, it does not and cannot explain WHY it flies from A to B. Psychologists have attempted to explain but since the suicide rate at their communities is so high they never really get anywhere... :sigh:
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.♥
-
Just looking at the graph: No IQ above 110 is recorded, but the IQs down to 64-ish are. The data set is from slightly above average to mildly retarded (taking IQ of 70 as the limit). Possibly there are selection factors at work, such as people in the lower IQ ranges coming from families where a physical defect may have result aborted in other circumstances, but this being against the parent's religious beliefs. It is also possible that come of this group of people use religion as an emotional crutch if they have other difficulties. Actually what is shown in the graph is people just below average intelligence tend to be religionists, those with low IQs tend to believe. We also have a case of correlation != causation, but I've seen this exact bit of research mentioned elsewhere, normally (but not in this case) in the context of someone thinking this shows their intellectual superiority. Reviewed another way, this could indicate a herd mentality where slightly below-average people, who don't/can't think these things through for themselves follow atheism, because a group of vocal clever people (who have thought this through) provide them with ready-to-regurgitate arguments which make them seem cleverer. Note the arguments aren't necessarily wrong in themselves, it's more the herd-ism I'm having a go at. I guess this is a kind of conformist non-conformism mentioned in the article. It'd be interesting to see the study carried further up the IQ scale. One (though I'd guess incorrect) interpretation of the graph is as a bell-curve pretty much centred on average IQ. My actual guess is that further up the IQ chain you'd start to see a polarisation of views. At uni I knew plenty of physicists and mathematicians (amongst the staff) who were regular churchgoers. Conversely, the college chaplain (also very bright, he'd been a high-end statistician and took a doctorate in Philosophy before entering the clergy) used to have more time for atheists who'd actually reasoned out why they were atheists than students who'd basically carried their religious beliefs unthinkingly from their family. In the upper echelons of the CoE this is surprisingly common. It'd also be interesting to see this research applied to different cultures as pointed out in the caveats.
PB 369,783 wrote: