Looks like religious fanatics are running out of things to attack Dawkins

No worries... I see flags... BAYERN MUNICH!!!! Best team that has come out of German - got the old school read and blue OPEL jersey I sport!!

 

Are you sure Brian Greene co-founded the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science "(humble name with humble banners - no personality cult whatsoever *cough*)? Other than that the foundation's website has linked some of his articles I can't find Greene being mentioned anywhere as co-founder there. And in the light of this interview I reserve some doubt:

http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/an-interview-with-brian-greene/

What Greene is apparently a cofounder of is the "World Science Festival", which - the horror - is partly sponsored by 'the devil' in the shape of the Templeton Foundation Dawkins dislikes so much:
http://news.columbia.edu/home/2435
http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/the-world-science-festival-big-ideas-series

As I said: that's not the issue. What many atheists (and theists) criticize about Dawkins is not that he does not believe in God or religious answers, but the style in which he criticizes religion, which is based on cheap propaganda rather than an honest intellectual discussion.
When religious people and non-religious people both don't want to have creationism taught in science classes, why should they not work together to avert that? Why declare a war between science and religion? That's dumb!

Your point is wrong even from a non-believers point of view. You may of course question their 'holiness', but these scriptures give an insight into the minds of people who lived thousands of years before we were born. Most fascinating not only from an historian's perspective. These ancient people didn't have a clue about quantum physics and poststructuralist feminism but they were not stupid. Indeed they devised the golden rule that I suppose both you and me try to live by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
And next time you run into a discussion with one of these weird creationists that cause so much trouble in the USA don't give them cheap Dawkins-punchlines, but tell them that Genesis never meant to give a scientific account of how the universe came into being. It was a theological/political manifest in the face of overwhelming polytheistic foreign powers. Here's an old but great atricle on it: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

... for us to experience, live and learn ...

I don't want to come across as a snubbish European, but is it possible that you don't learn much about medieval history in American schools?

While not alltogether untrue (even though people mostly got into trouble for dissenting from theological observations rather than scientific ones) yours (and Dawkin's) view is extremely one-sided very far from the one a historian would take. Here's a short overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Middle_Ages

Of course while Christian monastic libraries were the hotbed of science in early Medieval Europe the science done there paled in comparison to Islamic science at the time. Next time you do an algorithm think of the devout Muslim mathematician Al-Khwārizmī. His workplace "The House of Wisdom" in Baghdad was the Harvard of its time.

Oh come on! Be honest: Is this judgement of yours based on real history of science, a dislike for Jesuit Priests or a dislike for Belgians?
Hubbles observations confirmed Lemaitre's theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Yes, I have to admit that I had an inkling that mentioning Tool might make you realize that you are probably not quite as hooked to the material world as you think you are. Nobody can fully enjoy such music unless they - forgive me for putting it like this - have a soul.

Which imho is one of the strongest indications for the existence of something eternally divine: our age-old urge to be artistically creative, to spend time and energy on things that are utterly useless for mere survival, to reach transcendence in some way or another.
We're drawn to it. You can take it or leave it.

In Dawkin's case I'd call it "figleaf-atheism". As a scientist he'd also say that he might be wrong about evolution. Doesn't mean he isn't sure it holds water.

That's the beauty about being a theist as opposed to an atheist. If you are right we shall indeed never know. If I am right I can rub it in one day while we're sharing a metaphorical drink in the metaphorical celestial bar.

 

You do realize Galileo did not even live during the dark ages right? Everybody knows about Galileo, yet people that make the claim the church was directly opposed to science can only come up with that one single case in the Church's 2000 year history.

Now where did I claim that Lamaitre lived before Hubble. Could it be that you are simply trying to marginalize the accomplishments Of that great scientist because he's a theist?

 

http://eslbee.com/topic_sentences.htm


You don't understand... Okay... I will help you out. What is your "topic sentence"? We will look at your first two: Herein lies an excellent example of how you come to nonsensical conclusions. Another poster comes along and gives a remark to a post I made so you conclude that there must have been some preplanned process by which this other poster and I have colluded together against you.

This is the your first two of the first (three because you start a sentence with “and&#8221 post: While children grow out of the obvious fallacies such as the one above, it does not completely fade. That is why superstition is as prevalent as it is. And why people assume there must be an agency to things like evolution or beginning of the universe.

So, tell us what is your topic? Now the lesson from the site (English Second Language) tells us we need to have the first sentence be the topic sentence of the paragraph. I gave you the first two and in second case, three. So, obviously you are having troubles with the English language. Do you know the topic of each by reading that? Now, we are supposed to put the Topic Sentence as our initial (first) sentence, but we do have to realize that “the skills of English are not strong in you” (in my best Yoda voice)… so pick one? We will work through this together so you won’t be making these 5th grade mistakes in the future and thus preventing people who understand English from getting confused with what you are trying to get across… OKAY?

So, which one of those is your topic sentence for each?

 

Giordano Bruno was burned at the steak for heresy.

Galileo Galilei was tried and convicted of heresy for looking into a telescope and having the testicular fortitude to say there were other worlds out there. He was made to recant his testimony and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his years.

 

Aye, my error. It is Sam Harris that co-founded the Reason Foundation. I was a bit confused, I know that Brian Greene has appeared in quite a few of their promotional videos.
Harris and Greene look somewhat alike. lol

I do not see how Dawkins resorts to intellectual dishonesty. Granted his criticisms of Christianity are mostly centered around the Old Testament, there is much truth to what he has to say on the issue.

I do not deny any of this, however I believe that the issue mostly stops at the fact that it was acient people who wrote the scriptures. There is little reason to believe that the words are totally the product of divine inspiration, if that were the case then the scriptures (Genesis in now in my mind) would not contradict reality.

Granted, many Christians do not take it literally. However there are many that do. The curriculum that I was schooled with would be one of these exceptions, crazy southern baptist non-sense. Man existing with dinosaurs, earth is 6,000 years old, etc.

Most of my "knowledge" regarding the middle ages has been derived from various documentaries.

I will concede that, I had the name confused with another. I thought Jesuit lived before Hubble.

I would agree with this. I am drawn to the idea of something else existing, however I am not convinced that such a thing or place does exist. I do agree, you must be somewhat spiritual to truly grasp music like Tool.

Without that yearning or understanding so much of their music is missed or lost in translation. They are hardly just another metal band... I know of quite a few people who just listen to them just because they sound cool without giving the lyrics and music a second thought. It is just so much more than that.... superficially the music is negative and even nihilist, but I suppose if someone has the ability to peel back the outer layer there is simply a world of meaning.

In fact, I was disappointed in the number of thug wannabes I saw at Tool's performance in Albuquerque. I know that you cannot totally judge a book by its cover.... but a good majority of the audience did not strike me as even remotely as the intellectual types. Meh.

I want to get a tattoo on my back, three eyes in a circular triangle, the top being the styling of 10,000 Days, the next being AEnima styled eye, and the last being Lateralus styled eye. The skeptic, pessimist, and optimist (respectively) they three traits of my personally that I must continue to find balance for to prevent myself from leaning too far to won way or another.

Another bit of trivia, a very dear friend of mine (quite honestly the closest thing to a grandmother I have) is in her late 60's, a Buddhist, and is absolutely in love with Tool.
I had loaned her the CD's by accident, and she loved them. lol I just find that awesome.

Possibly. I believe there is a greater degree of uncertainty in his eye regarding the existence of god than whether or not evolution is indeed true. Given the amount of evidence to support the notion of evolution, I can certainly see why. It would require something quite dramatic to disqualify evolution as a viable theory.

That is very much a possibility.

 

I can see why you would want to start a tiff on a topic such as English given the reputation of incompetence you have accumulated regarding science. Unfortunately for you, I am not a complete idiot about English. I know the difference between formal writing and informal writing.

I do not use, nor even attempt to use formal writing rules when posting online conversation. It would be absurd to do so and doubly absurd that you are even referring to it.

When starting a new “paragraph”, never do I consider what the topic is going to be. I put paragraph in quotes because usually it is not so much that I am starting a new paragraph but rather that I decide to insert blank lines to avoid walls of text or if I want to emphasize my next sentence.

Going back to the original post:

It is not so much that science doesn't answer any why questions, because that is just not true, but rather that one has to recognize that assuming there is an answer to every why is the error of human biases. It is a deep rooted bias that you can see readily in children. If you ask children under a certain age why sharp rocks exist with two possible answers, the first of agency 'so animals can scratch themselves' and second of just natural consequence 'because larger rocks happen to fracture', they will choose the first one.

While children grow out of the obvious fallacies such as the one above, it does not completely fade. That is why superstition is as prevalent as it is. And why people assume there must be an agency to things like evolution or beginning of the universe. Well there doesn't need to be an agency which is obviously exemplified in the case of sharp rocks. Moreover, we find the universe to be perfectly compatible as if there is no agency.​

Both paragraphs are really just one paragraph. The topic is about the error of human biases as mentioned in the first sentence.

Regarding the other post:

Herein lies an excellent example of how you come to nonsensical conclusions. Another poster comes along and gives a remark to a post I made so you conclude that there must have been some preplanned process by which this other poster and I have colluded together against you. Let's see... you have accumulated egotism and the assumption of agency - both characteristics of an infantile mentality. You and Bishadi have much in common: you both think laymen are good if not better arbiters of science than actual experts in their fields. You apply human intuition far beyond its efficacy. You employ confirmation bias run amok - you find confirmation in sources that directly contradict you!​

That topic is about your errors. In both instances, assuming agency as an erroneous human bias is mentioned. I don't really care if this helps you, but there it is.

 

The topic is about "my" errors... funny how I wasn't present in any of those post. See how, as I stated, knowing how to USE ENGLISH PROPERLY would help in those situations? There are no names … Where am “I” in any of these posts? Nice try and please learn how to use the language that you speak. If you need any more here is another link to help you out – see how they still use topic sentences? http://esl.about.com/od/writinglessonplans/a/Writing-Informal-Letter.htm

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/fwalters/cause.html

http://www.onestopenglish.com/commu...riting-cae-and-cpe-lesson-plan/147546.article

There you go… Just helping out is all… I am in hopes that after you get “studied” you will understand English a little better and know how to use “topic sentences” correctly and thus not cause all kinds of confusion!

 

Source

Herein lies an excellent example of how you come to nonsensical conclusions. Another poster comes along and gives a remark to a post I made so you conclude that there must have been some preplanned process by which this other poster and I have colluded together against you. Let's see... you have accumulated egotism and the assumption of agency - both characteristics of an infantile mentality. You and Bishadi have much in common: you both think laymen are good if not better arbiters of science than actual experts in their fields. You apply human intuition far beyond its efficacy. You employ confirmation bias run amok - you find confirmation in sources that directly contradict you!
​

Yep, that post was a post directed at you. The you in that post was referrring to... well you.

 

Bruno's heresey was pantheism, not science.

People already were aware of other worlds. That wasn't the issue. The issue was the geocentric theory or the heleocentric theory.

I would hardly refer to the period these men lived in to the as the "dark ages." the Renaissance was well underway before any of these men were born. So, my question remains unanswered...

 

No it isn't... Link it... Nice try to pass this idiotic post on nothing more than you trying to make face because your Anglish sucks wet dog tail...

Uhh... since you came on the scene in the Evolution threads - you have NEVER, not ONCE been right... ever... and then post idiotic retardation to make it SEEM you are intelligent and "look at me mom! I can us BIG WORDS ON THE INTERNET!!! Read my quip!!!"

psychology 101... If someone, whom can't be seen, talks tough and strong they are probably what in person? People, whom can't be seen, who talk that they are pretty are probably what in person?

Are you following along? Okay - I'll finish...

People who try to act intellectual, whom you can't see, are probably retarded...

Not saying that's you, but do realize those who have taken Psych 101 have their opinions...

 

Did you not see the Source link.

Here is the link again politicalforum.com/4086970-post485.html

And if that link escaped your attention. I present another: politicalforum.com/4086970-post485.html

It is the same one.

Creationists say evolution is a joke

XVZ: I gave an example of an influence continental drift has on evolution, here it is again for reading pleasure: If a continent is drifting to new climatic zones and the climatic zone a species is adapted to is withering away into the ocean such that the population is unable to migrate along with the climate shift, then you have a clear-cut case of continental drift impacting the natural selection feedback of the breeding population's genetic makeup.

DBM aka FDS: You gave a great example of Allopatric speciation...

XVZ: No DaF, that was not an example of allopatric speciation. It was clearly an example of the effects on evolution for a single population! There is no need for a population to be split into two (or more) populations. That example was how continental drift can effect natural selection.​

Are you finally giving a defense of your concept of allopatric speciation? After all you say, by fiat (LOL), that I've never once been right.

As for psychology, one might be interesting in looking up anger and projection.

 

In red - No one knew there were other worlds until 1610 when Galileo first looked at Jupiter. Bruno was executed in 1600. 10 years before we knew of other worlds.

Perhaps you should go back and read up on these 2.

Also the 'dark ages' were around from 500 A.D. To 1,000 A.D. when there were no scientists around. In-fact from the year 300 to around 1250, there was little to no scientific discoveries made at all. The little scientific discoveries made during this time came from the middle east.

So asking for scientists during the "dark ages” is an exercise in futility. However, you can show (this is what I did), is that when scientific knowledge meets religion ' knowledge' it was meet with nonsense trials and in Bruno's case, death by being burned at the stake.

 

Okay… Now you are using my own tactics on me… Kudos…

You are still wrong – it’s allopatric speciation… Well, now that I look at it, it could be a different type of speciation instead of allopatric… Is this species only isolated in a small area or is it like the ant all over the world? That makes a huge difference. I might have “assumed” you were not talking about a species like the golden frog. But, regardless, evolution happens not because of continental drift… continental drift may put an animal in extinction more than likely… That was easy - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/dinosaurs/drift.html

Occasionally continental drift creates a super-continent which includes the vast majority of Earth's land area, which in addition to the effects listed above is likely to reduce the total area of continental shelf (the most species-rich part of the ocean) and produce a vast, arid continental interior which may have extreme seasonal variations.
It is widely thought that the creation of the super-continent Pangaea contributed to the End-Permian mass extinction. Pangaea was almost fully formed at the transition from mid-Permian to late-Permian, and the "Marine genus diversity" diagram at the top of this article shows a level of extinction starting at that time which might have qualified for inclusion in the "Big Five" if it were not overshadowed by the "Great Dying" at the end of the Permian.

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

So no… you are still “always” wrong… sorry, but at least it’s Friday!

 

Allopatric speciation is when two or more populations speciate due to a geographic barrier. There is no mention of a barrier or even splitting of population in my example. It is speciation over time from distant ancestors. That is why it was not an example of allopatric speciation and certainly not a "great example of allopatric speciation" as you stated.

Your interpretation “evolution occurs because of continental drift” was not the argument. It was that continental drift affects the environment which is an effect on the process of natural selection. What you originally argued was that continental drift had no effect on natural selection or any mechanism of evolution. I argued that it surely has an effect on natural selection as it can effect the climate in simple ways as I tried to illustrate above and complex ways. For example:

Evolution on a Restless Planet: Were Environmental Variability and Environmental Change Major Drivers of Human Evolution?

From the mid-Miocene onwards, mean temperatures have dropped and oscilla-
tions of climate have increased in several steps. Opdyke (1995) provides a summary
the data (Figure 7.1). During the latter half of the Miocene, the climate variation
was dominated by a 23 000-year quasi-cycle driven by the wobble of the earth’s axis
of rotation (causing precession of the equinoxes). By changing the seasonal heat
income of different regions of the earth, changes in this and other orbital parameters
influence the earth’s climate. For example, when high-latitude summers are cool
in the Northern Hemisphere, large glaciers form on high-latitude land masses.
The direct effects of the orbital parameters are rather modest, and they must have
their main effects via complex, poorly understood climate feedbacks (Broecker 1995;
Bradley 1999). Continental drift and other geological factors have recently changed
the way the earth’s climates respond to orbital fluctuations. In the late Pliocene,
a little more than three million years ago, a two million year period of steady cooling
of the earth’s climate began. At the same time, the variation in climate increased
sharply and came to be dominated by the 41 000-year quasi-cycle caused by variation
in the tilt of the earth’s axis of rotation. Then, after about one million years ago in
the middle of the Pleistocene, the overall cooling trend stopped, but the climate
variation increased dramatically, now in tune especially with the 100 000-year quasi-
cycle of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit (the degree to which the earth’s orbit
around the sun is elliptical rather than circular).
​

Continental drift, runoff and weathering feedbacks: Implications from climate model experiments

Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide have been proposed as a major regulator of
climate during the last 570 million years. Continental weathering and its variation over time are
hypothesized to be important for controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide. Continental weathering
is altered by changes in total runoff as well as changes in the size and elevation of the land
masses to be weathered. When paleogeographic information for the Phanerozoic (570 m.y. ago
to present) is used in a global climate model, the model exhibits substantial variations in precip-
itation, evaporation, and runoff. Even with dramatically different land-ocean distributions, an
increase in global surface temperature leads to an increase in global precipitation but not always an
increase in global runoff. During the early Phanerozoic (514-342 Ma), when the continents are
relatively small and widely distributed, runoff depends on continental evaporation and temperature.
As the continents migrate into subtropical latitudes, global runoff decreases as global land
temperatures and evaporation increase. As the continents shift to higher latitudes, global runoff
increases as global land temperatures and evaporation decrease. During the middle to late
Phanerozoic (306 Ma-present), when large continental land masses predominate, runoff depends
on continental precipitation. Experiments with increased atmospheric CO2 for the middle
Ordovician (458 Ma), when the paleocontinent of Gondwana was centered at subtropical latitudes,
and the early Silurian (425 Ma), when Gondwana had shifted to middle and high latitudes,
also point to a correlation between land mass location and runoff. Global runoff increases 15%
with increased CO2 at 425 Ma but remains unchanged for 458 Ma, even though global mean
temperature and precipitation increase comparable amounts for the two time periods. These results
imply that weathering feedback between temperature and runoff may be dependent on land-
ocean configuration.
​

 

Tactics? I was not trying to deceive or make you act with embarrassing antics as you so happen to do frequently. I quite honestly thought that the very first post in which I quoted, that my response being direct at you was recognizable as such. The fact that you did not recognize it was actually a surprise to me. The sole reason I included the picture was so that if the words didn't jog your memory then hopefully the image would. Some people are wired better linguistically and others photographically.

When you responded with the backlash you did, I thought that was because you recognized the message as about you. Imagine my surprise when I passively made a point of that fact explicitly and you denied it in a tirade. There were no tactics involved on my part.

Perhaps you did recognize it, but that recognition was never realized consciously. When people lash out by projecting their faults onto others, it is not because of anger as is the misconception. Rather the mechanisms of projection and anger are similar. It seems like anger to others because of an error in our pattern recognition.

The other thing about projection is that it is subconscious. One cannot hope to realize when one is doing it at it is a form of delusion.

So why would you go off on the English skills of others? I do realize that I am prone to typos – it is a condition that is only dependent on typing. Errors such as typing the wrong word, wrong form of a word, or leaving out words all together never manifests itself when I am writing with pen and paper. It is only during the act of typing that it comes about. I do try to catch them but they frequently do get past me. For instance, In the last post: “As for psychology, one might be interesting in looking up anger and projection.” The correct form of the word is of course interested. And earlier in the thread: “Was that a purposeful deceit of an accidental misunderstanding?” I meant to type or which changes the sentence quite dramatically.

But your attacks are not on these typos. They are about formal writing rules, which is a bit perverse since the writing style of an online forum calls for conversational writing. Why would this be?

A simple search turns up these posts directed at you:

politicalforum.com/1060788952-post198.html

politicalforum.com/1060791006-post213.html

politicalforum.com/1060799225-post284.html

Everything you have tried to project onto me regarding my English (Is it your first language? Having trouble conveying your message? Just trying to help you not cause confusion), all of it, is contained in the above posts directed at you. Notice that Burzmali doesn't seem angry in his posts, but you certainly do in your posts.

 

You failed to mention how such a vibrant scientific inquiry in the Middle East came to an end. It wasn't only Muslims who participated, there were also Jews, Christians, and others. But it all stopped. Why is that so? Did they discover something that made them stop questioning? Did science bring them to a stagnation?

No. It was maturation of Islamic philosophy which more closely represents their lifestyles today and the last eight centuries. Imam Hamid al-Ghazali is the Islamic philosopher largely responsible for turning Islamic thought from the one that embraced science to the one with aversion to science that exists today.

What we feel is expressed in brain states and is malleable from the physical experience and the ambiance in which we are saturated to. Specifically repetitive rhythm and cadence are great at affecting one's brain states. Pentecostals are an extreme examples of abusers of drumming up their audience into hypnotic states, but it is essentially seen to exist in most religions to various extent in their services or rituals.

In the case of the Pentecostals, it has devastating consequence as they claim they are healing you and one feels healed because of the hypnosis they induce. And so people stop taking their medication and stop going to the doctor. If it was just pain medication, then in that case no harm because the hypnosis essentially becomes the medication. But when it comes to real illness there are deadly consequence - because they were not healed.

So I suggest to you that one ought to really understand what it is and what you are promoting when you actively and callously sprint full speed ahead in attempting to exhibit the phenomenon onto others.

Have you considered that maybe there is a deity, that not only doesn't care that you have faith, but in fact holds that against you. If you think that is ridiculous, then you probably understand my bewilderment of why a deity would value it. It could be that believers and non-believers get to share that metaphorical drink. It could be that nearly identical individuals that are right on the edge of "getting in" and not, but the only difference is that one believed a deity exists and the other does not and the deity chose to let the non-believer in and left the believer out because he valued the non-believers mentality over the believer. Wouldn't that suck for you to have been right and left out?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk"]Science Saved My Soul. - YouTube[/ame]

Tagline:
If I have something that could be called a soul that needed saving,
then science saved it,
from religion.​

 

While looking a little more suave in a suit Richard Dawkins is to religion (in his case mainly Christianity) what the bigoted islamophobe Robert Spencer is to Islam. Both pick the nastiest sounding verses out of context and pretend they are signifying for the respective religion while ignoring what theologians of religious traditions really make of these verses.

See below how that amounts to intellectual dishonesty:

With that back-round you may be excused for thinking that a belief in verbal inspiration and literal inerrancy is in any way representative for Christianity. Having had "a normal Anglican upbringing" Richard Dawkins should know better. Yet he constantly depicts fundamentalists as the only true Christians while all others ‘strayed’ or are ‘hypocrites’. These misrepresentations are willful.
In fact verbal inspiration/biblical inerrancy are beliefs that are only held by relatively new movements in the USA. Admittedly (and worryingly) these groups are getting bigger and more influential. But Christians as early as Origen (3rd century) and Augustine of Hippo (4th century) would recoil from these fundamentalists literal way of reading the bible. If Richard Dawkins had wanted to do serious academic work on the subject he criticizes (religion as such) he could just have strolled over to one of his colleagues in Oxford and gotten up to scratch with state of the art biblical hermeneutics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics and biblical criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism as taught in accredited university seminaries,
Instead Dawkins just wants to have an easy target.
Maybe it’s a bit harsh to accuse him of dishonesty. After all on the very first ages of “The God Delusion” he openly declares the book’s intention to converse believers to atheism. So his 400 pages long pamphlet doesn’t even pretend to be objective and the reader is prepared to maybe not get an empirically halfway valid investigation into the downfalls and merits of religion. However, Dawkins can’t seriously think that he could converse anybody by constantly insulting them . Quite apparently the book’s real intention is just to confirm those who already share his beliefs in a snug comfort zone of shared prejudices. The length to which he’ll go for that is somehow undignified though. In a recent discussion he openly admitted not to have a clue about philosophy. So it may be down to sheer ignorance that he frequently gets philosophical arguments for God plain wrong in order to come up with dumb strawmen defeats. Shoddy research does not amount to dishonesty –unless of course one is deliberately shoddy in favour of one’s own thesis.
All in all I feel compelled to throw its own Medawar -quote back at Dawkins book: “its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.”

Yeah, Tool is definitely just another metal band. I should know because – no offense – I loathe most metal. Imho metal is among the tackiest kinds of music known to men. Tool is different. When I first consciously listened to them it was a revelation, and that wasn’t just because of the drugs!

Sounds like a great tattoo! Be careful though if you don’t want to be mistaken for a firm believer. After all an eye in a triangle is a symbol for the all-seeing God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

 

XVZ

I totally forgot how retarded your posts get... You need to get a girl/boyfriend... something! How long did it take you to round up all that? Do you think people actually READ all that...?

I know I didn't...

Did you ever read the part about Psychology 101? Enjoy your Friday!! If you want to post about me - start a thread instead of trying to hijack this one... I would be honored!

 

In fact you'll find that the Islamic Golden age - that was indeed proplelled by religious tolerance - lasted long past Imam Hamid al-Ghazali. Some say it ended with the fall of Grenada. As for a supposed "aversion to science that exists today" (I have a feeling Iranian nuclear physicists for example would beg to differ on this one): it's not so much to do with religion but with the consequences of political and economic factors,especially colonial and postcolonial politics. It's sociologically explainable that religious fundamentalism increases in populations that seek reconfirmation in the face of national humiliation.

Yes, it's highly interesting, isn't it, that the frequency of Gregorian chants for example increase alpha waves in the brain, even though the monks couldn't possibly have known of such things.

And as a Protestant I was always slightly jealous of my Catholic friends who had all that bell ringing and incence going in their Churches. Imho Protestantism with its focus on reason and a good sermon is all well and good, but could do with abit more sensuality.

As for sensuality: if all you think "Oh there's an alpha-wave affecting my thalamus" when listening to music, I feel truly sorry for you.

Indeed the dirty tricks of mass manipulation and especially of self-declared faith healers ought to be exposed. Derren Brown has done a fine job of it in "Miracles for sale" without feeling the need to bash religion as such:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2011/apr/19/derren-brown-faith-healers

I believe in a concept called apocatastasis or "universal salvation".
Usually only fundamentalist Christians have an outspoken problem with that. Apparently new atheists, who hang on the very lips of their prophets for every word and mistake that for free thought, do too.

Get over it and chill. There's no need to get an allergic reaction every time somebody mentions the word "God" or "Spirituality", just as there no need to get an allergic reaction every time somebody mentions the absence of his belief therein.

 

Historians may like discreet dates to define periods but that is a much too simplistic of an approach. The commonly accepted period is 750-1258. Now this is not a thorough analysis, but for illustrative purposes, lets count the number of notable discoveries over the centuries in that period:

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

8th century: 4
9th century: 14
10th century: 13
11th century: 4
12th century: 6
13th century: 11

It might look like a revival coming in the 13th century but the the collapse comes again in the 14th century.

Imam Hamid al-Ghazali: 1058–1111, 11th-12th century. This is not just some random philosopher, he is considered second only to Muhammad in Islamic thought. Also note that ideas do no catch on immediately. The colonial influence does not really begin until the 16th century.

If all you can cite for the side of scientific inquiry and appreciation for knowledge is a totalitarian government that is turning back the freedom women have obtained and its quest for even more power that comes with the capacity of nuclear knowledge, then I think you have made my point for me.

Do you find it surprising that religion keeps what is found to work and is absent of what is found to be ineffective? Is it surprising to you that creatures are found on earth with eyes that see in the electromagnetic spectrum, the band that happens to be the most plentiful? Would you expect there to be creatures that see in a band of the electromagnetic spectrum that is nearly absent and thus rather ineffective?

I think you missed the point. I didn't have a problem with what you wrote. Though I did misinterpret a bit in that I thought you were saying that theist get rewarded for their belief and atheists will be denied entrance. What I wrote was targeted for that.

However, the tagline still stands.

 

Actually, people did in fact know about other worlds. Galileo was just the first to observe Jupiter using a telescope. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Jupiter can be seen by the naked eye at night. Only the sun, moon, and Venus are brighter.

Thx term 'dark ages' is not even used by modern day historians because it's inaccurate and misleading to refer to that period as a dark age. Since it is the same period that gave birth to universities, the vernacular language, law, and so on.

I don't see why I need to reread what wiki has to say about Bruno and Galileo. Wikipedia says Bruno was executed because of his pantheism, not his scientific endeavors.

 

So it does not strike you as significant that the 11th (crusades)and 14th century (invasion of Chinngis Khan) happened to be the centuries in which the Islamic world struggled with military conflicts? Indeed science flourished again with the onset of the Ottoman Empire.

Seems to me that postulating a monocausal link between the rise of religions (of whom you seem to postulate Islam as the inferior one) and the decline of science is in no way sustainable by un-biased empirical observations of reality.

Speaking of "un-biased": has it ever occured to you that our view on scientific achievements might be slightly ethocentric?
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sciencehistory.htm

Imam Hamid al-Ghazali is considered “the greatest Muslim after Muhammad“ by W. M. Watt, who translated his works into English. Dawkins should have read them before writing “The God Delusion" without bothering to get a clue about theology/philosophy:


Imam Hamid al-Ghazali:“I realized that to refute a system before understanding it and becoming acquainted with its depths is to act blindly.”

http://www.ghazali.org/works/watt3.htm

I suggest you too follow that advice and try to understand what Imam Hamid al-Ghazali has actually written. If you don’t get a hysteric fit every time “God” is mentioned you’ll find that he’s not as ‘anti-scientific’ as you make him out to be. In fact the only problem he had with Plato, Aristoteles and co seemed to have been the theological implications of their work that contradicted his own religious views – something that ( if from another perspective ) you can probably wholeheartedly agree on.

Nonsense, but yes you can be a scientist and still be a misogynist, just as you can be a scientist and not be a misogynist, a scientist and religious, a scientist and not be religious, religious and a misogynist, religious and not be a misogynist.


Actually it’s rather funny that you should mention women’s rights. After all a lot of today’s academic gender studies is based on poststructuralist philosophy, a discipline Dawkins wholeheartedly despises (probably because he doesn’t understand it –or maybe because he got that poststructuralists don’t like hierarchic binary oppositions such as Dawkins tries to construct with “science/religion&#8221. If atheists of Dawkins’ sort had their say post-feminists like Judith Butler would be the second in line to lose their university seats right after theologians. So much for the “freedom of thought.”

The tagline being that you think your rejection of a possibility of an after-life of a supposed entity called “soul” is more viable than embracing that possibility? Well, we have no empirical data on either, so we’ll have to wait until we either see or not see once we’re dead, won’t we?

 

The crusades do not begin until 5 years prior to the onset of the 12th century and continue through to the 13th century. Going back to the timeline, only one of the eleven listed for the 13th centuries falls after the final crusades, specifically 1272. I also just noticed that poetry, theology, and philosophy are listed in the timeline starting from the 11th century onward. While probably valuable contributions, I have to be skeptical of their classification under science.

As for your link, many of those are listed in the timeline I provided. So I do not see what value that provides with respect to the gradient of scientific advances I illustrated.

Here you go assuming again. You are not so different from that which you want to bash at any opportunity that presents itself or not.

If Dawkins has written or said anything about al-Ghazali, I honestly am ignorant of it. If you feel the need to attack individuals instead of ideas, then you will have to turn your attention instead to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Not that I find that it'll help your argument; it weakens it actually.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU"]The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century - YouTube[/ame]

It turns out that the period he refers to is only the 9th and 10th centuries. I just did a check with the aforementioned timeline and all the advances that he refers to are in fact in those two centuries. Now his claim of al-Ghazali said that mathematics is the code of the devil is hyperbolic, what I find is essentially a form of that:

Imam al-Ghazali on Studying Science

A thousand years ago, Imam al-Ghazali wrote in his autobiography Deliverance from Error: “A clumsy and stupid person must be kept away from the seashore, not the proficient swimmer; and a child must be prevented from handling a snake, not the skilled snake-charmer.”

This was his advice in regards to the science of philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle which many Muslims took pride in studying. He was warning them of the dangers that could result from this study. But he didn’t stop there. He even warned people about studying mathematics and other sciences. Why?

So You Thought You Were Safe
“What’s wrong with math?” you might ask. “That has nothing to do with religion.” Here is what al-Ghazali had to say: “The mathematical sciences…nothing in them entails denial or affirmation of religious matters…from them, however, two evils have been caused…”

The First Danger: Blind Conformity
“One of these is that whoever takes up these mathematical sciences marvels at the fine precision of their details and the clarity of their proofs. Because of that, he forms a high opinion of the philosophers [who were the mathematicians at that time] and assumes that all their sciences have the same lucidity and rational solidarity as this science of mathematics. Moreover, he will have heard the talk of the town about their unbelief and their negative attitude. [They say]: ‘If religion were true, this would not have been unknown to these philosophers […]’”

Al-Ghazali then expresses his deep regret over this sad state of affairs: “How many a man have I seen who strayed from the path of truth on this pretext and for no other reason!”

The only thing that has changed in our time is that it is not the philosopher who holds such a position in the eyes of students, but rather the scientist. How many times have I heard a Muslim doubting something about his own religion while saying: “But scientists say…”? One thousand years and not much has changed.

Imam al-Ghazali goes on to say that a man skilled in one field is not necessarily skilled in every field. Also, the internal consistency of one subject does not necessarily relate to another subject. Today, we find that even psychiatrists need a shrink or some family counseling sometimes. Just because someone may have the ability to process mathematical equations quickly in their mind or to figure out how certain chemicals react with one another doesn’t mean they have all the answers to life.

The Second Danger: Rejecting the Good
There is another problem. When some well-meaning believers realize the first danger, they begin to form a hatred for the sciences themselves rather than differentiating between the subject and its adherents. The Imam said, “The second evil likely to follow from the study of the mathematical sciences derives from the case of an ignorant friend of Islam who supposed that our religion must be championed by the rejection of every science ascribed to the philosophers…”
This mentality, the rejection of scientific research, whether it be in the natural or social sciences, is also very dangerous. Islam teaches us to take what is good and leave what is bad.​

So discourage the importance of mathematics to the commoner, instead have them focus learning Islamic philosophy.

I see you did not even attempt a defense of your example.

I bothered to look up Dawkins stance on poststructuralist philosophy to see if your criticism actually has any relevance to women's rights. Update: Fashionable Nonsense

Seems to me that his criticism is that he sees it as intentional confoundation. Of what relevance that criticism have to feminism is, do please explain. Surely you don't think that feminism can only be promoted through not easily understood phraseology.

Are you succumbing to the techniques that you accuse of others? Do you understand the criticism you are attacking? It is not perceived as if you do from my point of view. I see similarities in your in-group out-group categorization that you accuse others of. Richard Dawkins viscously attacks those who do not agree with his scientific ideals and you viscously attack those who do agree with your philosophical ideals. Richard Dawkins likes to lump his opponents together, you like to lump your opponents together.

 

The nonresponse to this point has been duly noted:

Do you find it surprising that religion keeps what is found to work and is absent of what is found to be ineffective? Is it surprising to you that creatures are found on earth with eyes that see in the electromagnetic spectrum, the band that happens to be the most plentiful? Would you expect there to be creatures that see in a band of the electromagnetic spectrum that is nearly absent and thus rather ineffective?​

If that is your interpretation, then I truly feel sorry for you.

OK, an admission... I only said the above so that you could reflect on a similar statement that you made prior.

The point is that philosophy is not inherently persuasive. It has to rely on human biases and when you truly understand the extent to which human biases lead us to come to bad conclusions, then the whole foundation of philosophy is unsettled. Take John W Loftus for example, I read what he has to say occasionally but I never find his philosophical arguments compelling in the least. Others with religious beliefs do though and I like see what they find alluring and there is no shortage of that to be found in the comments sections.

As a child, learning about ancient cultures and their religions was enough for me to see through Christianity. But that is only an explanation for why I did not get hooked on it. I knew little of science then and really the only thing I have to relate to in terms of how the philosophically minded are tuned is when I was learning about science and some of the concepts and intuitions I tried to employ that lead to what I thought to be beautiful explanations. When my scientific knowledge was much less, I could never realize the ugliness in concepts that I can only describe as myself regarding to be intuitively so. For example, I was of the mind that the physical constants of nature would of course be shown to have to be exactly what they are. I had no good reason to hold that point of view and I of course no longer do. For example, In String Theory there are a myriad of ways the spacial dimension beyond the three we are familiar with can be arranged and each arrangement fixes the constants. So it no longer is a matter of why are the physical constants of nature what they are, but why are the spacial dimensions curled up in the arrangement that they are. And maybe they could be different and maybe there are universes now or in the future in which they will. That is just an example of how the constants do not have to be the way they are.

There are other examples in which my preconceived notions were abused with the onset of more knowledge. Concepts that I'd once considered beautiful and intuitive became marred in the face of learning the observational understanding of our universe. When I hear the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it comes across as completely vacuous because I know and understand at least some of the science that the promoters abuse and misrepresent. I came across the following recently that is an illustration of the real science more eloquently expressed than I could hope to do and more knowledgeable than I was:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE"]Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig - YouTube[/ame]

And with enough of that, the actual understanding with relation to what is demonstrable in reality is so much more beautiful than concepts that I once might have perceived as metaphysically beautiful. I have come to realize through experience the pitfalls of philosophical reasoning that appeals to human biases and is bereft of scientific justification. That is what that phrase means to me:

If I have something that could be called a soul that needed saving, then science saved it, from religion.