jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
@ Badran: Terribly busy at work these last couple of days.
I'll reply to your post as soon as I can.
I'll reply to your post as soon as I can.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins was banned from speaking at a Michigan country club after they found out he was an atheist.
Wow. If true, that's pretty blatant discrimination. How would people have responded if the country club banned a speaker after finding out he was a Muslim or a Catholic?
I've only seen variations on this one article, however. I wonder if the club literally said "You can't speak here because you are an atheist", or if that is simply what was assumed.
The link works just fine. Maybe you should get a computer that works.You should have given us a link that worked. Richard Dawkins banned from speaking at a Michigan country club | Mail Online I wonder what is a religious discussion being done at a country club? Perhaps they ban all religious discussions and found out his may delve into that area. It isn't an area that Mr. Dawkins shies away from.
O'Reilly still sounds like a dufus. He makes asinine assertions, and hops from one argument to the next like a deranged bunny rabbit.Proteseter said:An impartial view of the O'Reilly vs Dawkins. Bill O'Reilly, Richard Dawkins Debate Creationism Heatedly (VIDEO) Well, at least from the lack of commentary for the disciples of Dawkins, I assume this might have been more impartial than most sites.
I'm not particularly computer literate, so I don't quite know what you mean when you say "code-script". I'm assuming it's a chain of commands that results in some action or final product occuring? If so, then DNA, and particularly chromosomes, could be the apt parallel.Is there something equivalent to code-script that exists in transcribing genes? I'm not sure how useful the meme analogy is, but some of the stuff I've read which connects religion and culture with memes, appears to be after-the-fact, or offers no way to show the evolution of cultural ideas as they are passed along. Is there something equivalent to code-script that exists in transcribing genes? I'm not sure how useful the meme analogy is, but some of the stuff I've read which connects religion and culture with memes, appears to be after-the-fact, or offers no way to show the evolution of cultural ideas as they are passed along.
Various religions containing many things that supposedly can be shown to be not true isn't the same as referring to religion in general, or any religious idea like that, and including in the concept of god for example. In other words, i of course agree that some religious ideas can be shown to not be true as proposed, however the question is which are those.
Which is why using the "truth supersedes" argument, and talking about rational and irrational in that part as if you can know that was not accurate in my view. That was all i was trying to point out.
I didn't say we should consider them true at all, or in the same sense or level we consider evidenced and/or proved things to be true. However when someone considers them true, calling him irrational or deluded based on supposed knowledge of the real truth is what i disagree with.
I do agree in a sense with what you're saying, like i tried to explain this isn't something i was trying to challenge. I wasn't saying we shouldn't differentiate between evidenced things and things that have no evidence to support them.
And again various religions supposedly containing plenty of such ideas isn't the same as talking about religion in general, or the same as using it in a specified case where in fact it doesn't apply, or claiming superiority in general to a position based on generalizing that.
I hope you can see what i'm saying now.
Like i indicated above, generally and normally, evidenced things should be considered on a higher level than those which are not.
I didn't say that nobody dismisses him or dislike him based on that. On the other hand, most atheists in this thread seem to be unable to imagine any different possibility. Thankfully not all though.
I don't think the messenger should not matter, but i agree at least that his/her ideas, concepts, or proposals of whatever kind shouldn't be dismissed based on that alone.
When it comes to music, books and even oral histories in illiterate societies, they are copied with reasonable fidelity, but sometimes interpretations can vary. It would appear that in this explanation, the meme is the objective cultural artifact, rather than the subjective meaning that the reader takes from the work, which would seem to be essential for the harmful meme to take effect on the host. But a harmful religious meme, like a Bible verse, may not actually be a pernicious mind virus --- depending on how it is interpreted by the reader.Now, regarding memes and their evolution. For natural selection to work, there must first be a stable enough entity to be transmitted. DNA is stable because it tends to copy faithfully and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that it remains as true as possible to original form. Ideas-- memes-- also have continuity and methods in place to ensure that they are copied and transmitted faithfully. Think of the longevity of things like music and books and stories that can last thousands of years virtually unchanged. Think also of things we teach our kids, both in and out of school.
I guess that would weaken the Darwinian analogy, since Lamarck's theory of evolution was through acquired characteristics.Notably, one of the big differences between the evolution of genes and memes is that memes can evolve by Larmarkian principles-- the idea that traits developed by the organism (and not through mere random mutation) can be passed on to their progeny. This is because we can concsciously act upon memes, while we cannot conciously act upon our own genes.
It might. Part of my aversion to meme theory is that some of the strong advocates, like Dennett and Susan Blackmore, even go so far as declaring those resisting the application of memetics to explain culture as being somehow anti-Darwinist...because they are resisting the further application of Darwinism to realms outside of the field of biology. For my part, I can't forget that Herbert Spencer - a philosopher who was a contemporary of Darwin, created Social Darwinism, when he tried to apply Darwin's methods to race, culture and economics.....and we still are living in a world dominated by the economic Darwinists!I know this is long, and I probably haven't covered all the relevant bits, but I hope this helps things make a bit more sense to you. I'll get to the rest of your post in a bit.
That would only be the case if the Christians you are referring to are fundamentalists who insist that the Garden of Eden was an historical account that occurred 6000 years ago....rather than an allegory of the universal loss of innocence we experience as we move from early childhood and learn about death and suffering in the world. Even Carl Sagan touched on this in his book: "Broca's Brain." I recall reading something further he wrote about how Eve's curse compares with the problems the growing human brain presented for women giving birth. A myth may not be historical, but it can still be routed in some deeper universal realization about the human condition.The thing is that these outlandish ideas are usually either contradicted by evidence, or unsupported by the same.
In some cases the concepts can even logically destroy the basis for a religion, like the Biblical original sin of humanity that (many) Christians believe that Jesus died for.
Now, original sin depends on the tree of knowledge, which in turn depends on the Adam and Eve story.
The problem is that we know Adam and Eve never existed as described in the Bible and thus there could have been no original sin, which means that Jesus died for nothing and the whole house of cards come crashing down.
Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.So at which point do you think we should abandon a general idea (of which religion is admittedly is just one of many)?
How wrong does it have to be before we decide that it is not worth our time?
Do we have to show that each and every detail is complete humbug beyond the shadow of a doubt, or could we conceivably reach a stage where we consider the methodology to be inherently flawed and useless?
The link works just fine. Maybe you should get a computer that works.
If they banned all religious discussions, then that would have been the reason they would have given for canceling the talk. The reason that was given, instead, was that Dr. Dawkins is an atheist.
O'Reilly still sounds like a dufus. He makes asinine assertions, and hops from one argument to the next like a deranged bunny rabbit.
That would only be the case if the Christians you are referring to are fundamentalists who insist that the Garden of Eden was an historical account that occurred 6000 years ago....rather than an allegory of the universal loss of innocence we experience as we move from early childhood and learn about death and suffering in the world. Even Carl Sagan touched on this in his book: "Broca's Brain." I recall reading something further he wrote about how Eve's curse compares with the problems the growing human brain presented for women giving birth. A myth may not be historical, but it can still be routed in some deeper universal realization about the human condition.
Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.
One notices that many of the New Atheism lack the civility of the old atheists, and that doesn't make them a fit speaker for many groups?
One notices that many of the New Atheism lack the civility of the old atheists, and that doesn't make them a fit speaker for many groups?
Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.
If a living being was just a body that resulted from sexual congress and if that body is the sole source of the awareness then art, science and culture have no real meaning.
Nature has its laws. But aware beings have the faculty to be happy or to be in misery. That is not mechanistic.
i disagree.
we give meaning to these things...because we are alive and aware of it.
Exactly. We have the competence to give meanings. Some meanings lead to misery and some meanings lead to peace.
Some already do...if we go by the writings of liberal theologians such as John Shelby Spong or Tom Harpur....who is one I am most familiar with because of a religion column that he wrote for the Toronto Star for many years....and all of the angry editorial responses he received from fundamentalists for his ideas.And would these same non-fundamentalists consider the Jesus story to be allegorical too, or was that for some reason a historical fact? :sarcastic
Surely you must have noticed that liberal theologians who either don't accept miracles as historical events or consider that issue irrelevant, seem to be in agreement that the argument over whether miracles have occurred is not the same as whether the stories have value or deeper meaning for the reader. The problem with the Jefferson Bible is that he removed everything that he considered unhistorical....as if historicity is the sole determinant of its value.Besides, that considering that I stated that these miraculous events are EITHER contradicted by evidence OR unsupported by the same, that would NOT only be the case when it comes to fundamentalists, unless you're talking about a Biblical interpretation akin to the Jefferson Bible.
Yes I noticed -- and they are free to respond also, since this is a general debate open to everyone. There is a subforum for one-on-one debates, if you don't want other people butting in. Personally, I think this thread was turning into too many one-on-one type debates that end up being ignored by everyone not involved.You will notice the 'when do YOU' part of my question, indicating that it was addressed at one person in particular to seek out their opinion.
Or how about Madelyn Murray O'Haire? I don't think even Hitchens or the Youtube atheists could compare to her when it came to being nasty and rude.The civility of, say, Mark Twain?
As mentioned by Waitasec, it's up to us to provide the meaning; and I would add that because we are creatures that are hardwired to look for meaning and purpose, we will do it -- but not all come to the same conclusions.If a living being was just a body that resulted from sexual congress and if that body is the sole source of the awareness then art, science and culture have no real meaning.
Actually, a study of anthropology and psychology + sociology shows that we have a long history of being social, cooperative creatures. There is some recent work out that contends the majority of people are optimists....even irrational optimists in the face of reality, and this intrinsic sense of optimism has likely been a key part of our survival as a species....although the optimism I hear lately in response to present environment-related issues seems to lead many people not to take the crisis seriously....and that could ultimately be our downfall.Nature has its laws. But aware beings have the faculty to be happy or to be in misery. That is not mechanistic.
Some already do...if we go by the writings of liberal theologians such as John Shelby Spong or Tom Harpur....who is one I am most familiar with because of a religion column that he wrote for the Toronto Star for many years....and all of the angry editorial responses he received from fundamentalists for his ideas.
Surely you must have noticed that liberal theologians who either don't accept miracles as historical events or consider that issue irrelevant, seem to be in agreement that the argument over whether miracles have occurred is not the same as whether the stories have value or deeper meaning for the reader. The problem with the Jefferson Bible is that he removed everything that he considered unhistorical....as if historicity is the sole determinant of its value.
Yes I noticed -- and they are free to respond also, since this is a general debate open to everyone. There is a subforum for one-on-one debates, if you don't want other people butting in. Personally, I think this thread was turning into too many one-on-one type debates that end up being ignored by everyone not involved.