Richard Dawkins Hero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 01 Jul 15 10.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Catfish at 01 Jul 2015 9.47pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them. Well said. The basic truth about religious argument is that it is building castles in the air. No matter how many pinnacles, gildings or ornamentation you put on a religious argument it has absolutely no foundation. Which of course, crudely put, can be found in Taoist and Buddhist teachings. Wisdom is wisdom, where ever it is found, irrespective of whether god exists. Socretes may never have been the man described by Plato, that doesn't invalidate the value of Plato.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 15 10.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Jul 2015 7.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.17pm
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 12.53pm
So you agree that to have a Downs Syndrome baby is morally wrong Jamie. Yes or No? (I know you struggle with short answers) I think the context is central. You can't reduce moral or ethical questions to a yes or no answer. I'd say yes, but the important part is the bit following (I think its morally questionable to have children, let alone ones with severe disabilities). Personally I believe having children is morally wrong, and selfish, given the population of the planet is absurdly out of kilter, it can only add to the misery, both of humans and a death sentence to countless other species. Ultimately we cull or neuter or otherwise control the populations of other species and yet we have spread like a virus across the planet, destroying species, eco-systems and ultimately ourselves, increasingly as resources run low. The options ultimately, for humanity will be a cull or population birth control or species collapse. of the three, birth control seem the more humane. So I don't have children. I wouldn't think twice about aborting a fetus, downes or otherwise, truth be told As we can create test tube babies we could ensure children have none of these nasty imperfections. Could control their numbers and even make them all the same colour to eradicate racism. If only we could identify a gay gene, we could also make them all gay to eradicate homophobia. O wonder! A somewhat dangerous approach, because some of those imperfections may well be very important, especially in terms of a late life disease, in creating a shorter term benefit. Homosexuality, for fairly obvious reasons, isn't going to be a directly transmitted genetic phenomena.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 02 Jul 15 12.32am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Eventually if you think about it.....Far into the future we won't have a need for nature's defined gender differences....So it's likely that...At the very least we will become 'refined genders' with exact hormonal controls.....Will the sex organs remain....Who knows? Anyway the more advanced we become the less connected we will be to the 'animal' base instincts.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Jul 15 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 02 Jul 2015 12.32am
Eventually if you think about it.....Far into the future we won't have a need for nature's defined gender differences....So it's likely that...At the very least we will become 'refined genders' with exact hormonal controls.....Will the sex organs remain....Who knows? Anyway the more advanced we become the less connected we will be to the 'animal' base instincts. Strictly speaking the evidence suggests that human sexuality is, as a normative, not strictly designed. We assumed it was fixed to heterosexuality, but actually when you look at the evidence critically and objectively, humans are largely preferential and pleasure driven, with the abnormality being fixed sexual orientation. One of the interesting things to come out of studies of sexual behavior, is that 40% of men and around 60% of women, admit to have engaged in same gender sexual activity and enjoyed it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 02 Jul 15 10.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
I never knew 40% of men have played rugby.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Catfish Burgess Hill 02 Jul 15 10.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Jul 2015 10.00am
I never knew 40% of men have played rugby. I thought Rugby was another name for blood doning.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 02 Jul 15 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2015 10.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Jul 2015 7.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.17pm
Quote reborn at 30 Jun 2015 12.53pm
So you agree that to have a Downs Syndrome baby is morally wrong Jamie. Yes or No? (I know you struggle with short answers) I think the context is central. You can't reduce moral or ethical questions to a yes or no answer. I'd say yes, but the important part is the bit following (I think its morally questionable to have children, let alone ones with severe disabilities). Personally I believe having children is morally wrong, and selfish, given the population of the planet is absurdly out of kilter, it can only add to the misery, both of humans and a death sentence to countless other species. Ultimately we cull or neuter or otherwise control the populations of other species and yet we have spread like a virus across the planet, destroying species, eco-systems and ultimately ourselves, increasingly as resources run low. The options ultimately, for humanity will be a cull or population birth control or species collapse. of the three, birth control seem the more humane. So I don't have children. I wouldn't think twice about aborting a fetus, downes or otherwise, truth be told As we can create test tube babies we could ensure children have none of these nasty imperfections. Could control their numbers and even make them all the same colour to eradicate racism. If only we could identify a gay gene, we could also make them all gay to eradicate homophobia. O wonder! A somewhat dangerous approach, because some of those imperfections may well be very important, especially in terms of a late life disease, in creating a shorter term benefit. Homosexuality, for fairly obvious reasons, isn't going to be a directly transmitted genetic phenomena. Well gay people tell us they were born that way and you rational scientists tell us that everything has a cause and can be explained. So unless there is some sort of gay point of singularity that spontaneously bursts into a gay bang, then we should be able to find the cause of gayness and make everyone gay. While we are at it, we could make everyone only want to read the Guardian and watch the BBC News and thus help to eradicate the likes of UKIP supporters.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Jul 15 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 10.49am
Well gay people tell us they were born that way and you rational scientists tell us that everything has a cause and can be explained. So unless there is some sort of gay point of singularity that spontaneously bursts into a gay bang, then we should be able to find the cause of gayness and make everyone gay. While we are at it, we could make everyone only want to read the Guardian and watch the BBC News and thus help to eradicate the likes of UKIP supporters. Actually not all gay people are or report the same, that tends to be a reductionalist phenomena where in we associate similar behaviours as being the same, and assume that they must share similar origin. Some people are definitely fixed homosexual, transgendered, hetrosexual which suggests that the norm is a form of bisexuality (or more correctly humans are sexually motivated by pleasure and preferences and aesthetics/fetishistic - ie sex is generally ritualized towards what turns you on and floats your boat, rather than driven by instinctual urges). Its more complicated than simple answers, because we as a society made an false assumption (that heterosexuality was the norm) but in reality we were bending (sic) the results to fit a socially developed bias. Also we see that sexual activity in non-pleasure driven species, fits much more to the assumed sexual models of earlier generations. In fact its very likely that any kind of fixed sexual orientation is the statistically abnormal, and that we're by nature more ambiguous. Which describes a lot of peoples reported experiences far more than the old modernist approach of either or, and it also explains why we like certain things and acts, and kinks.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Jul 15 11.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Jul 2015 10.00am
I never knew 40% of men have played rugby. Admitted to playing rugby, the truth is probably somewhat higher. Women probably report high incidences of playing non-ball sports, because its socially much more acceptable for a woman to have been a bowler and kept wicket.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 02 Jul 15 11.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 01 Jul 2015 10.23pm
Quote Catfish at 01 Jul 2015 9.47pm
Quote TheJudge at 01 Jul 2015 9.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jun 2015 1.21pm
Quote steviebarton at 29 Jun 2015 7.57pm
Dawkins is certainly not universally admired in the 'scientific community'; not least because his gift of rational argument has been distorted by his prejudices. He also falls into the trap of believing that all truth = scientific truth[/b], which is a delusion of its own. What he has achieved is to compel Christian academics to review evidence scrupulously, and to avoid sloppy arguments, and for that we should be appreciative. Indeed, and notably quantitative scientific truth. Dawkins tends to forget that science has moved on a lot since he was a student, and ignores inconvenient braches such as qualitative science such as phenomenology.
All things fall within science because science is the study of all things. There is no supernatural since anything that actually existed would be just natural. No one claims that science is always right or has all the answers.but it is the only reasonable way to try and find them. Well said. The basic truth about religious argument is that it is building castles in the air. No matter how many pinnacles, gildings or ornamentation you put on a religious argument it has absolutely no foundation. Basically agree with you on religion. But you could use the same paragraph for many things, depending on your view, by changing the word 'religious' to say 'socialist', or 'pro-EU', or pseudoscience' etc Not really. This is strictly a religion v science debate with opinions about Dawkins himself thrown in.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 02 Jul 15 11.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Jul 2015 10.49am
Well gay people tell us they were born that way and you rational scientists tell us that everything has a cause and can be explained. So unless there is some sort of gay point of singularity that spontaneously bursts into a gay bang, then we should be able to find the cause of gayness and make everyone gay. While we are at it, we could make everyone only want to read the Guardian and watch the BBC News and thus help to eradicate the likes of UKIP supporters.
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 02 Jul 15 11.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Sorry, just seen you got a red which explains it. Please ignore me.
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.