Etude

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 604 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Etude

• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  bohm:

  I don’t besmirch Dawkins’ ability to write. I praised him before for having a commanding control of English. I think he’s a good writer. I just don’t think that what he writes rises to the level of other serious scientists who have way more credentials then Dawkins. I mentioned two in other posts. Did you look them up? From this last reaction, I take it you didn’t. Even so, the important thing is why and how they feel that Dawkins is wrong about many of his assumptions.

  I realize he is famous. But he is not famous the way or for the parallel reason Stephen Hawking is famous. It’s the significance of the work that has made Stephen Hawking famous. Google Sierra Cartwright and you’ll find a lot of information. She writes erotic novels and has probably made a ton of money for it. That doesn’t mean that, even if she’s able to stimulate your gonads, she is the equivalent of a Masters or Johnson.

  Keep telling yourself whatever you’re stating here and miss the point of what I’m saying. Your obtuseness is becoming evident. You misconstrue my assessment of Dawkins by insinuating he doesn’t have admirable qualities. I see why. You don’t want to invalidate the less decorous ones that support your myopic view.
• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  bohm: I guess you do know jack shit. That's my point. However it's characterized, it's still shit if you chose to ignore what other scientists say.

  braincleaned: The same applies to you. I did not make the statement that Dawkins is not a scientist. It was made by the biologist Edwin Willson. If it comes down to your opinion of Dawkins and that of Willson, I'll take his any day, any time.
• 
  69

  How men become homosexuals...

  by Calebs Airplane in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  finally, i've found the reason why some men become homosexuals.. the 1976 book "your youth: getting the best of it" explains it here in great detail.... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  When I was a kid, I thought that all homosexuals were, pardon the term, "fruits" because they were effeminate. Then the issue became complicated when I learned of men like Rock Hudson and others, including some pro football players that were gay. It busted my perception. To top that off, I realized that traits (body hair, deep voice, premature baldness because of high Testosterone) had nothing to do with orientation. In my mid 20s, I had 3 JW roommates out of which one had a great deep voice and was hairy. He nevertheless had effeminate mannerisms. Still, he pictured himself as "manly" because of those attributes. I couldn't understand his self image, especially after he confessed to me that he had gay tendencies. I read an interview with Neil Sedaka and learned he is not gay, despite being effeminate. He explains his mannerisms as a result of being raised with sisters. He’s been faithfully married to the same woman for a long time.

  While in Bethel, I knew two roommates, both of whom did weight lifting. They bulked up. The blonde one had some mannerisms and the other one was straight as an arrow. It took a bit for me to realize that the blond one had, dare I say, fallen in love with the other. The other was in the difficult position that, while he was trying to be "Christian" and not reject his roommate and friend, he was not about to do something he couldn't do. Years later, when I connected with the first guy who had since also left the JWs, he declared to me that he "had come out". I think my unperturbed response of "Yeah, OK" disappointed him. I think he was expecting shock or something in that order from me. Somehow I knew. Still it's impossible me to tell for a lot of people. And so, I readily accept it when someone says that they've known since they were 2 years old that they were "different" or that they've had a penchant for the same sex as long as they can remember.

  This has been going on since Ham fiddled with Noah’s patriarchal “staff”. So, when the Bible says: “And Noah awoke from his wine, knew what his younger son had done unto him”, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that homosexuality has been a part of life for a long time, notwithstanding that Ham took advantage of Noah. I hope the world finally comes to a point where they can live and let others live no matter who they chose to love.
• 
  85

  Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.

  imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.

  i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  Well, it stands to reason that large boobs and Natural Selection are intrinsically linked. That supports the idea of Group Selection and the distribution of the "large boob" gene into a population. I'm sure he had to restrict his examples for brevety's sake and therefore did not expand his discussion on the "large penis" gene. Oh yeah, let's not forget the "big butt" gene.

  
• 
  85

  Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.

  imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.

  i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  tec:

  "I, personally, will not read Dawkins if i want to read something about science. I will go to a scientist who has no other agenda or bias. I would really just want it straight. Just the facts... no spin on them."

  PRECISELY! It doesn't mean that Dawkins or any other similar writer can't be correct about something. But if one really wants to cut throught the bullshit (other than for entertainment purposes), there are better ways than reading popularists books.
• 
  167

  this site sucks! its just a buncha athiest on soap boxes.

  by crossquestions6995 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this site is not a healthy forum for discussion or healing.

  its an arena for jaded athiests to bash anything christian or god related.

  yes, i know the jw's lied to us about god and the truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  crossquestions6995:

  It would be easy to say and leave it at that, that if you really feel that way, there's the digital door and don't let it hit you in the behind on your way out. But in reality, some that you would term atheists are not necessarily against religion. I think religion is fine for those who need it. For me, I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and I encourage everyone who wants to be a believer to do so but not with eyes closed. There is value in ritual and discipline and tradition. I just think people should be aware of what they’re doing and not do it because their parents did it or because they are desperately ignorant. This is where you will have the opportunity to challenge others on their views and have your views challenged. I can't think of a more egalitarian place. Other than that, your other choice is to tip the cup and drink away.
• 
  10

  English Ice cream cream company takes the p*ss out of Christianity

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the company's slogan is: .

  ice cream is our religion.. in which case it appears to be a bloody good religion!.

  here's some of their advertising.. this one cause a bit of a fuss.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  I bet the Vatican is pissed.
• 
  54

  Religion vs. Spirituality

  by Oubliette in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  religion is for people who are scared to go to hell.

  spirituality is for people who have already been there.

  - bonnie raitt .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  Check out this topic: can spirituality replace religion?
• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  cofty:

  That is an impressive list. However, if you really look at the topics please notice how much is commentary as opposed to original research. I don't need an impressive list to contradict whether Dawkins is a prolific writer, an intelligent person and eclectic in his range of scientific subjects. He is all of the above. All I'll give you is this article from The Guradian:in an interview with biologist Edwin Willson:

  "Would you like to talk about Dawkins?" he continues – and when I say yes, he laughs. "I hesitate to do this because he's such a popular guy, but Dawkins is not a scientist. He's a writer on science and he hasn't participated in research directly or published in peer-reviewed journals for a long time. In other words, there is no Wilson-versus-Dawkins controversy: it's Wilson versus … well, I could give you a goodly list of other scientists doing peer-reviewed research."

  The emphasis is mine.
• 
  189

  Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as many may be aware.

  i don't like the man.

  but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Etude

  adamah:

  Adam, you stated: “It seems you're confusing Dawkin's position on the existence of God (AKA atheism, a position which is outside of the realm of science, but well within the domain of skepticism, i.e. not believing in anything until AFTER there's evidence to justify the belief) with his position on the theory of evolution.”

  I really don’t think so. Here’s why: From his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins makes it clear that Natural selection is ultimately responsible for the condition of life as we know it. He believes in the inevitability of it which brought us to our present condition, which includes religion. While he feels that religion is useless and a problem in the world, he feels that Science must be able to answer its emergence in terms of the inevitability of Natural Selection. (See “religion as a by-product of something else” p. 172) From that and from the numerous commentaries in his book about religion (see chapts. 8 and 9 of “The God Delusion"), I infer that his position on Evolution leads him directly the absurdity of religion.

  I deliberately used “profound” with agnostic to make a point. Many people think that agnosticism is the position of neither believing nor disbelieving in God or that of sitting on an ethical or ideological fence. Dawkins makes it a particular point to consider agnostics on an even keel with theists (see “The Poverty of Agnosticism” p. 46 of “The God Delusion”). This is why he criticized Paul Davies for saying that science must assume (a form of scientific faith) that the quantum laws are correct (obviously from experimentation), even if they cease to function (brake down) when applied to the sub-particle (the quantum) realm. I was not dissing other agnostics, just making emphasis on what it really means.

  I think you failed to make that distinction above by stating: “If you say, "I'm not sure, since the evidence is inconclusive" AND you are a skeptic…”, etc. Yes, I am a skeptic. Agnosticism shares the skepticism and doubt of Atheism regarding religion. So that you understand it from my perspective as an agnostic, I am not in doubt about the existence of God per se. The idea is essentially meaningless because there is no valid or scientific means available to show such existence. That would encapsulate the fallacy of proving that the invisible man isn’t there. In the absence of some verification or evidence, it would be logically foolish to conclude that there is one. But that doesn’t mean that while there is no verification there can’t ever be one. Logically, we cannot dismiss the possibility, however remote, that some explanation for the support of a deity can arise, however unlikely. Atheism, on the other hand, does not entertain that possibility. A true scientist will never tell you that it is impossible for all the Oxygen atoms in a room to collect themselves in a single corner and suffocate you. What s/he may say is that the possibility is so remote as to make it highly improbable. Get it?