Posts by Etude

189

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild in

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?.

Etude

bohm:

Your inability to ascertain whether or not I know the difference between Dawkins the writer from his “advancing certain ideas” makes my point of how narrow you are. So, here we have a writer who is popular and can explain in common terms certain aspects of science while conjecturing how the interaction of those scientific points lead to something he invented, like Memes. So tell me, really, what is the difference?

When or where did you get from me that I “don’t like Dawkins as a popular writer”? See what I mean? You really are obtuse. I’ve read several of his books. Did I mention that already? Hmm… I guess you missed that too. Think deeper, man. Why would I continue to read someone’s work whose style I detest? Duh! The part you’re missing is that Dawkins’ conclusions are not as holy as you will have them. You also miss that I don’t think this is the case for everything Dawkins writes.

If my vocabulary is too much for you, please excuse me. English is my second language. As a non-native speaker, I try to bring out the right words that will convey as much clarity as possible. I’m sorry if they escape you. But I understand. This is why you need to resort to insults rather than a more intelligent discussion. That requires paying attention. When in doubt, ATTACK! It’s natural, since you missed the contrast I offered between Sierra Cartwright and Masters & Johnson. So naturally, even though I suspect you don’t know who Masters & Johnson are, your visceral reaction rose to MASTURBATION! It goes to show how you think. I guess you know a lot about it.

189

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild in

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?.

Etude

adamah:

“Well, no kidding, but that's because Dawkins is not writing as a scientist who's writing articles for professional journals to be read by his colleagues, but he's writing for the public, the layperson.”

EXACTLY! And on that point, you contradict bohm. I’ve been communicating all along that while Dawkins uses science to illustrate his point, he is not putting forth sanctioned scientific explanations in Natural Selection. That other scientists contradict him at least brings his postulates into question. He is a “populist” writer, in my opinion. He has interesting premises. I just don’t swallow all of them hook, line and sinker. This is why I search for what other heavies are saying.

Now, tell me if I’m wrong in assuming that the characterization of Dawkins by some here has not been one of a purveyor of scientific facts. Tell me if at any time, I have said that Dawkins doesn’t know jack shit. I realize it’s not so simple to distill a complicated subject for the general public. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who do and do it well enough to not venture beyond what can be said about a subject. That’s not Dawkins’ aim and that’s why other “experts” dispute him. I for one am not afraid of the “'ugly details' of biochemistry, biology, etc.”

If you’re referring to Bart D. Ehrman (I’ve read “Jesus Interrupted” and “Misquoting Jesus”), I also consider him a very good writer. But, he is not without his critics (many of them erudite scholars) who also criticize his conclusions. For me, the only criticism I have of Ehrman is that in spite of his exposing the inherent problems and contradictions of canonical writings, he holds to the idea that they are valuable for the more benign “message” of love and understanding. I don’t agree. I think those values can be had without any religious writings.

189

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

by KateWild in

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?.

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

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?.

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

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.... .

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

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.

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.

Fertility Goddes

85

Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

by KateWild in

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.

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

jw
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.

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