Posts by Etude

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

Etude

I'm dyslexic today. I meant: "Man you guys don't screw around"

31

MEXICO | Jehovah's Witness Family of 8 Massacred including three Children

by jwleaks in

jw
friends

eight family members killed in mexico massacremexico | november 17, 2013. mexican police found sunday a family of eight, including three children, stabbed to death and tied down in their home in the northern city of ciudad juarez.. a two-year-old boy survived the attack and was handed to neighbors, local police said.. the chihuahua state prosecutor's office said the assailants apparently forced their way inside the house and killed two men, three women and three children between the ages of four and six.. their mouths were covered with duct tape and their hands and feet were tied.

neighbors said they heard gun shots but authorities said the victims had stab wounds.. neighbors said the house owner was a car salesman.. the family was supposed to attend a meeting of jehovah's witnesses when they were attacked inside their home on sunday morning, according to testimonies.. they were discovered dead after members of the congregation went to look for them.. ciudad juarez, which borders the us state of texas, was once the deadliest city in mexico amid a turf war between drug cartels.. more than 10,000 people have been killed in the city since 2006 but the murder rate began to decline in 2011.. local officials say the drop in violence is due to tougher policing and crime prevention programs, but security experts believe it began to wane after the sinaloa drug cartel defeated the rival juarez gang.. read latest breaking news from newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mexico-crime-murder/2013/11/17/id/537112#ixzz2kziajt8f.

{google translate].

Etude

What a gruesome tragedy! I can’t get over the dichotomy of such a crime, which may have been committed by gangster thugs, involving what would normally be law abiding people as many JWs are. Could there have been some sort of liaison between someone in the house and the gangsters? Why would they be killed if they had no business with drugs or anything illegal? Unless it was a mistake and they went to the wrong house, there’s gotta be some logical reason.

64

Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!

by Cold Steel in

for you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?

during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?

for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?

Etude

Cold Steel

"I think galaxy or universe would be more accurate."

Man you gusy the screw around. You really think BIG! How about your own universe out of the multi-verse? Now we're talkin'!

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:

“The term 'meme' has become a commonly-accepted "meme" in itself”

I appreciate your explanation of the subtleties in the definition and I tend to agree. However, when I replied to Anony Mous and gave the meme example, I was not confusing it with the popular vernacular meaning that today has made it a cliché. I was discussing the concept that Dawkins himself put forth in his book.

“…it's NOT a theory for evolutionary biology”

Correct. And I don’t think I insinuated that or insinuated that Dawkins thinks that. In fact, I mentioned that memes is his attempt at an explanation for traits that cannot be explained via inheritance (hence Evolutionary Biology). Are we good on that? But the significance of memes is their role as vehicles for Natural Selection to pass on behavior and rituals, some of which may seem beneficial, some that don’t appear beneficial and none of which can be explained in terms of the selfish gene. His whole point is: why would Natural Selection give rise to an illogical behavior such as religion when it’s not beneficial? Memes is one of his means to explain that, along with Group Selection and Extended Phenotypes. It just doesn’t succeed for the reasons I already mentioned.

“Note that Wilson ALSO is selling a book countering Dawkins' assertion. A cynic would point out that BOTH are selling books, but Wilson is making a $ off of a career challenging and opposing the writings of Dawkins, and the lay public eats up someone selling books that tell off Dawkins.”

Yeah but, is he wrong? If you were really diligent and honest about it, you would find out that Wilson is something like 80 years old and has had an illustrious career in science. The Dawkins development is quite recent. Are you saying I should discount anything Wilson has to say about Dawkins because he’s making money? Do you see a nefarious motivation on the part of Wilson for addressing Dawkins’ issues and not because the science doesn’t hold up? If you know of any, please let me know. I hope you’re also aware that Wilson is only one of many. I already mentioned Sober and Coon.

Sure, I had the basics in college. And no, I was not pursuing a biology major. I was going for a Math major. What’s significant for me is that I never stopped learning. Therefore, I don’t find lack of more advanced courses a detriment for understanding aspect of Evolution and Natural Selection just as you suggested Dawkins not being a physicist or cosmologist is not a detriment in understanding science.

You said: “And a skeptic would withhold making a decision until AFTER there was sufficient evidence”, regarding my agreement about how religion is not called to the carpet. But, please don’t confuse the issues. If religion is not “called to the carpet” as you said, that has nothing to do with whether I should withhold my opinion of whether God exists or not. Which I don't. I believe religion exists and I believe it’s an anathema. That doesn’t provide any credence from me about God or UFOs or teacups flying around the solar system. I think you’re misplacing the word “belief”.

I really disagree with you on the binary state of things. The reason is because, even in real life there are things that cannot be known at any one time. For example, if I know of someone who was alive and traveled to the Philippines before the typhoon, I know the following: 1) that he or she was alive and may still be alive, 2) that he or she may be dead and 3) that he or she is in a state where I cannot know yet whether he or she is alive or dead. What I had mentioned in my prior post was an attempt to illustrate an intangible concept and not an effort to provide evidence.

This is where your train took another route. The idea of an unknown state applies to many things. You don’t seem to want to accept that for all practical purposes, I don’t believe there’s a God. But as matter of precision, there simply is no way for anyone to logically of factually prove it either way. The third state of things is making that conclusion: admitting that we can’t prove it. Instead, you’re making it out as if I’m debating in my head whether or not there’s a big magic guy in the sky. You’re missing the whole point.

“Enough with the coin-flip and Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics metaphors”

Seriously? You’re not anti-science, are you? You don’t think that certain disciplines overlap and that often Philosophy is the meta-language for science? Maybe it’s you who needs more college courses or at least have some more education on why thought experiments and metaphors are essential in science. I imagine that you have a problem with mathematical beauty and cosmological elegance. Yes, scientists actually speak that way. Look it up.

But even you will hem and haw about definitions: “I am using conventions (eg soft vs hard) which are commonly-accepted by atheist organizations, eg atheist-experience.com, and used by the likes of Tracie Harris, Jen Peoples, Matt Dilahunty, etc.” Soft vs hard? C’mon it either is or it isn’t. Right? You either get a boner or you don't. Oh, wait! Can it be a little flacid. Yeah, I guess you can call that a third state of arousal. If we can’t agree on definitions or on the idea that some references make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, then there’s no point continuing this conversation. For that reason, I doubt you’ll get your way and have agnosticism put out to pasture, certainly not any more than Dawkins is going to get his way (unfortunately for the world) and do away with religions. As a non-believer, I feel it’s a shame religion just doesn’t go away.

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

braincleaned:

“No, you are prudent in that you quote others to make your point.
Have the courage of your opinion.

By the way, you don't know me — just sayin'...”

Nor do you know me. So, keep on sayin’. Yes, I explicitly refused to acknowledge Dawkins as a scientist because I had the crazy idea that my opinion would not count as much for some people. But apparently, neither does the opinion of someone else who has credentials up to the arm pits. It’s obvious that nothing will change your mind on that. So, I’m assuming that you reject Wilson’s criticism of Dawkins (for whatever reasons) and that you would probably not recognize any other source of dissent. Well then, I guess our conversation is over.

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

Thanks cofty. It’s been a while since I’ve been on the forum and have forgotten that there are people here like that. I got up this morning and saw this from KateWild:

“I am afraid I disagree, Einstein's religious beliefs fuelled his desire to investigate science. He made wonderful discoveries because of his faith. Faith and religion don't stop everyone from making scientific discoveries. I find people stop moving forward in science, because they are more interested in other topics. IMO it's not always about faith and religion.”

I had thought that such lies about Einstein would have been settled by now. KateWild, where do you get such inaccurate information? It sounds like something the WTBTS would manipulate. Please don’t confuse a person who uses the word “God” in a sentence with being religious. People exclaim “Oh God” during sex and that doesn’t make Him part of threesome. C’mon. If you do a search in this forum, you’ll probably find several good explanations for what you claim isn’t true.

tec: I assumed too much from one post. Really? You use science to explain faith? Particle physics brings you closer to God? OKey-dokey. Look, I get the awesomeness that science brings, just like I get a wondrous feeling seeing a photo of the deep space galactic field. But I don’t confuse that with religious worship. Alice in Wonderland contains more logic than the Bible. I’m now thinking that we’ve had conversations before, maybe even a marathon one about a year ago about how you know (in your head) about God. Was that you?

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:

"There is zero hypocrisy in anything that I have stated. Your opinion is that I have contempt for science... but I don't. Never have. Just because I recognize the limitations of science, and know that it is not the end-all/know-all... does not mean I hold it in contempt, in the least"

You are so right. I'm getting the feeling that there's a contingent of people who reactionarily take an opposing stand to what someone says if that is the slightest criticism of science. I don't understand why it's so hard to see that science by definition is set up for scrutiny. I don't understand how a criticism of science ends up as contempt. It's a kind of bizarro zeal.

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

Anony Mous

“...whether his scientific research is valid or not does not matter to the fact that the Christian god as described in the Bible simply cannot logically exist”

Agreed. I don’t think I ever raised that up as point of contention. That is why I’m no longer a theist. But perusing through Dawkins’ web site shop, I have very little doubt that he endorsed the Scarlet A (for Atheist) and sanctions instructions on how to be an atheists. As an echo of what I compared to religious fervor for the cause, he has on his web site a “testimonial” corner, where letters from recent atheist converts are posted. And that’s OK. I don’t really care and don’t fault him for making money on the side. What I find hard to tolerate is the idea that because he’s prominent and writes well that he somehow has the keys for the populace to understand Natural Selection even when serious challenges arise from critics. I don’t think I’ve yet stated my personal challenges to his posits. What I have tried to do is to present the challenge that others (learned critics) have offered to balance the issue.

Anony Mous, here’s the catch. Dawkins has discussed at length the Anthropic Principle. This is the theory that says (at its most comprehensive level – the Strong Anthropic Principle) there must be a multi-verse (an infinite number of universes) that give rise to every possibility or combinations of matter that would yield the particular universe we’re in. Fine. Forget that such a thing is extremely unlikely to be verified. Forget that there’s contention among theorists whether such a principle applies everywhere. As you said, Dawkins is not a physicist. Nevertheless, he will chastise one, namely Paul Davies, for suggesting that since the laws of nature break down at the quantum level, a scientist must accept (believe) without any additional support that the laws are what they seem to be. That is agnosticism in a pure sense: not being able to make any conclusions or finalities where why and how something happens cannot yet be known. When it comes to Cosmology and Physics, I defer to Davies over Dawkins any day. If some other Cosmologist reasons better than Davies, then that will be the new bar to measure up to.

“Dawkins on the other hand is not a physicist so he has to accept (believe) that the laws of physics as he knows them are correct and he can reasonably assume that in his realm, the laws of physics as we know them hold true.”

Personally, I give Dawkins a little more credit. I believe that he is intelligent enough to understand the fundamental laws of physics the way a high School or college professor would. I don’t believe that he can write down equations to show how time varies depending on the relative speed of objects or that he can jot down and explain the formula for the Standard Model. But, please understand that I don’t believe such things are necessary in order to make a cogent argument about related sciences. What I have found instead is that some of the conclusions Dawkins makes are not sustainable for various reasons.

For example, memes. He defines memes as “units of cultural inheritance”. The problem is that he doesn’t factually define what incorporates a unit. Memology is controversial among other scientists, namely because a meme can be subjective, difficult to unitize and therefore hard to measure and study. While it appears to me to be a brilliant alternative for a replicating system, I can see the difficulty some individuals have determining what a meme constitutes. Could culture as a whole be considered a meme or could a component of culture, like the banality of the “wave” at baseball games or the more insidious racial bigotry, be a meme? This is the problem other scientists face studying memes. In addition, memes don’t map to genes. However, according to Dawkins, the replication process is either tied to or co-evolving with Natural Selection. How? Well, that’s not clearly demonstrated because of the difficulties associated in tracking and measuring memes and because we have no genetic markers as reference and I haven’t seen Dawkins advance a method via which that could be accomplished

So while some of what Dawkins proposes is titillating and thought provoking, it hardly amounts to gospel. You say about science: “…results are there and if you want, you can replicate them and test them.” Precisely. That is what is unfortunate about some of Dawkins proposals. How do you replicate and verify a meme? Remember, his invention of the meme was to explain how traits that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance manage to persist throughout generations. Religion, he says, fits into that category. So, while he makes an interesting attempt at explaining it, the reason for religion for me remains illogical and inexplicable.

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

ShirleyW: I suspect it mattered sufficiently to Sedaka to put it out there in an interview. Anyway, I tend to believe him.

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

braincleaned:

Are you saying then that Dawkins does not have a bone to pick with Wilson because Wilson critiqued Dawkins findings? It works both ways. Furthermore, Wilson has been on the forefront of research a lot longer than Dawkins. A this point, it’s not a matter of trust for Wilson (although it is if compared to you). It’s a matter of the reasons and level of argument that Wilson makes. Even if that argument is debatable, it demonstrates that Dawkins assertions are not above question. For me, the issues regarding memes and several others of Dawkins raise serious questions. Remember, I never explicitly refused to acknowledge Dawkins as a scientist. But when another scientist says that someone who writes a lot of books is not a scientist, he does it in a specific context. What Wilson was saying is that Dawkins is not a “scientist” the way people in his class are scientists (they do research; they publish peer review papers, etc.) I mentioned this before. Using one and only one definition, anyone can call any titled podiatrist a “scientist”. And before that statement gets corrupted, I’m not saying that Dawkins is comparable to a podiatrist. Don’t regret the lack of “honor” for me. In my research, I have found several other scientists with, I presume, better credentials than you who have helped me reach my present opinion.