Richard Dawkins is the man. I have never seen anyone dominate religious fanatics as much as he does. Also thunderf00t on YouTube is another great guy to listen to when you want to feel smart.
And I don't think people get why humans won't be super. Evolution does not make you super, it just makes you suitable to the environment you currently live. People judge evolution in the perspective of humans. Us, humans, are probably the best equipped to any environmental change in the world, which is why people think that evolution isn't real, because it doesn't work on humans. We pretty much killed evolution among us, because the weak humans don't die anymore. They live a prosperous life and can be very successful in our current infrastructure.
Yeah I really don't get what that whole hammer/anvil penis/vagina was supposed to mean. Like, at all. I mean, half the species don't even have differentiated reproductive tools...
We'll hit our carrying capacity soon enough.
We did kill evolution, though, it doesn't seem to work very well if an intelligent species is thriving... I don't really agree with the people who say evolution is still going on. The humans surviving now are hardly the best suited for the environment. There's too much non-relationist altruism in our society (which is kinda weird since it's completely counter-survivalist).
Richard Dawkins is the man. I have never seen anyone dominate religious fanatics as much as he does. Also thunderf00t on YouTube is another great guy to listen to when you want to feel smart.
If it's all about dominating people to you and feeling smart you are missing the point... it just becomes "I'm smarter/better than you!" shoutout after that.
However, the reason I support Richard Dawkins and thunderf00t and many other amazing scientists out there is because they fight fire with fire. I personally feel that religion has been attacking the scientific method too long and they are trying to slow down the academic progress. It's just nice to see someone bash religion for their beliefs instead of the exact opposite, which happens to often.
Personally, I believe that the topic of religion is way too tabooed when it shouldn't be.
Really? I have seen soooooooo much religion bashing lately and approximately 0 evolution bashing, except for this one guy I know. Religious people do not care about evolution, it's the evolutionists who care about religious people.
Fight fire with fire? Well, good luck with that. Whatever makes you happy, right?
If you do not see the people bashing evolution, you are not looking, nay, hiding your eyes from them.
I cannot think of anybody that can say that and not either A) be looking the other way or be lying to themselves. I have a feeling you are in the "A" camp.
And yes, it is good to see people like Richard Dawkins and Thunderf00t, along with the other giants metaphorically bitch slap those that would do harm to knowledge.
Really? I have seen soooooooo much religion bashing lately and approximately 0 evolution bashing, except for this one guy I know. Religious people do not care about evolution, it's the evolutionists who care about religious people.
Fight fire with fire? Well, good luck with that. Whatever makes you happy, right?
dawkins is somewhat of an annoyance in the bio community though. they typically see him as a sellout, which imo is hypocritical since professors and researchers write and edit books that we "must" buy for 200+ and get phased out within a year.
if you want a better book explaining about the genetics and environmental factors effecting evolution i recommend "Speciation" by coyle and orr, but this book is a much harder read, but science likes doing that.
Maybe I just do not surround myself with church people?
we live in the south, i mean, come on they still teach creationism and/or intelligent design in parts down here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Yes, but you have to admit, you don't see people like Coyle and Orr out doing things like the speech about the Pope's comment. (And if you didn't notice, I like that. )
thats because those 2 write in academia, reading them is like reading 500 journals. while people like dawkins, and in physics, michio kaku, tend to be more public and outspoken.
science has this very odd way of keeping outsiders out. its almost like an exclusive club with super special rules. you have to use their language and style if you want to be taken seriously, and you cant be too radical or make big exciting claims without the best evidence in the world; its pretty boring literature...
edit: i forgot sometimes it can be quite jealous and bitter. they expect that when you complete your Phd. you take this oath of poverty or something, devoting your life to work...and when to leave them, ohhh they can get bitter...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Oh I know. But I am no PhD, and Dawkins and Michio Kaku (<3) can put the most complicated things in the entire world into a frame that even my mind can comprehend.
Dawkins is amazing. The way he absolutely destroyed the Pope in that speech he gave still brings a smile onto my face!
And carambolage, not really. You have to present a hypothesis in a way that you can prove it. Steven Hawking talks with a computerized voice, but he still is taken seriously. It's the ideas that matter, and even if you're a deaf blind 3 year old Autistic amputee you would still be taken seriously in the scientific arena is they present a correct idea.
However, if you fuck yourself over, that's another story...
Now looking over religion thread and whatnot, it was basically a (forgive my bluntness) Christianity/Science debate, which is fine, but also excludes other forms of what people see as 'God', I decided to bring Deism in here.
Now keep things civil here, no flaming, trolling, demanding, etc.
------------------------
Deism - noun
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
I am a Deist but also beleive in a bit of Pantheism. I believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God' but in correlation with Deism, also believe that this 'God' will not intervene with mortal affairs.
With Pantheism, I also believe that 'God' and the universe are one, if not at least controlling every aspect of the universe. Why do atoms want to attract, what's the point of matter, why does hot/cold exist, because the Grand Architect or 'God' foresaw and made it this way.
However in addition with my personal philosophy, I heavily emphasize and support individualism. This concept basically expresses the right and freedom for an individual to follow, does, want, etc. whatever he/she wants. Example if a woman wants an abortion she has the right to have one. I will not like it, but I will fully support it.
I am interested to see what other people's views are, and feel free to ask me on my belief, for I did not went fully in-depth on it XD
Deism is currently my cup of tea as well. To me, the idea of a creator is a natural and logical one.
I would certainly like to believe that the Bible, the Koran and other holy texts have some influence from a higher power. However, being the skeptical philosopher that I claim to be, I can't help but merely leave the idea of divine inspiration and intervention in the box of maybe's and who knows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
the difference between you, or me, or anyone random schmuck, and Hawking is that he has credentials. sure you might a good idea, but trust me no one in the field will take you seriously unless you present it in their style. i know this from experience because ive had my papers rejected based on soso technical writing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The existence of any deity or any supernatural being to me is unacceptable. Religion is pretty much an area that explores things in which we, humans, do not know about. Just because we don't know what happened "in the beginning" (if there was a beginning at all) does not mean we will never know. I am a patient person, and I am willing to wait for my answers to be explained in a scientific naturalistic fashion. Even if I don't know the answers in my lifetime, I would rather believe for which I have proof of, instead of filtering the many options in science through a scope of religion, whether it is deism or anything.
So unless there is a reasonable proof presented in front of me that a super natural being did create our world, I will always remain a scientific naturalist and an atheist. To me (personally), having any sort of deity as a belief is a way to slow down the progression of society, both technologically and spiritually. And just because I said "spiritually", I do not mean your "soul". I mean it as a inner peace within yourself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Respectful is a strong word...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And I don't think people get why humans won't be super. Evolution does not make you super, it just makes you suitable to the environment you currently live. People judge evolution in the perspective of humans. Us, humans, are probably the best equipped to any environmental change in the world, which is why people think that evolution isn't real, because it doesn't work on humans. We pretty much killed evolution among us, because the weak humans don't die anymore. They live a prosperous life and can be very successful in our current infrastructure.
We'll hit our carrying capacity soon enough.
We did kill evolution, though, it doesn't seem to work very well if an intelligent species is thriving... I don't really agree with the people who say evolution is still going on. The humans surviving now are hardly the best suited for the environment. There's too much non-relationist altruism in our society (which is kinda weird since it's completely counter-survivalist).
If it's all about dominating people to you and feeling smart you are missing the point... it just becomes "I'm smarter/better than you!" shoutout after that.
However, the reason I support Richard Dawkins and thunderf00t and many other amazing scientists out there is because they fight fire with fire. I personally feel that religion has been attacking the scientific method too long and they are trying to slow down the academic progress. It's just nice to see someone bash religion for their beliefs instead of the exact opposite, which happens to often.
Personally, I believe that the topic of religion is way too tabooed when it shouldn't be.
Fight fire with fire? Well, good luck with that. Whatever makes you happy, right?
I cannot think of anybody that can say that and not either A) be looking the other way or be lying to themselves. I have a feeling you are in the "A" camp.
And yes, it is good to see people like Richard Dawkins and Thunderf00t, along with the other giants metaphorically bitch slap those that would do harm to knowledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWBC0AnAAT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlISMib5e64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk_Wv2mn5Yk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyPPDMekG3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14Nhj05L90&feature=related
Enjoy! All of these are creationist fellows arguing against evolution.
if you want a better book explaining about the genetics and environmental factors effecting evolution i recommend "Speciation" by coyle and orr, but this book is a much harder read, but science likes doing that.
we live in the south, i mean, come on they still teach creationism and/or intelligent design in parts down here.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
science has this very odd way of keeping outsiders out. its almost like an exclusive club with super special rules. you have to use their language and style if you want to be taken seriously, and you cant be too radical or make big exciting claims without the best evidence in the world; its pretty boring literature...
edit: i forgot sometimes it can be quite jealous and bitter. they expect that when you complete your Phd. you take this oath of poverty or something, devoting your life to work...and when to leave them, ohhh they can get bitter...
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
And carambolage, not really. You have to present a hypothesis in a way that you can prove it. Steven Hawking talks with a computerized voice, but he still is taken seriously. It's the ideas that matter, and even if you're a deaf blind 3 year old Autistic amputee you would still be taken seriously in the scientific arena is they present a correct idea.
However, if you fuck yourself over, that's another story...
Now keep things civil here, no flaming, trolling, demanding, etc.
------------------------
Deism - noun
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
I am a Deist but also beleive in a bit of Pantheism. I believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe or 'God' but in correlation with Deism, also believe that this 'God' will not intervene with mortal affairs.
With Pantheism, I also believe that 'God' and the universe are one, if not at least controlling every aspect of the universe. Why do atoms want to attract, what's the point of matter, why does hot/cold exist, because the Grand Architect or 'God' foresaw and made it this way.
However in addition with my personal philosophy, I heavily emphasize and support individualism. This concept basically expresses the right and freedom for an individual to follow, does, want, etc. whatever he/she wants. Example if a woman wants an abortion she has the right to have one. I will not like it, but I will fully support it.
I am interested to see what other people's views are, and feel free to ask me on my belief, for I did not went fully in-depth on it XD
I would certainly like to believe that the Bible, the Koran and other holy texts have some influence from a higher power. However, being the skeptical philosopher that I claim to be, I can't help but merely leave the idea of divine inspiration and intervention in the box of maybe's and who knows.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
So unless there is a reasonable proof presented in front of me that a super natural being did create our world, I will always remain a scientific naturalist and an atheist. To me (personally), having any sort of deity as a belief is a way to slow down the progression of society, both technologically and spiritually. And just because I said "spiritually", I do not mean your "soul". I mean it as a inner peace within yourself.