Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:19 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,728
Default

Well I haven't read any of Dawkins' stuff, I'm a poor book/article reader, so I am just going by what I hear here, but it certainly lowers my interest level in reading Dawkins' stuff in the future when I hear he cannot be objective.

It is important to have differing beliefs, and yet be able to respect each other's beliefs. The only exception is when someone knowingly lies or commits an act of violence. If Dawkins can't at least respect sincere, considerate believers, then I'll be inclined to steer away from Dawkins.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-26-2013, 05:15 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default I feel I need to come clean

about my position, my main problem with Dawkins is that from what I have seen from his interviews and the excerpts of his books that I have read, he is not about science nor truth, but more about butt hurt atheists who are the mirror image of the fundamentalist right wing repent-or-you-are-going-to-hell people who fail to recognize their own hatred.

The most dangerous form of hatred is the unrecognized form

I also have a very low opinion of the associated press, and anybody who believes they are justified in spreading half-truths are out-right lies because joe public isn't capable of making the decision for himself.

Dawkins is part of the war that has been going on ever since the scientific method was devised and employed to figure out the truth behind whatever occurrence was in question. It is a completely unnecessary war between those who will fight and die because they absolutely need God to exist of their life is for naught, and it's them against those who cannot allow God to exist

It's the religious against atheists and it really is quite pathetic

Especially since the war was started over nothing but fear, as nowhere in any scriptures does it contradict science. That is the fallacy of men, men who are too full of themselves to admit when they are wrong, and big news flash for both the leaders of the church and radical atheists, you are all human and humans make mistakes

With Dawkins I have a particular problem because he appears to be supported by the same media powerhouses who have no respect for the truth, that is, they are not above lying in order to punctuate their words in order to get their point across and their message heard

which is fine, but it is NOT science

I also have very little tolerance for any proprietary religion that claims to be the only true religion, as I have no doubt from their scriptures that Christians, Jews, and followers of Islam all worship the same God

I get tired of all the points of contention that are completely fabricated by men who must be right, which means that all others are wrong. It's a disease, it's a disease that is rooted in solely the male gender, and it is the very reason the species (well actually the whole order and all species that are part of the order) who have by far the most social evolution under their belt, have had to ban the male gender from everyday life of the community

If enough males don't wise up, any social community is doomed to the cycle of boom and bust, and the sad part is the bust is completely unnecessary and happens due to behavior of those within the community, and that behavior is completely a male idiocy, nothing less, nothing more, but only the idiocy of the male gender

There is no difference between Dawkins and church leaders and believers he rails against, both are major obstacles that will have to be overcome, including the whole mentality of those that subscribe to both camps idiocy
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-26-2013, 08:16 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,728
Default

I think there's a "male meme" that's passed on from one generation to the next, that teaches boys that they must be the tough, silent, competitive type (hence the phrase "pissing contest"). It's a new idea that men can adopt some of the "traditionally feminine traits," such as vulnerability, communicativeness, and cooperation. This idea needs to stick to our society, and women need to be given more of a voice. I do think we're making progress, such as when the U.S. finally decided to let women vote, but will we make enough progress in time to avoid self-destructing ourselves, is my question.

Science and religion could trade in their "pissing contests" for the simple search for truth, and could work together in that search. After all, science can't answer the biggest questions of "Why did the Universe ever exist in the first place," and "Is there something bigger out there?" For example, the mysterious thing called "dark energy" fills most of the Universe, and yet scientists know virtually nothing about it. Could it be that "Spirit World" of which religion so often speaks? Maybe. The point is, there's no need for "science zealots" and "religion zealots" to be at each other's throats. We do, after all, all share the desire to discover the truth. Why not cooperate in that endeavor?

As a "converted atheist," I can testify that being raised in a restrictive church can leave one with a bitter taste in one's mouth. So I sympathize with the "hateful atheists," even while realizing that they don't need to take their crusade that far. There are plenty of people in the church who I still respect very much. They stick to their values and are not dishonest.

As for the "makers of news," whether it be on TV or in magazines, I think those types are often tempted to publish whatever is the most sensational, whatever will excite the general public the most and hence, whatever will "sell the most magazines" or "reap the highest price from advertisers." So the news media often feeds on the conflict of science and religion, and adds fuel to the fire.

The most interesting thing, to me, is to make simple statements about, "Well, this is what's out there," or, "Well, this is what's been said," and accepting that as its own self-defined truth while pondering the possibilities in our own minds. No need to fight over the truth. Instead, we can share the magic of discovery, if we lay the fight aside. Might not sell as many magazines or excite as many advertisers, but it could become a new way of relating to each other that would benefit all.

Is this pretty close to the idea you were getting at?

With plentiful regards,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-27-2013, 12:37 AM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
evolution (and physiology) is far too complex a subject, with far too many unknowns in this early stage of science's development, for scientists to be able to say, "We know evolution is the process by which life developed, and we understand how it happened." They can only say, "It looks like evolution is the process by which life developed, based on the knowledge we so far have."
The theory of evolution has mountains of factual evidence to support the claims of how organisms evolve. The soundness of the scientific theory itself is not a noteworthy topic of debate. There are individual assertions which are debated from time to time when new information comes to the surface, but this is the scientific method at its best (it's supposed to work that way).

While the origin of life is one branch of the general theory of evolution, it is based on a great deal of speculation.

I think it is important to note that these are two different branches of the theory of evolution. One is based on overwhelming factual evidence... the other is a purely speculative field and I suspect it will stay that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
The story of evolution as we've so far contrived it is quite interesting. It includes such notions as the idea that Earth's early atmosphere could never have allowed the species that exist today to survive. That atmosphere was actually changed by the development of early plant life that gradually filled the air with oxygen (and life itself probably barely adapted to that change in time to continue living on this planet at all).
The general theory of evolution is not a story, it is a Scientific Theory. The one branch you are currently talking about is trying to simulate the origin of life and I expect they have a long road ahead of them.

Lord of the Rings, Batman, and the New Testament are stories.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-27-2013, 01:17 AM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
It is important to have differing beliefs, and yet be able to respect each other's beliefs. The only exception is when someone knowingly lies or commits an act of violence. If Dawkins can't at least respect sincere, considerate believers, then I'll be inclined to steer away from Dawkins.
It's important that people have differing beliefs, it's true. A "group think" society which was not exposed to new and challenging ideas would quickly stagnate.

However, I disagree that people should respect beliefs. I would say that people should be skeptical toward beliefs, investigate beliefs, and decide if the assertions supporting said belief are valid. If the assertions backing up said belief turn out to be lacking or absent entirely then the belief is deserving of the respect it has earned... none.

This idea of the "angry atheist" is very popular among religious moderates. It is true, some people approach their belief systems or lack thereof with varying degrees of gentleness and tenacity. When I encounter someone who is mean or violent in expressing their viewpoints I get the hell away from them. However, as the Westboro Baptist lunatics don't represent the common Christian, it is safe to say that these alleged "angry atheists" don't represent atheists.

Though calling Dawkins an "angry atheist" is fantasy. While I personally don't find him to be a warm personality, he's courteous to people who are courteous to him and who want to have a rational conversation with him. He does, however, only give propositions the respect that they earn...

No doubt I have already said enough for most religious moderates to call me an "angry atheist"
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-27-2013, 04:33 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default scientifically ignorant

but not necessarily angry,

Perhaps ole Dawkins should talk with those more familiar with recent understandings of scriptures, because people like him are seriously taking all the rope that religious organizations can give them

Don't say I didn't try to warn him, but seriously , most of this info has already been leaked

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-27-2013 at 06:06 AM. Reason: typical typos after the fact
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-27-2013, 09:11 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,728
Default

Re (from Marcus):
Quote:
"The theory of evolution has mountains of factual evidence to support the claims of how organisms evolve."
True, true.

Re:
Quote:
"The general theory of evolution is not a story, it is a Scientific Theory."
Well let's just say I think of it as a true story. Scientific Theory as well.

Re (from Marcus):
Quote:
"I would say that people should be skeptical toward beliefs, investigate beliefs, and decide if the assertions supporting said belief are valid. If the assertions backing up said belief turn out to be lacking or absent entirely then the belief is deserving of the respect it has earned ... none."
Fair enough. We have a shortage of critical thinking in our world (in my estimation). Perhaps what I mean is trying to steer clear of "ad hominem" territory; that is, having respect for people per se (provided they're humane, sincere, and stick to their values even if some are misguided). I would also say that subjective thinking is useful for analyzing emotions; objective thinking is useful for seeking empirical truth.

Re:
Quote:
"When I encounter someone who is mean or violent in expressing their viewpoints I get the hell away from them. However, as the Westboro Baptist lunatics don't represent the common Christian, it is safe to say that these alleged 'angry atheists' don't represent atheists."
Which is actually a good example of the "ad hominem" caution. Just because a (small) portion of a belief group uses meanness or violence to advance their viewpoints, doesn't mean the whole belief group is deserving of criticism.

Re: Dawkins ... I guess I'll just have to hear more of what he has to say before I make any character judgments. Apparently he is a "like him or hate him" type of guy.

Re: the Bible ... it's been awhile but I did read it cover to cover as an adolescent. I think it contains things that defy scientific understanding (e.g. the Sun froze in its position in the sky for an hour so the good guys could beat the bad guys before sundown -- just one of many examples). If you want to say, "Well, much of the Bible is a metaphor," I guess that's fine. But I still think it leaves some unanswered questions (such as why God was so vengeful in the Old Testament).

As a Latter-day Saint, I also read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price cover to cover, but I reckon that's getting a little off-topic. I'm just saying, the LDS church considers all of those to be Scripture too.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
culture, philosophy, religion, sexuality, society

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 AM.