Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-23-2013, 08:11 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,351
Default

I'm cool with creation of new threads ... Post a link here to a new thread, and I'll follow the link. Hopefully some more of the other members will chime in. Free will seems fine as a topic.

Re: religion ... I know mine was detrimental to at least one person; namely, myself. It involved a lot of training and conditioning to sacrifice all I had, including my personality, as it's (supposedly) inherently sinful, on the altar of the church. Of course I couldn't literally sacrifice all, therefore I ended up giving and giving and yet feeling guiltier and guiltier, largely because my faith was decreasing over the years, making me guilty of an increasingly sinful state of mind. A church that does this to anyone has something to answer for, and I believe the LDS church (for one) does this to quite a few people.

Anyway, I won't carry on further right here; I'll wait to hear some of the other members' opinions.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-22-2013, 11:54 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default Dawkins cracks me up

I seriously don't believe a word of any of his college coursework he is credited with. He is a novelist and clearly doesn't understand basic principles of evolution.

I can fully understand why he talks crap about what the church preaches, it's just I have less respect for him because I take science and truth very seriously, more so than I do anything the church says. So to me, people like Dawkins who have no respect for the truth, but make their claims in the name of Science,

thats a worse offense in my mind than church leaders spewing their crap in God name

I would debate and philosophize with you till the cows came home, but I have a hard time doing so with those that I don't respect. To start you'd have to post from just one profile account, but my experience is such that people cannot even get over themselves to be honest about that, and I have wasted way too much time in discussions here with people that wave flags of false philosophy, mostly with the only intention of proving another person wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-23-2013, 03:19 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,351
Default

I don't suppose it would help if I assured you I only have one profile account? I don't think I could keep up with two accounts, one is hard enough. Plus I have no interest in "skewing the numbers" to make it look like more people agree with me.

I guess I have faith that this thread is sock-puppet clear and Franklin-Veaux clear.

So, you were saying about Dawkins? Is his science just pop-culture science? Describe your objections to his book (The God Delusion).
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-23-2013, 07:58 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default oh I wasn't referring to you kevbo

I was referring to merry prankster Utopian, and this is not the only profile he writes from here

but in regards to you, so you were baptized Mormon huh? You were raised in the church, or just lived in Utah for a spell?

About Dawkins, yeah the language that the guys uses clearly states that his college degrees and scientific achievements were all honorary, he states classic misconceptions about evolution typical of those who went the other route in college, the American equivalent to Arts & Letters or at best psychology

statements that Utopian borrow from the novelist such as

" Evolution works but it isn't ideal because it can't go back to the drawing board or design things."

are based in ignorance

such statements are the result of a person having absolutely no knowledge of biological processes, no knowledge of cellular functions, do not comprehend the level of organization of cells and cellular development, cellular machinary, let alone how complicated the system requirements for regulation of differentiated cells that form organs.

Such ignorant statements are made be those with absolutely no knowledge of mechanics nor engineering, and if they did, they would realize that nearly every joint that is a part of our skeletal system is worlds apart (as in incomparably superior) from anything that any team of engineers can devise with the latest technology.

Dawkins is a popular psychological theorist, and spokesperson for the mirror image of the fundamental relgious crowd. Dawkins goes toe to toe with them and denial has just as firm of grip on his mind as it does the religious right wing.

both camps have no respect for the truth, are more than willing to fabricate data in very unscientific experiments and that sort of practice is exactly why the scientific community decided long ago that anything not published in reputable academic journals is garbage and not even worth looking into

Scientists have to trust other scientists because we depend on each other's reported information, no time to mess around with those who make claims from stretched versions of the truth.

Journalists and other publishers cannot understand the importance of following a strict method that leaves absolutely no room form cutting corners or bending rules

A perfect example is the Journal Nature, a once reputable research journal that has now stepped down into the realm of all the other media reporting publishers, yet they still are cited as references to psuedo-science experiments. The scientific community quit trusting the journal Nature in 1997. Peer review does not mean a debate, the truth is not debatable, and no legitimate graduate research programs at any university will base their work off of journals that are no longer considered reputable

Sure there are some psychology researchers who will use that garbage, but psychology is NOT part of the sciences departments at universities, and that is exactly what Dawkins's books are based on, he masquerades as if he is some scientist with knowledge of the mechanics of evolution. He is a psychology theorist who does not understand genetics, nor does he understand the extent that even molecular scientists fully grasp genetics.

The public has a waaaaay over-inflated perception of how well we understand gene expression. We can sequence the strands and we have identified the steps and machinery that carries out translation and transcription, but terms such as "gene" and "allele" and are in fact very vaguely defined genetic properties

Our knowledge or how their exact function and regulation has just barely begun the process of nailing it down, it is far more complicated than most people know

so while your comment is comical and I appreciate it , I have little respect for attitudes such as Utopians (by any profile commented from) and I will gladly carry out these discussions until I banned from the site if anyone desires me to. But most people don't like facing the facts after running their mouth. So I guess we will just have to wait and see.

If the past is any indication he will likely just carry on eluding to responses without ever directly answering or discussing the topics he claims he would like challenged, it is the typical blogger who is only concerned with appearing to have the "last word" before determining that I am just not making any sense

as often is the case with those who believe correct grammar trumps everything, which it may in English Lit class of some Ivy League "science" course where they are practiced at debating the truth

When again, scientists do not debate the truth, as it is not debatable, peer review is a process wherein researchers help other researchers out to ensure that whatever findings they believe are preliminary, are real and can be used as another building block of truth

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-23-2013 at 08:37 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-23-2013, 09:25 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,351
Default

Dirtclust, I am probably missing much of the detail you're presenting, but it seems like the general gist is that 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."

I've barely studied the subject myself, but from what little I've heard, scientists definitely remain stumped on the earliest inception of life. They have some ideas about how it may have happened, but they can't at all prove that it happened of its own accord. I don't think any environment has yet been reproduced in which life appeared spontaneously.

I can certainly appreciate the perspective of the sophistication and complexity of the human body, from its overall structure going all the way down to its atomic processes. I don't doubt that we have far to go before we really understand the miracle of DNA and its inscrutible workings. I'll also add that I'm certain science as of yet has only the very most primative understandings of the brain and how it works. They know that neurons exchange certain chemicals and electrical impulses, and they know that some classes of thought can vaguely be mapped to certain regions of the brain. As far as I can tell, that's about as far as they've gotten so far.

Suffice it to say the development of life on Earth is an out-and-out miracle, whether it happened alone or whether it was engineered by some omniscient hand. I think perhaps the coolest thing about the human body is the process of pregnancy. One egg cell (with the help of one sperm cell) races through billions of years of -- evolution -- in the space of just nine months. It is very complex indeed how a human baby comes to be, and of course its incalculable brain forms as just one part of that process.

I've probably strayed a little off-topic, but I had to rhapsodize a little about the human body (and other forms of life are pretty darn amazing too), since we were kind of on the subject. As an atheist, I believe/reckon/suppose it came about on its own, but I definitely can't prove that, and in any case I am in awe of the complexity of all forms of life on Earth.

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).

Not only are individual organisms beyond the scope of our current knowledge and comprehension, but we also scarcely understand how all the organisms on Earth "work together" to create a dynamic balance that allows almost every species to survive. That, too, was part of life's development, again regardless of whether it developed spontaneously or by the intervention/guidance of some omniscient hand.

Things are rapidly changing right now, as human life expands faster than its underdeveloped ethics allow, wiping out species and affecting (we think) the planet's climate. The balance of all living things may be in jeopardy. So I don't know how the story of life on Earth ends, any more than I know how it started. I just know that it's all pretty amazing right now.

I believe in the scientific method, and I know that method is extremely rigorous in demanding thorough and qualified cross checking by many scientists working independently. Plus if I understand right, no theory is ever considered 100% certain and decided. There is always room for new discoveries, and revised theories that account for the new information.

I also know that the common man (such as myself) is ill-equipped to understand true and bonafide science, so what we hear about science is the watered-down Kindergarten version, hobbled by our primative assumptions and popular rumors.

Re:
Quote:
"But in regards to you, so you were baptized Mormon huh? You were raised in the church, or just lived in Utah for a spell?"
Ah, I was pretty much as Mormon as one can get. Born and raised in the church in the heart of Utah, on the Provo side of the mountains, by strict parents who made sure I knew, for example, that going on a mission wasn't a "choice" I was going to make; I *was* going to go. And my farewell and welcome-home services were absolutely not going to be made at all unique by me, even if the bishopric were to approve. Just to throw an example out there.

I've come a long journey in life to arrive at the place I live, and the way I think today. That's a bit of one organism's story here on Earth.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-24-2013, 09:14 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default You caught most of it

the jist of it was:

If Richard Dickhead Dawkins really had the degrees, schooling, and research experience that he claims, he would not make the foolish claims he does in any of his books, thus it is safe to say his degrees are either honorary or he has accepted two or three shitloads of money from wealthy individuals who have been hurt by the religious right wing and was paid to make the foolish statements he asserts.

No scientist would make such claims. True scientists have a respect for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, up to and including any known possible deviance from your conclusion. Scientists fully understand how frustrating it is to waste any amount of time -- let alone a life time -- dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge only to find out you based your work on some other scientists stretch of the truth.

In full disclosure I have only read excerpts of any of Dawkin's books, and I don't have to read them to know that from a scientific standpoint, they are junk as he is no scientist. He may have had schooling in psychology, and research psychologists are a rare breed. In the US a bachelor's degree for a Psychology major is awarded under Arts and Letters. They cannot preform any research and come to conclusions with any certainty because they rely on human feedback for data.

The are many many scientific disciplines wherein the conclusions made are 100% for certain as they occur on earth. But even science has been tainted by the male gender and their idiocy.

Scientists have no fear and no problem admitting they are wrong, they welcome evidence against their conclusions because their only goal and focus is on discovery of the truth.

Scientists are a rare breed, and their is a major difference between seekers of the truth and "reporter" of the truth such as the media and journalists.

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-24-2013 at 09:17 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-25-2013, 01:02 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,351
Default

Well sometimes I think there are individuals who "sound authoritative and professional;" heck even Wikipedia tends to sound authoritative and professional but it's an admitted fact that it's flawed, based on an honor system (no degree required to edit Wikipedia) and can't be counted as conclusive without research into its sources. People have a tendency to read something and feel like, "Wow that's impressive, this guy sounds like he really knows what he's talking about and has done his homework." Extensive knowledge is required to really make a good assessment of an author.

We have been conditioned to trust authority figures. Just today I had a bad experience at a very impressive dentist's office where I got the worst verdict of my life after the best brushing I've ever done. It was uncomfortable and disconcerting to have to say, "I think this very professional-seeming dentist has used the word 'decay' just so he could replace my silver fillings. I need a second opinion." Psychologically, my mind resisted the idea of questioning a guy with degrees when I don't have degrees (let alone in that field). I had to use common sense to determine that the pattern didn't track, and I felt like I was being irresponsible. It helped that I had my "hinge lady" with me and that she agreed with my suspicions.

It's like the archtypical car shop where you need one little part replaced and the mechanic says, "Oh you're lucky you came to me soon enough. We have to fix this and this and this and sure it will cost you thousands of dollars, but we'll be saving your whole car, just in time."

Ah, for the good old days when I didn't realize I needed to be paranoid.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-25-2013, 04:35 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default oh trust me, I hear what you are saying

the only reason I dabble in medicine and auto mechanics is because I know all to well not everyone is good at what they do for a living, and that is especially true for doctors and mechanics

luckily I do know professionals who are good at what they do for a living so I am not solely dependent on my amateur skills at either trade .

Perhaps I should state that I am not against people stating their opinions, no matter how absurd they may be, Dawkins writing his book is not what riles me, it's the fact that he adds elements in his story which are out right lies.

Again in full disclosure, I did not follow Dawkins throughout his life and so my claims that the schooling Dawkins lists as under his belt are fabricated can't be taken as fact. What I am saying is that he is no scientist, as even a person with the degrees can opt to abuse the name of science by injecting lies to ones work. And while I did get the list from Wikipedia, I don't think that part of the entry in discrepancy with what Dawkins claims, the error stems from it not being true, but I have no doubt Dawkins does claim the schooling and research the wiki lists, he just does it from a very carefully worded legalese standpoint

but there is a world of difference between a degree earned by taking the required classes and getting a passing grade and the degree that is awarded honorary

My problem with Dawkins is that he makes claims for other scientists which they never made. Darwin authored books himself, so I don't think it's OK for Dawkins to make his assertions and attribute the non-existence of God to another author's work.

Believe me, I get just as angry as Dawkins does at the conservative right wing, however I do not use their fabricated science as an excuse to fabricate my own science in retaliation. I do not believe there is ever an excuse to fudge science, I strongly believe that when people do it, the know damn well when they are doing it, and I believe it is wrong to state those areas of philosophical imaginations as opposed to theory based on what is accepted as science in a specific field.

Granted, he wrote his books in the eighties, and scientists knowledge of Genetics has grown leaps and bounds since then, mostly because of the discovery of a heavy duty transcriptase taking from bacteria that lives in hot springs with temperatures near that of boiling water. This transcriptase which is able to transcribe DNA and RNA at temperatures where our own transcriptase would fall apart and not be functional is what allows Polymerase Chain Reaction

PCR is responsible for the bulk of our knowledge since the eighties

Dawkins is not wrong to publish his fantasy view point of evolution and his theories of social and psychological evolution

He IS wrong to do so while also incorporating lies to punctuate his assertions. I believe there are very few instances in life where incorporating lies are acceptable, however science is one of the areas when and where fallacy is never acceptable. Scientists devise hypothesis and test them, never would a scientist attempt to publish a untested hypothesis, that would be the work of a journalist

there is a huge distinction between psychology and science, and Dawkins blends the two as if they are one and same, however psychology is a sub-set of pseudo-science in that it is restricted to opinion as opposed to fact. Psychology is light years behind all other science disciplines because of people like Dawkins who see nothing wrong with twisting the truth while denying the twist

it does matter, and until the day comes when people can be taught the benefits of truth and the gifts of understanding life that is offered to those who practice honesty, the field of psychology will remain severely crippled by the very male character trait of living in the firm grip of denial

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-25-2013 at 04:47 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-25-2013, 05:15 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 5,351
Default

So, there is a big difference between saying, "This is a fact," "I believe this is a fact," and "I've heard this is a fact." Or, would you contend that Dawkins consciously lies through his teeth, just to score points for the anti-religious side of the debate?

How does his knowledge of psychology play into it? Does he have expertise in presenting untruths (or unsubstantiated rumors) in such a way as to impress/sway the average reader? So, he is not using psychology to search for science, he is using it to make up science?

I am convinced that there are anti-religious crusaders who manipulate fact and rumor to bolster their own case, just as I'm convinced that there are pro-religious crusaders who manipulate fact and rumor to bolster their case. And sometimes the easiest way to procure a rumor is to make one up.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-25-2013, 09:11 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Dawkins is the worst type of angry atheist. If you could put his extreme views on a scale, he would be around an 8, he is an extremist. A Muslin with views that extreme would be viewed as a suspected terrorist.
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 12:33 PM.