0
   

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 05:22 am
@JamesMorrison,
J.M. wrote-

Quote:
Yes, and given my thoughts and beliefs even Paley’s watch found on the heath is considered natural.


Picasso said that art is "what nature is not". (artifice-artificial-artless).

Paley's watch is, for that, art. (artisan). And religion is art as is science and fashions and make-up and cooking and money.

Quote:
Yes, just like, amoungst others, Communisim.


But what is communism. Bernard Shaw's version is a long way from that of any known communist regimes. Jesus is often said to be the ultimate communist.

Quote:
First, I would hope that anything refered to as mayhem would be considered relevant, at least to the participants.


Maybe but that approach is not intellectual.

Quote:
The Spanish flu in 1918 killed 50 million people world wide and was relevant to the decedents as well as their families.


But it might be that the bug was only dangerous to weak immune systems and thus the cause of the weakness is what killed them. A much larger number survived exposure presumably with varying degrees of illness and were then immunised from further risk of that particular strain and possibly passing the immunity to their descendents. That is a very complex matter.

Quote:
I would contend that acts by humans committed in the name of religion has killed at least as many.


Again you have IMO a too simple approach. The present case of Georgia is a mish-mash of all sorts of issues. Putting it at religion's door is too easy and can distract from the real causes which then remain unaddressed.

Quote:
Therefore the pursuit of religion’s origins and causes are just as relevant as discovering those of the Flu.


Probably. There exists a large corpus of research and speculation on the origins and causes of religious beliefs.

Quote:
The pathways of such viral pathogens are helpful on a dual basis. Just as religion, viral “goodness” can be squeezzed from knowledge of the mechanisms they use to infect us (Vaccines and genetic insertion techniques). Perhaps, some day, we might develop a vaccine for some particulary viral strains of religion.


There's an assumption there that nature will not respond to our "vaccines" which we know is not the case with pathogens. And I think the same will apply to religious belief even in the case of Orwellian solutions.

Quote:
Is it your contention that God is a human invention?


Of course. What other possibility is there that we could know.

Quote:
I’m not sure of your definition of irreligion but I’m going to make a big assumption that you are refering to evolutionary scientists.


Your assumption is incorrect. There are not enough evolutionary scientists to have any significant effect. Their conclusions are welcomed by others who have some reason to be irreligious as when they wish to behave and justify behaviour which religion tells them is wrong. Without the support of those the evolutionary scientists would be unheard. A suspicion exists that people like Dawkins are pandering to their wandering desires for reasons of self-promotion. I could wipe him out in debate. He doesn't even know The Case of Walter Pater.

Quote:
Further, I assume that “irreligious examples” should have a more positive note: you think that scientists like Richard Dawkins should be kinder to those who espouse a belief in a higher entity, that is a God.


Yes. He should stand for election and have his views put under real scrutiny. His supporters in Media would soon bolt if that were done.

Quote:
But perhaps you have not witnessed the contextual asasssination that many of the scientists have endured at the hands of Creationists and, lately, Intelligence Design types.


That's another matter. A series of incidents with many causes. It is a dangerous parapet to stick your head up over. Shouldn't they just get on with their science. Once you enter the public domain you will get shot at. They should stand for election too.

Quote:
But More importantly, the scientists’ orginal intent was not to denigrate religionists but merely to discover worldly facts.


Oh yeah. Which "wordly facts"? Have they bothered studying Freud? There are wordly facts concerning rumpy-pumpy you know. And also things such as calming influences and the aesthetics of ceremonies.

Money is in play James. Big money.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 01:17 pm
@loony,
loony wrote:
boiled down:
religion(creationism, christanity, catholicism, scientology, budism etc)
= human designed establishment and explanation of life as we know it.

Science (ecology, evolutionism, darwinism etc) = Tool for humans to use in the understanding of why humans and the universe exist in the form we know it.

Religion can be a psychological tool used to help mediate the differences between physical reality and emotional desire. It can also be a tool to manipulate the behavior of others.

Science is a naturalistic methodology used to explore and categorize natural systems and conditions.

I think the key difference between these tools is that religion bases its evidentiary status on subjective emotions and perceptions, whereas science bases it's evidentiary status on objective external physical reality.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 05:28 pm
@rosborne979,
And "objective external physical reality" is a terrifying prospect and the only thing to do about it is to tickle up the "subjective emotions and perceptions".

ros uses "objective external physical reality" abstractly. As a sort of concept. A commodity so to speak.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 04:47 am
@rosborne979,
ros wrote-

Quote:
Religion can be a psychological tool used to help mediate the differences between physical reality and emotional desire. It can also be a tool to manipulate the behavior of others.


Next he wrote-

Quote:
Science is a naturalistic methodology used to explore and categorize natural systems and conditions.


But he forgot to add " It can also be a tool to manipulate the behavior of others". Which it can.

One has to wonder why.

But if ros has me on "ignore" he has escaped the need to answer and is empowered to proceed with his argument that religious belief is a dead loss with stopping to deal with weaknesses in his argument.




spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 05:09 am
@spendius,
Edit "with" to "without".
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 08:25 pm
What ever happened to BadDog and RL. Such a pair.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:33 am
@rosborne979,
RL is haunting other sites. He was a treat, Baddog was jut a flunkie.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 10:42 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
RL is haunting other sites. He was a treat, Baddog was jut a flunkie.

They were a good tag team though. BD would post some creationist nonesense and RL would weave a skein of lies around it. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 11:02:50