Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Ah,
Now I am enlightened about that puzzling comment about meeting the Buddha. If forced to follow a principle or commandment like that, I would indeed have to kill him if I met him (or God). I don't think that's what was meant though.

In further reading I see that the definition of 'gods' in Buddhism is one of the forms that one might be reincarnated in if I understood correctly. While the same word is used, it does not have the connotation of a truly 'higher being' that theism postulates, so in that sense it looks like they exclude the existence of a 'God'.

Let me know if I've missed an important aspect of this. Sounds like you've looked at it closely.

Buddhist gods are incredibly long-lived and higher beings than humans, which are higher beings than other animals, disembodied spirits that inhabit trees, etc. But they're not immortal nor creators. In any event, they, like your god, require a leap of faith, as there seems to be no credible, demonstrable evidence that any of them exist.

OK. All you said of their gods may be their beliefs, but the gods are still just themselves in higher form. There is no separate entity. That's all I was wondering.

Once again in English?

Edit: That was an attempt at levity, not an insult.

Huh? Are we jumping threads? I've lost the train of thought...

Edit: or are you conflating all belief in God with the Buddhist model?

I'm saying they're equivalent in the sense that there's no more evidence for one than the other.

True. The evidence, at least the first order type, is the same in both cases. They both sense that urge to know.

The urge to know is more easily attributable to evolutionary pscyhology than an invisible, supernatural being. You still haven't used this successfully to support your god hypothesis.

I was far from being done!

Evolutionary psychology is hilarious. And much of current psychology is too for that matter. There are so many schools of thought in 'regular' psychology that speculating on evolutionary psychology seems more unlikely to succeed than 'proving God'. IMO of course.

But that reminds me of past discussions about this. The 'experts' were so myopically focused on psychology being largely controlled by strategies to maximize the spreading of genes (having sex) that it had me falling down laughing. Sex is a powerful drive but it is far from explaining so much of human behavior. But damn! That doesn't fit the all explaining theory of evolution.

But then on we men go, evolution making us buy that Ferrari all in the hopes of getting laid and the women going for it because evolution has conditioned them to know that shiny red cars are a sign that maximizes the chance of her offspring being well taken care of. Evolution explains everything. Funny stuff.

and "pie in the sky, by and by" is what appeals to you??

It depends on what flavor. Key Lime would be nice though.

What kind of cars do you like?

cars and trucks are transportation, and Not a sex toy.

Women who like you for your car wont be great conversationalists and are prolly a bit shallow.

Remember, No matter how hot a woman is, there is some guys out there who is tired of putting up with her ****"
_Courtesy of the Bi-Polr Bear (Who was also probably terminally tired of Frank Apisa' s obsessive ****)

Yeah, That was kinda my point (about women).

But the BS I've heard from 'evolutionary psychologists' tend to characterize both women and men as animals driven (consciously or unconsciously) by evolutionary forces to insure their specie's survival by maximizing mating opportunities in the case of males and choosing mates best suited to protect their offspring in the case of females. So in effect, expensive cars ARE - sex toys for the preservation of the species. I have no patience for that kind of shallow crap - **** 'evolutionary psychology'. And I base that emotion on the evidence, not any belief or non belief in a creator.

But I strongly disagree about cars. They are mainly for recreation (though not of the sexual variety) in my life.

Trucks are for hauling stuff. People who drive a truck for any other purpose are probably the evidence those idiot evolutionary psychologists are using for their conclusions, i.e. they're sex toys.

PS: I hope your daily driver isn't a truck unless you got something in the truck bed :-)

I own a farm where I raise crops, sheep , and cattle. My wife and I mostly drive trucks.
I think your opinions are generated from lack of real world experience HOW old are you really?? Are you over 25? You will see that cars are basically AGE focused. . I look back and smile on those things


Many of your statements sound artfully youthful (I dont mean that as a compliment)

Artfully young eh? I'm not sensitive about my age or experience. I'm not a braggart but since you were wondering:

I've been interested in the big questions of life since age 7.
I 've been married 3 times and have two daughters.
I served as an infantryman in Vietnam.
I was an engineer at Sperry Univac/Lockheed Martin for 20 years.
I was the CEO of my own company for 22 years (still am)
I've built every house I've owned except for the first one.
I've designed and/or built 5 airplanes.
I've raced motorcycles, cars and airplanes and hold a speed record in one class (in a plane I built) I still race cars.
I consider the above to be the least of my achievements but hope that qualifies as 'having some experience in life' for you.
I had my 68th birthday a few days ago.

OK, your use and ownership of trucks is justified. Keep on truck'n Farmer.

Back to the strawman appeals? I thought you'd sworn off them. Evolution, nevertheless, explains a lot more than any god hypothesis I've seen to date, seeing as how the former offers an abundance of verifiable, falsifiable evidence, while the latter lacks a single scrap of it. I notice in that whole post, most of which I elided, you didn't do a single thing to support your claim about the "urge to know" being evidence for your god hypothesis. Yeah, evolutionary psychology is a fledgling science, but it still has more explanatory power than an invisible, undetectable, all-powerful spirit-thing.

I wasn't at the point of addressing the creator, just chuckling about the current state of psychology. But somehow I don't think you'll be receptive to arguments contrary to your beliefs at any point.

The psychology which accompanies utter bigotry is quite baffling, eh, Leddy?

It seems impossible for some people, once they have made a positive assertion of one kind or another, to EVER rethink it, let alone retract it. They would be admitting they might have been (or were) wrong, and that's just totally unacceptable to them.

It can get ridiculous, to the point of denying obvious and well-known facts, if that's what it takes. If they say a dog walked (but did not run) down the street and you show them a first hand account which says "The dog ran down the street" they will go so far as to say: "SEE, it says right there that the dog didn't run."

If you can ever get them to re-read the sentence, and they realize they misread it, they will never acknowledge that either. They will say it doesn't matter what the guy said because he's an obvious liar, anyway, or some such new denial to avoid further discussion of the content of the sentence.