I don't associate words like 'doctrine' and 'dogma' with science/biology, you do — universeness

Central dogma of molecular biology

Not my words, Uni.

All I can suggest is that you read the words you typed above back to yourself in as calm and subjective a manner as you can. Decide if you think your own words might read as bitter and angry when others read them. — universeness

Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me.

Yeah, I have heard all those black and Hispanic people living in the American ghettos are having a fab time and 'have everything they need.' Do you visit and walk through them at night without fear on a regular basis? The indigenous American tribal peoples are also very happy with their treatment since we Europeans stole their lands and named the whole place after an Italian mapmaker.
Where have you lived your life Gregory A in a Beverly hills bubble?
I don't know your back story but you do seem to have some naive viewpoints in my opinion.
I don't want to throw too many stones at you however as I am certainly not without sin myself.
Sin in my own non-religious definition, of course. — universeness

It's in our nationalistic interest to believe that Americans don't have it so good. But the reality is that their poor still have it better than we think. Poverty would be measured relative to regular living standards which are quite higher there than anywhere else. The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 years, it's survival of the fittest according to non-believers? I'm immodest and impolite, definitely not an American.

Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me. — EugeneW

Ok!

It's in our nationalistic interest to believe that Americans don't have it so good. But the reality is that their poor still have it better than we think, poverty would be measured relative to regular living standards which are quite higher than anywhere else. — Gregory A

I will leave it up to any American readers of your above typings to agree or disagree with you as they are probably the best suited to the task.

The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 — Gregory A

Every civilisation ever created in human history experiences attacks from outside groups this is as you suggest a result of our survival of the fittest origins but belief in god fables has just been used as another convenient reason for attacking those with different beliefs. They are all bad reasons, differing religion/colour/culture/nationality/gender/sexual preference etc etc. WAR, what is it good for?
Humans need to focus on what can unite them not divide them. Theism is much more divisive compared to atheism. Religion offers thousands of incarnations, atheism offers one.

Central dogma of molecular biology
Not my words, Uni — EugeneW

Dogma is described as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I think most scientists are not happy with the idea that anything can be claimed as 'incontrovertibly true.'
So I assume that, as the material your link took me to has the description:

but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible

the authors considered use of the term 'Dogma' was apt in this case.

Is this the only use of the term Dogma being used to aid the understanding of a scientific paper, that you have encountered? This is hardly overwhelming evidence that all of science is intrinsically dogmatic.

Dogma is described as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. — universeness

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does.

Is this the only use of the term Dogma being used to aid the understanding of a scientific paper, that you have encountered? This is hardly overwhelming evidence that all of science is intrinsically dogmatic. — universeness

One example is sufficient evidence. Science uses dogma! The area it covers is immense.

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does — EugeneW

No he doesn't. He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists, he states a confidence level of 99.9%, as do I. 'God does not exist and that is an incontrovertible fact,' cannot be stated by atheists.
Therefore the atheist position is not dogmatic, in my opinion. But many individual members of all religions will claim that the existence of their particular god is an incontrovertible fact, so they are dogmatic. Do you claim with 100% confidence that your god(s) exist?

One example is sufficient evidence. — EugeneW

In science, one example is never sufficient evidence.

I mean what he claims in his books. It's based on the central dogma. BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain?

In science, one example is never sufficient evidence — universeness

We dont talk science. We talk about science. In math one counter example disproves a claim. I disproved your claim that science aint about dogma.

BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain? — EugeneW

In the same way you take the opposite view.

We dont talk science. We talk about science. In math one counter example disproves a claim. I disproved your claim that science aint about dogma — EugeneW

A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule.

In the same way you take the opposite view. — universeness

I don't say there is a chance of being right, or that therd is a chance that there are gods. It's a ridiculous statement.

A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule. — universeness

There is no denial possible, universeness. Dogma is being used in science. It's even your hero using it!

By the way, the dogma has been proven in a very tiny amount of actual organisms. In very limited experimental set ups, not occurring in real life.

I criticized it at a biology forum. Banned!

Dogma is being used in science — EugeneW

I just dont agree. Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers.
Apart from complete morons like Ken Ham and his 'answers in genisis,' cronies, most religions now accept evolution from natural selection but claim it as god(s) work. Compare that to the days of the Scopes monkey trial and the treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Theism lost the moral high ground years and years ago and they will never get it back nor do they deserve to. Any dogmatic intent you try to highlight from science pales in comparison to theistic intrigues, past and present.

Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers. — universeness

Religion takes credit for no scientific discoveries. It can help though in formulating or inventing models.

I just dont agree. — universeness

Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not.

Apart from complete morons like Ken Ham and his 'answers in genisis,' cronies, most religions now accept evolution from natural selection but claim it as god(s) work. Compare that to the days of the Scopes monkey trial and the treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. — universeness

I agree with the moron claim! Galileo was banned on rational grounds. There was no evidence for his claims yet. I would let the man be. Why bother? He lived a good last part of his life though. His case is merely used by atheists to show the stupidity of the church. And like I told you before, the church was actually right! General relativity shows that even rotation is relative.

Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not. — EugeneW

Well the word has been used in biology, that's the only bit that's true.

I think we have gone around and around enough EugeneW.
My position has not moved one Planck length based on anything you have typed on this thread and I am sure the same is true for you.
I have nothing else to add that I have not already stated.
Thank you for the exchange.

"Go gently in the dark", Scotsman! Don't look too deep in the bottle! Thnx for the ever exciting exchange.

:smile:

Sure it's a cliché, but I didn't establish it as one - that was done by every thinker or apologist from Nietzsche to Jordan Peterson. It's a very common 'go to' argument against atheism. — Tom Storm

Such was certainly not Karl Polanyi's intent, it is a purely economic perspective, but it fits the bill.

We must agree though that the secular worldview is in perfect agreement with the the secular economic activities. Religion forms an obstacle as it views creation as divine, not to be touched upon too much. Economic activity exploits that creation to a large extent. As does science. The scientific imperative dictates to discover and explore in all direction relentlessly. Helium is liquefied, xenon and neon isolated, matter is probed up to micro scales in the largest most expensive machines, nature including us (the creation of the gods) is being worked on as never before and the atheist attitude puts no limits in this workings.

I can't help feeling that many, if not most, scientist because they in fact are lousy, prejudiced, contemptuous creatures. They are wannabe geniuses actually knowing nothing at all and only by ventilating their atheist talk they can at least appear to be on a level where the real science geniuses, which they so worship and adore, are probing the world. The so-called geniuses though are mostly conformists, trying to keep up the image of being one the chosen few in possession of some sacred god-given knowledge, while posing with mathematical equations and jargon to impress the unknowing laymen in an attempt to keep their position safe and secure.

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does
— EugeneW

No he doesn't. He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists, he states a confidence level of 99.9%, as do I. 'God does not exist and that is an incontrovertible fact,' cannot be stated by atheists.
Therefore the atheist position is not dogmatic, in my opinion. But many individual members of all religions will claim that the existence of their particular god is an incontrovertible fact, so they are dogmatic. Do you claim with 100% confidence that your god(s) exist? — universeness

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief. He would be every bit as dogmatic as the believers he rejects. Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow.

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief — Gregory A

I don't know how you justify the 'jumps' you make from the words I type to the conclusions you arrive at in your head. I said 'He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists,' I did NOT restrict his statement to the Christian god of the bible, neither does he. He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah!
I would accept that he, like me, is DOGMATIC/passionately against many practices of the main religions.
I am incontrovertibly opposed to the evanhellicals, they are just evil through and through. Dawkins is aggressively/dogmatically against their practices as well. He has a similar stance against Sharia law from Islam or So-called Christians telling CHILDREN they will f****** burn in hell FOR ETERNITY if they don't believe. I and Richard Dawkins are unable to respond in a 'nice way' to such evil.
Dawkins will also say that historical religious practices such as pagan human sacrifice was totally F***** up thinking as well! I'm sure you are also personally against all the practices I have described above and in fact, share this common ground with Richard Dawkins. You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.'

Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow. — Gregory A

You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and writes rather than your projections.
Please actually quote from Dawkins when you critique him negatively and try your best to be balanced in your critique and not quote him out of context. I will respond in kind and that way our exchange might have some value. If you want to start a separate thread, specifically on Dawkins then I will gladly contribute as a defender of his position. There are a lot of YouTube materials from him which can be cited, including his audiobooks, free on YouTube.

He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah! — universeness

The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!!
How can he apply it to non-existing gods? How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use?

I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted!

The problem there would be that his non-belief is in the god depicted in the Bible, which ties him into a position relative to that belief
— Gregory A

I don't know how you justify the 'jumps' you make from the words I type to the conclusions you arrive at in your head. I said 'He regularly states that he cannot disprove god exists,' I did NOT restrict his statement to the Christian god of the bible, neither does he. He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah!
I would accept that he, like me, is DOGMATIC/passionately against many practices of the main religions.
I am incontrovertibly opposed to the evanhellicals, they are just evil through and through. Dawkins is aggressively/dogmatically against their practices as well. He has a similar stance against Sharia law from Islam or So-called Christians telling CHILDREN they will f****** burn in hell FOR ETERNITY if they don't believe. I and Richard Dawkins are unable to respond in a 'nice way' to such evil.
Dawkins will also say that historical religious practices such as pagan human sacrifice was totally F***** up thinking as well! I'm sure you are also personally against all the practices I have described above and in fact, share this common ground with Richard Dawkins. You would get much more support from him in establishing full equal political and social status for all gay people than you will from the vast majority of 'believers.'

Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow.
— Gregory A

You need to pay more attention to what he actually says and writes rather than your projections.
Please actually quote from Dawkins when you critique him negatively and try your best to be balanced in your critique and not quote him out of context. I will respond in kind and that way our exchange might have some value. If you want to start a separate thread, specifically on Dawkins then I will gladly contribute as a defender of his position. There are a lot of YouTube materials from him which can be cited, including his audiobooks, free on YouTube. — universeness

I understand what you are saying, no need to stress. And it is myself that's being frustrated as I can see you don't pick up on anything I'm saying. The point being missed is that 'atheism' exists only in relation to 'theism', and should have nothing whatever to say about religion. If on the other hand they (atheists) do, then they do that from the perspective of being sociologists, which in this instance once again leads to a fail, as religion has contributed far more to societies than it ever takes away, and that's regardless of your 'bad apple picking'.

A physicist at a philosophy forum does not a philosopher make.

The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!! — EugeneW

You reminded me of an old Toyah song that I used to use as a wake-up call in the morning.
I think this was my wake-up call from about the age 22 to 26!

How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? — EugeneW

This is one of your long-playing repeats, I have already stated this answer to you more than once.
He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence. Which I personally think is a much more convincing intuition than your intuition that gods exist.

Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? — EugeneW

Yes, obviously he does not mention every god that has ever been invented by every tribe in history EugeneW, is that what he would have to do for you?

What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use? — EugeneW

What does your god calculations look like? what samples do you use?

I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted — EugeneW

I don't think he will care one jot, he plays in much more important playpens than TPF
Good, please pay attention to the suggestions I gave to Gregory A. Don't waste time with frivolous or meaningless claims, stick to actual valid quotes he has made that are pertinent to any point you are attempting to make and I will try to do the same.

He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence — universeness

Goooooodmorning universeness! Howbout that! Nice song! You're from 1964?

Dawkins arrived at that value on intuition? How scientific! It's Dawkins making meaningless claims. It means nothing to say you're 99.9% sure gods don't exist. I can say I'm 100% sure the do. That's higher than his meaningless value!

This is one of your long-playing repeats — universeness

Ive asked it twice! Without an answer, I might add. Chance from intuition is BS.