I don't associate words like 'doctrine' and 'dogma' with science/biology, you do — universeness
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
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
Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me. — EugeneW
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
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?The British Isles have been invaded 73 time in the last 1000 — Gregory A
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. — universeness
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
Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does — EugeneW
One example is sufficient evidence. — EugeneW
In science, one example is never sufficient evidence — universeness
BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain? — EugeneW
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
In the same way you take the opposite view. — universeness
A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule. — universeness
Dogma is being used in science — EugeneW
Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers. — universeness
I just dont agree. — universeness
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
Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not. — EugeneW
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
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 — Gregory A
Dawkins attacks are mostly on Christians not the concept of a god anyhow. — Gregory A
He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah! — 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
— 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
The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!! — EugeneW
How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? — 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?Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? — EugeneW
What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use? — EugeneW
I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted — EugeneW
He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence — universeness
This is one of your long-playing repeats — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.