What claim? My post doesn't make any claims (except that I found the video fascinating). The title of the thread is the title of the video I linked. Again... learn to read rather than jumping to bigoted conclusions
You start a thread called "Why we believe in Gods" and I actually assume you thought your post actually provided that answer. Yes, what solid proof of bigotry on my part!
Again, I'd bet good money you didn't even watch it all (if any) which would explain your reliance on what you think is Gould's opinion
I watched up until the point where he compared religious belief to our appeal to Big Macs.
Holy crap... all anyone need do is read any recent thread on evolution to see numerous examples of you misunderstanding science. Your classic "numerous tornados" analogy demonstrates your misunderstanding of evolution beautifully, for example.
Thank you so very much for illustrating your ignorance. The analogy
didn't even pertain to evolution to begin with, but rather abiogenesis. Care to try again? I've asked other atheists here to point out a single scientific principle I have rejected, and they've not managed to produce a single example. You're no exception.
And I noticed you ducked the question of why it's dumb.
The implication is that it is science. It is dumb because it presents itself as scientific fact, when in reality it is just a fringe movement headed by atheists trying to expand evolution principles to anything they can dream up. They think they can use it to explain why their enemies (theists) believe they way they do, feel the way they feel, are the way they are, etc. What arrogance.
No, I don't know. It's you that claims to know the mind of others. I'm not that stupid.
Yes, by reading what they say on the matter. Gould was no stranger to what the Darwinian fundamentalists were trying to do. I'm sorry you feel that reading would prove stupidity on your part. Yor speaker was highly influenced by Robert Wright's
The Moral Animal. Some arguments similar to these mentioned by Thomson have been touched upon in this forum. For eample, earlier this year Tarski (maybe it was The Dude?) said: "Why is sugar sweet? Hint: Calories. Evolution. "Sweetness" isn't intrinsic to sugar.
I responded: "Of course sweetness is not intrinsic to sugar, but you haven't even begun to explain why sugar tastes good to us. "Calories" is your explantion? That isn't science my friend. Not everything that tastes good is necessary for our replication."
Similarly, Gould points out how evolutionary psychology ultimately amounts to speculation unsupported by evidence. This is from his
The Richness of LIfe page 460:
The task of evolutionary psychology then turns into a speculative search for reasons why a behavior may harm us now must once have originated for adaptive purposes. To take an illustration proposed seriously by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal, a sweet tooth leads to unhealthy obesity today but muct have arisen as an adaptation. Wright therefore states, "the classic example of an adaptation that has outlived its logic is the sweet tooth. Our fondness for sweetness was designed for an environment in which fruit existed but candy didn't."
The statement ranks as pure guesswork in the cocktal party mode; Wright presents no nuerological evidence of a brain module for sweetness and no paleontological dat about ancestral feeding. This "just-so story" therefore cannot stand as a "classic example of an adaptation" in any sense deserving the name of science.
Much of evolutionary psychology therefore devolves into a search for the so-called "environment of evolutionary adaptation," which allegedly prevailed in prehistoric times. Evolutionary psychologists have gained some sophistication in recognizing that they need not postulate current utility to advance Darwinian argument; but they have made their enterprise even less operational by placing their central postulate outside the primary definition of science - for claims about an EEA usually cannot be tested in principle but only subjected to speculation... In short, evolutionary psychology is as ultra-Darwinian as any previous behavioral theory in insisting upon adaptive reasons for origin as the key desideratum of the enterprise...the chief strategy proposed by evolutionary psychologists for identifying adapttion is untestable and therefore unscientific.
Homer continues...
You have claimed to know what both Dawkins and Einstein think, always reflecting your own bias.
Um, I've quoted them. I quote them accurately. I've never been shown to misrepresent either of them. Ever. I see you're still unable to provide specific examples.
You have a long habit of reading the words and not grasping the meaning between the lines, or at least, ignoring it in favor of your own prejudice.
With such a "long habit," you should be able to point out specific examples.
Again, we see more reliance on some phantom opinion of Gould, and you don't mention what you, dart, finds so objectionable from a scientific point of view. Shocker!
Uh, I said it
isn't science and so did Gould. How much more "objectionable from a scientific point of view" can one get? You have yet to explain why it should be considered science. And I find it humorous that people here react so vehemently towards any type of non-scientific enterprise such as ID, simply because its agenda is to support theism, whereas you have no problems with similar non-scientific enterprises, so long as they promote your religion of radical atheism.
And I'm willing to bet you think you know exactly the kind of person I am, huh? No caricatures from you (like "black and white thinkers"), just spine-tingling insight, based on your uncanny ability to read people's minds.
Nope, no idea what kind of person you are. I suspect you were telling the truth when you said you reside in England. Aside from being fairly pithy in your posting style and belligerent in your attitude towards theists, I know next to nothing about who you are.
Does who starts a thread determine who's a bigot, dart-o? Or is it based on the bigoted things people say?
Clearly the later, but I was makng a point about those who start threads. People who start these kinds of threads are clearly those with a need to lash out. I respond to threads that I feel attack my view point and describe it as irrational or stupid. You and mercury and Gadianton and others have on many occassions referred to religious people as nutjobs in a round-about way. While I'm supposed to be a bigot, but you don't see me starting anti-atheist threads or even saying anything that would support your assertion that I'm a bigot. By comparison, you and your ilk constantly create one thread after another that is intended to belittle theists and lift yourselves up in confidence that yours is the true religon - based on science!
And I've never claimed that theists couldn't be good scientists (although I think it's pretty funny dart continues to cling to the idea we wouldn't have modern science without Christianity).
I didn't say you did, but I think it is funny that so many atheists here would be wiling to reveal their ignorance on this subject by arguing against it. You don't understand how close the Muslim empire came to conquering the western world. In said event, we'd be under Islamic rule just as the Mid-East remains to be. That means no Universities, no systematic, institutionalized educational system involving scientific inquiry. ANd why would there be, since in Islam, there are no natural laws because God is omnipotent in the most literal sense. According to Islamic theology, God can stop time, create a round square, make 2+2=6, etc. So there was little need to explore natural phenomena that were never understood to be constant. By contrast, Christianity maintains that natural laws exist and they are there to be learned and understood. Only someone completely ignorant of the history of science, as well as the earlier cvilizations would suggest we'd have modern science as it is, without Christianity. The names i mentioned were the fathers of modern science, and they were overwhelmingly devout Christians whose religious belief made them the great scientists they were.
I said that if I want the good science, I think the best source is from people who actually think in scientific terms, requiring evidence for all their thought, not just what's convenient.
Pretty ironic then, since that is precisely what Thomson does. They assume a premise and invent evidence to meet that conclusion. So sugar is sweet? Well, that's because of evolution. So they invent some dreamed up environment that our ancestors must have lived in, so it can dovetail with their conclusion. WHo needs evidence and a scietific method when bald assertion works just the same on those eager to see a particular conclusion verified. A "just-so story" as Gould suggested.
It's actually you who seems to think that good science can't come from an atheist, ironically enough. This thread is a perfect example (in case your looking for another reference).
Hogwash. I reject it as science because it isn't science; not simply because he is an atheist. I'm willing to recognize scientific achievements by atheists, even if you're not willing to do so with theists.
I'm not sure who you're thinking of, specifically, but you're right; it doesn't get more bigoted than making claims about those people in advance of getting to know them, as you tend to do.
Uh huh. So did you respond with equal indignance when Thomson suggested his atheistic audience was somewhat immune to stupid beliefs? Remember the part where he referred to a tree and the moon providing supernatural insight? He said we would be vulnerable to such an argument, and then as one person grumbled outloud, he immediately qualified it with, "Well maybe not this audience," to which the crowd of bigots roared with laughter at the expense of the billions of theists in the world.
The message with your lot has always been the same: Atheists are smarter people and more advanced in evolution.
I'm not bigoted against all theists, just the ones who tend to act like arrogant pricks in the process of showing they have no idea what they're talking about.
You do realize of course, that all theists on this forum are subjected to your numerous ridiculing posts. At the very least, we know you're not considerate of, or sensitive to their feelings or beliefs. That would count as bigotry in most contexts.