Deny God and win a free DVD

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Also, Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He's a sensationalist, and not really accepted by real evolutionary theorists. Every time he flaps his mouth he makes science look bad.

Wow. I agree with the rest of your posts, but wow. You may not agree with Dawkins as a theologian but as an evolutionary scientist/ecologist he is among the top in his field. He is a fellow with the Royal Society, has been awarded the Michael Faraday Award, International Cosmos Prize and came first in Prospect Magazines top 100 British intellectuals, among dozens of other awards.

Disagree all you want about his theological views but don't try to sweep his amazing achievements in evolutionary science under the rug.

Well, he loses tons of credibility with the "Selfish Gene." Oddly enough, the book that made him famous. This theory is largely dissproven, and wasn't really accepted in his time by real scientists. It's quite simple really, he argues that a gene is passed on b/c of it's inherent will (or desire, even) to survive; even at the expense of the organism that it inhabits. (Many supposedly beneficial genes are linked to deliterious ones as well...sh1t happens in evolution)

The problem, of course, is ascribing willpower to a gene. It shows a lack of understanding genetics. Perhaps he has since rescinded this theory, but I don't think he has. Honestly, the theory is so preposterous (it's borderline numbskullery), that I can't respect anything he says.

I work in genetics, and have spent a good bit of time in an evolutionary genetics lab a few years back. It's pretty clear that nothing he said at that time is verifiable (even when he said it).

Even in death, Gould is a smarter man than he.

EDIT: oh, many in evolutionary genetics (yes, a former mentor included), feel that Dawkins is a rube. His atheistic proselitizing just helps to give a bad name to science.
Someone like that, who isn't honestly respected by his collegues, is not the person to speak out in the name of science. His work is pretty weak, and really won't hold up when the ultra-fundy attacks start pouring in. And you know what...many of his collegues probably won't try to back him up.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

1) Pissed off teenagers angry at their parents for not buying them a pS3
2) Miserable people who find Christianity an easy target for blaming all their problems on

Case in point, do any of these people doing this look like people happy with their lives? 🙂

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Well, he loses tons of credibility with the "Selfish Gene." Oddly enough, the book that made him famous. This theory is largely dissproven, and wasn't really accepted in his time by real scientists. It's quite simple really, he argues that a gene is passed on b/c of it's inherent will (or desire, even) to survive; even at the expense of the organism that it inhabits. (Many supposedly beneficial genes are linked to deliterious ones as well...sh1t happens in evolution)

Ignorance FTW.

The problem, of course, is ascribing willpower to a gene. It shows a lack of understanding genetics. Perhaps he has since rescinded this theory, but I don't think he has. Honestly, the theory is so preposterous (it's borderline numbskullery), that I can't respect anything he says.

You honestly believe he thinks the genes actually have "wants"? It's convenient shorthand.

I work in genetics, and have spent a good bit of time in an evolutionary genetics lab a few years back. It's pretty clear that nothing he said at that time is verifiable (even when he said it).

I am completely dumbfounded. Are you sure? Please explain to me because I'm at a total loss. I cannot reconcile this with your previous comments.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I look back in history and I see countless murders and atrocities done by the Huns, Rome, Colonial Britain, Napoleonic France, Colonial Dutch, Zulus, Egyptians, Aztecs, Apache, Communists, Japanese, Early Americans, Spartans, and Nazi Germany to name a very small percentage. None of their atrocities was in the name of God.

The 10 or so crusades that occured are fairly obvious atrocities that occured in the name of God. However, I'm not quite sure how this is relevant. People should be judged by how they act, not by how their ancestors acted.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

 

[SolMiester]

All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

What would be the difference? "Zeus" is just "God" in ancient Greek. In fact, the actual word was "Dios," and how do people of the latin languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) say "God" today? Does "dios" spelled backwards mean "perro?" 🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

😕

Kindly explain what religion had to do with starting WWI or WWII.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

That's just it. You DON'T know this.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

Thats a ridiculous statement. All of those wars would have happened regardless of religion. I'm no fan of religion, but to pretend that it is the cause of wars is just wrong. Differences among men are the cause of war, we will fight over anything just about including land, money and pride. Its been said there are two reasons a person does something, a good reason and the real reason. I doubt religion was ever the real reason for any wars, its just a good one given to hide the real reason.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

What would be the difference? "Zeus" is just "God" in ancient Greek. In fact, the actual word was "Dios," and how do people of the latin languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) say "God" today? Does "dios" spelled backwards mean "perro?" 🙂

The difference is no one here would have their panties in a bunch over you tube videos denying his existence.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

What would be the difference? "Zeus" is just "God" in ancient Greek. In fact, the actual word was "Dios," and how do people of the latin languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) say "God" today? Does "dios" spelled backwards mean "perro?" 🙂

The difference is no one here would have their panties in a bunch over you tube videos denying his existence.

probably because there appears to be malice behind the intent of this "challenge" toward a particular group

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

What would be the difference? "Zeus" is just "God" in ancient Greek. In fact, the actual word was "Dios," and how do people of the latin languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) say "God" today? Does "dios" spelled backwards mean "perro?" 🙂

The difference is no one here would have their panties in a bunch over you tube videos denying his existence.

It's just linguistics though. As most early Christians were Greeks, it's almost a certainty that Zeus was the first name for the Christian god. There is a school of thought even that the name Jesus didn't derive from Yeshua (Joshua) but from Yah-Zeus, which would have meant "God of the Jews." Christ we know for certain came from Christos, which in Greek means "The Anointed One."

Okay, so now you're probably thinking you chose the wrong example, right? Oops, the English word "God" and the word "Odin" are believed to have similar origins.

I understand your point, but IMO those panties would be bunching on the basis of prejudice.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: SolMiester
All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

Thats a ridiculous statement. All of those wars would have happened regardless of religion. I'm no fan of religion, but to pretend that it is the cause of wars is just wrong. Differences among men are the cause of war, we will fight over anything just about including land, money and pride. Its been said there are two reasons a person does something, a good reason and the real reason. I doubt religion was ever the real reason for any wars, its just a good one given to hide the real reason.

Eh...the killing of the Austrian Prince...was WW1, I believed that was due to religious differences, as for WW2, well, I guess Hitlers view of the successful Jews and their religion....

 

[potato28]

Free DVD? Not worth it... 🙁

 

[SlitheryDee]

So it's Satan's website? Seems like that would be an awesome joke in hell.

So you do this and then you die shortly afterward. You wake up in a very hot place at the feet of a massive red minotaur (presumably satan)

You: Wha..Where am I?

Satan: Where do you think you are nimrod? This is hell...

You: Waitasec...there is no hell. Besides, I lived a life of pure good. I donated to charities, loved my fellow man, and all that other stuff. How could I possibly end up in hell?

Satan: Yeah you did live a pretty good life. Good enough for your lack of belief to have been forgiven anyway. There was just one thing you did wrong...

You: What?

Satan: YOU FELL FOR THE WEBSITE DIPSH!T! AHAHAHAHAHAH!

You: (fading into the distance) Guess I shoulda checked the source code. NOOOOOOoooooo....

 

[drifter106]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

1) Pissed off teenagers angry at their parents for not buying them a pS3
2) Miserable people who find Christianity an easy target for blaming all their problems on

Case in point, do any of these people doing this look like people happy with their lives? 🙂

I can agree somewhat with your statement. After reading some of the responses, they became redundant after the 2nd page, but did notice many people writing with anger and hate. Very negative and to be honest, they seem to be somewhat miserable. Whats really sad is that many of them truly believe in what they say. Sad....maybe a life altering event would have a positive effect on their lives thus allowing them to be productive members of society.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Xylitol
Who in their right mind would do this?

Would you ask the same question if they were denying Zeus to win a free DVD about greek mythology?

What would be the difference? "Zeus" is just "God" in ancient Greek. In fact, the actual word was "Dios," and how do people of the latin languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.) say "God" today? Does "dios" spelled backwards mean "perro?" 🙂

The difference is no one here would have their panties in a bunch over you tube videos denying his existence.

It's just linguistics though. As most early Christians were Greeks, it's almost a certainty that Zeus was the first name for the Christian god. There is a school of thought even that the name Jesus didn't derive from Yeshua (Joshua) but from Yah-Zeus, which would have meant "God of the Jews." Christ we know for certain came from Christos, which in Greek means "The Anointed One."

Okay, so now you're probably thinking you chose the wrong example, right? Oops, the English word "God" and the word "Odin" are believed to have similar origins.

I understand your point, but IMO those panties would be bunching on the basis of prejudice.

I see what your saying but it really is more than just linguistics. Zeus was one of many Gods. What if I used Hera or any of the other olympians or even Titan gods instead that are not linguistically connected to dyeus ? If I really wanted to through a wrench in your linguistics argument I'd use Gukumatz.

What if people were making you tube videos denying Gukumatz and desecrating maize? Of course that one sucks because no one knows what the hell Gukumatz is, (yeah I had to google for it too 😉).

 

[dannybek]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dannybek
Even if you had evidence would you believe?

Absolutely. The reason I don't believe in any God is because I have yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me. I have, on the other hand, seen a lot of very convincing evidence that the Christian god in particular, or most other Gods in general do not exist.

I am a man of science. I believe what the evidence tells me to believe. It goes against every ounce of my common sense to believe that an electron can be represented as both a particle and wave, depending on how it's measured, and that it can travel two different paths to the same destination at the same time and interfere with itself on the way. But experiment after experiment have convinced me of the veracity of this claim.

I find it equally incomprehensible that there is a Creator of the universe that actually gives a crap about the day-to-day lives of a bunch of organisms walking around one of the hundreds of billions of rocks orbiting one of the hundreds of trillions of stars in the universe. But if someone were to show me empirical, repeatable tests that proved this entity existed, I would believe.

Do you know approximately 450,000 US citizens die each year from Tobacco use?

I highly doubt that they don't know the harmful effects of Tobacco. People still smoke today even considering all the scientific data out there that correlates tobacco to health problems. And this brings me to my point.
Even with the "evidence" you are seeking, people will continue to doubt and disbelieve.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: KMurphy
That's alright elephant. Your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, believes in you weather you like it or not. You were given free will to believe whatever you want to. You will die one day and your soul must pay the consequences of your actions in this world.

QFT.

And elephant, come on. You can't come up with a more convincing video than that? You've got a lot to learn, kid.

P.S. What the heck is wrong with your eyeball, blinky?

Way to make a personal attack. I actually have Bells Palsy, half of my face is paralyzed and it's very difficult for me to blink both eyes. Thanks for pointing it out, I wasn't quite insecure enough about it.

Damn, dude. It's time to "man up".

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Well, he loses tons of credibility with the "Selfish Gene." Oddly enough, the book that made him famous. This theory is largely dissproven, and wasn't really accepted in his time by real scientists. It's quite simple really, he argues that a gene is passed on b/c of it's inherent will (or desire, even) to survive; even at the expense of the organism that it inhabits. (Many supposedly beneficial genes are linked to deliterious ones as well...sh1t happens in evolution)

Ignorance FTW.

The problem, of course, is ascribing willpower to a gene. It shows a lack of understanding genetics. Perhaps he has since rescinded this theory, but I don't think he has. Honestly, the theory is so preposterous (it's borderline numbskullery), that I can't respect anything he says.

You honestly believe he thinks the genes actually have "wants"? It's convenient shorthand.

I work in genetics, and have spent a good bit of time in an evolutionary genetics lab a few years back. It's pretty clear that nothing he said at that time is verifiable (even when he said it).

I am completely dumbfounded. Are you sure? Please explain to me because I'm at a total loss. I cannot reconcile this with your previous comments.

I guess you've never read Dawkins? or even Gould? You must not know much about genetics either. I'm not blaming you for that...but you might want to try and qualify your attacks with a solid argument next time. Or any argument...

I simplified my statement, as I really do attempt to make my posts shorter (I often fail at that). Dawkins never outright states that "genes have rational thought," but this theory argues that such must be possible for it to hold any water. He implies desire. C'mon...look at the freaking title of his seminal work! Is this too hard for you? He actually claims that genes are selfish. He says this. Accepting this may be good for undergrad, but if you want to be successful (or at least respected) in the field, you have to leave Dawkins at the door.

You're not sure if I work in genetics? Are you qualified to ask me this? What do you do? Check out the "what do you do" thread that's floating somewhere around here. You can also search for my work in the previous lab that I worked in (this one was in developmental genetics-not evolutionary). It's published, and google will point you in the right direction.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Also, Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He's a sensationalist, and not really accepted by real evolutionary theorists. Every time he flaps his mouth he makes science look bad.

Wow. I agree with the rest of your posts, but wow. You may not agree with Dawkins as a theologian but as an evolutionary scientist/ecologist he is among the top in his field. He is a fellow with the Royal Society, has been awarded the Michael Faraday Award, International Cosmos Prize and came first in Prospect Magazines top 100 British intellectuals, among dozens of other awards.

Disagree all you want about his theological views but don't try to sweep his amazing achievements in evolutionary science under the rug.

Well, he loses tons of credibility with the "Selfish Gene." Oddly enough, the book that made him famous. This theory is largely dissproven, and wasn't really accepted in his time by real scientists. It's quite simple really, he argues that a gene is passed on b/c of it's inherent will (or desire, even) to survive; even at the expense of the organism that it inhabits. (Many supposedly beneficial genes are linked to deliterious ones as well...sh1t happens in evolution)

The problem, of course, is ascribing willpower to a gene. It shows a lack of understanding genetics. Perhaps he has since rescinded this theory, but I don't think he has. Honestly, the theory is so preposterous (it's borderline numbskullery), that I can't respect anything he says.

I work in genetics, and have spent a good bit of time in an evolutionary genetics lab a few years back. It's pretty clear that nothing he said at that time is verifiable (even when he said it).

Even in death, Gould is a smarter man than he.

EDIT: oh, many in evolutionary genetics (yes, a former mentor included), feel that Dawkins is a rube. His atheistic proselitizing just helps to give a bad name to science.
Someone like that, who isn't honestly respected by his collegues, is not the person to speak out in the name of science. His work is pretty weak, and really won't hold up when the ultra-fundy attacks start pouring in. And you know what...many of his collegues probably won't try to back him up.

This whole post leads me to believe that you have never even fvcking read The Selfish Gene and have absolutely no idea what is in the book. Here is a quote from the introduction of the 30th Anniversary Edition

The Selfish Gene has been criticized for anthropomorphic personification and this too needs an explanation, if not an apology. I employ two levels of personification: of genes, and of organisms. Personification of genes really ought not to be a problem, because no sane person think DNA molecules have conscious personalities, and no sensible reader would impute such a delusion to an author.

He also reminds the reader multiple times throughout the book that when he talks about genes "wanting" to do something, he is talking only about the pressure of natural selection causing the genes to work altruistically with other beneficial genes. This comes up a few times during the chapters on Evolutionarily Stable Systems (ESS) in particular.

If you are going to criticize a book, read it first. Otherwise just shut up. Think what you want about Dawkins but what you are saying about how his colleagues feel about him as an ethologist is just a lie. It's a blatant lie, and I think it's awful that you are trying to marginalize the work of one of history's greatest evolutionary scientists just because you don't like the way he talks about religion. You are scum.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: SolMiester
All I know is that if we didnt have religion, we wouldnt have had 2 world wars, nor the Christian crusades! Nor any of thousands of deaths related to faith of religion.

Thats a ridiculous statement. All of those wars would have happened regardless of religion. I'm no fan of religion, but to pretend that it is the cause of wars is just wrong. Differences among men are the cause of war, we will fight over anything just about including land, money and pride. Its been said there are two reasons a person does something, a good reason and the real reason. I doubt religion was ever the real reason for any wars, its just a good one given to hide the real reason.

Eh...the killing of the Austrian Prince...was WW1, I believed that was due to religious differences, as for WW2, well, I guess Hitlers view of the successful Jews and their religion....

uhhh, I realize that other atheists have reason to believe that religion was the underlying factor in many wars, but quite frankly, World War I... that was nationalism. World War 2, Hitler was just looking for a scapegoat and picked the Jews, but in that instance, it applies to the Holocaust, which is not the same thing as World War II. And Hitler's religious motives, as even Dawkins admits, are rather fuzzy. Actually, in regards to WWII, it was economic hardship that promoted Hitler's rise to power and he took advantage of the economic oppression and the failure of the Treaty of Versailles to transform Germany into the Nazi War Machine.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: KMurphy
That's alright elephant. Your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, believes in you weather you like it or not. You were given free will to believe whatever you want to. You will die one day and your soul must pay the consequences of your actions in this world.

QFT.

And elephant, come on. You can't come up with a more convincing video than that? You've got a lot to learn, kid.

P.S. What the heck is wrong with your eyeball, blinky?

Way to make a personal attack. I actually have Bells Palsy, half of my face is paralyzed and it's very difficult for me to blink both eyes. Thanks for pointing it out, I wasn't quite insecure enough about it.

Damn, dude. It's time to "man up".

i didn't read the whole thread. elephant made a vid?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I guess you've never read Dawkins? or even Gould? You must not know much about genetics either. I'm not blaming you for that...but you might want to try and qualify your attacks with a solid argument next time. Or any argument...

I simplified my statement, as I really do attempt to make my posts shorter (I often fail at that). Dawkins never outright states that "genes have rational thought," but this theory argues that such must be possible for it to hold any water. He implies desire. C'mon...look at the freaking title of his seminal work! Is this too hard for you? He actually claims that genes are selfish. He says this. Accepting this may be good for undergrad, but if you want to be successful (or at least respected) in the field, you have to leave Dawkins at the door.

You're not sure if I work in genetics? Are you qualified to ask me this? What do you do? Check out the "what do you do" thread that's floating somewhere around here. You can also search for my work in the previous lab that I worked in (this one was in developmental genetics-not evolutionary). It's published, and google will point you in the right direction.

This post only reinforces my theory that you haven't read the book. Show us at least a tiny fvcking scrap of evidence that Dawkins claims that genes need free will for his theory to hold water. Please. I'll be here all night, so just post that evidence whenver you get it.

And yeah, you're talking to someone who has read the book, so don't try to bullsh!t me.