I'm not missing your point (or Dawkins') at all: you want any kind of belief to be fundamentally incompatible with science by definition (thus the subject heading under which you chose to post). Pull your head out of your dogma and realise that it ain't so.
You're going to have to do better than that, saying it ain't so doesn't make it reality. Belief is fundamentally incompatible with science... By definition. It does however fit neatly and comfortably with atheism though.
When Dawkins makes pronouncements like that about science as a form of knowledge, he is speaking on the subjects of Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science, and -- putting it as charitably as I can -- he's not qualified in those areas.
Including Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, and Max Planck?
Take your ignorance somewhere else, friend.
If they insist that god did it, they were theologians rather than scientists. Science requires evidence which they decided to replace with faith. Sorry, but that's the bare fact of the matter.
History contradicts you. Many scientists of renown believed that "god dun it", as you put it. Clearly that did not dull their spirit of scientific inquiry much.
That makes them high priests, theologians. Not scientists. They may have thought of themselves and called themselves scientists, but they were priests nonetheless in exactly the same way as the Pope.
People who believe in god are irrational, they don't respond to rational arguments. They do respond to logical ones though.
You simply knock away their belief structure a bit at a time until there's nothing left but belief itself. Then without that steadying belief structure, it's a simple step from belief to lack of belief.
And I dispute your statement that atheism is a belief, in fact it's a lack of belief.
Whymust result in god. There's no other explanation for why. The anthropomorphic principle explains how not why. The ONLY possible answer to why is god because the question why itself insists that there was an intelligence and intent behind the reason we're here. That intelligence and intent could only come from god. So you ask why, you come up with god, it's inevitable.
I mean, you could fuck about for 50 years questioning this and that but that seems like a right old waste of time when the answer is in the question in the first place.
I'm an admin and I'd love a thin client
on
GoogleOS Scenarios
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Honestly, administering your own systems becomes a real pain in the arse. For all the standard stuff, I'd frankly rather not bother doing it for myself.
If Google produce a system with all the basics: word processor, spreadsheet, email, all the office stuff, add on a small business accounts and customer relationship management you have a compelling product for small businesses and individuals. Charge $50 per year per seat.
Anyway, it wouldn't be aimed at us, it'd be aimed the people we serve. Damn... That puts me out of business... Wanders off to think about the future.
I'd rather not be burned at the stake. If they believed in god they were in fact theologians or philosophers attempting to explain the world in terms of god, not scientists. The fact that their belief isn't in the bible doesn't stop it being belief and based on theology.
In fact belief in a God who created an orderly universe is what led many early scientists to believe that scientific laws were orderly, and could be tested repeatedly by experiment.
They were theologians in practice, as are current christian "scientists". Explaining the mind of god.
The only thing worse than a christian fundamentalist is an atheist fundamentalist. Why the hell do you people want to convert everyone?
Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent. I don't go around converting people to atheism but if they bring up the subject I'm going to make sure they know that they believe in a fairy tale.
Um... I don't know if you'd noticed, but the question "why does blah blah" has an implicit assumption. It assumes that there is intent. It assumes that there was a reason for "blah blah blah". It assumes that god exists.
By asking "why" you are already assuming that god exists. There's no other alternative.
What I'm saying is that "why" questions are circular.
Ain't what it says in the announcement: "For those that want to build their own UI that takes advantage of our design guidelines, they will need a license."
Re:I think the courts have made it pretty clear
on
Office 2007 UI License
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nope, nothing to do with the library. It's the User Interface they're licensing.
From the announcement:
"For those that want to build their own UI that takes advantage of our design guidelines, they will need a license."
Anyone who lacks a spirit of scientific inquiry will be satisfied with a metaphysical answer like "God wills it"
And by definition that includes every believer. A believer by definition thinks that god created everything, there is no alternative to that answer no matter how deep into the nature of the universe you delve at some point, god dun it. By asking the question, why, at all, you're giving intent and assuming right from the start that god exists.
You're really missing the point of my post (and of Dawkins), perhaps I didn't present it well. Believers state that god did it, they are claiming ownership of both the how and the why. The question of how is in direct opposition to science and the question of why is answered by assumption implicit in the question itself.
I think the courts have made it pretty clear
on
Office 2007 UI License
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You can copy any UI that you want to.
This is just a clear threat to competitors that they're going to be spending millions defending frivolous law suits. Interesting that Microsoft have decided that their business model is now to sue competitors.
Some people understand religion in one way and some people in another, but most of the religious beliefs are in contradiction with science.
Science is a method of looking at the world. It's incompatible with all belief because at some point the believer says "god made it that way". There are no believer scientists. They may think they are but they're not really scientists.
Next time some nut starts to explain how "Jesus saved" or "God's love will guide you". Call them on it. Explain to them that what they believe is a fairy tale with zero evidence. By not doing so you're creating an environment where it's perfectly acceptable to indoctrinate people into religious dogma.
Or rather, as Dawkins points out, simply saying God did it is a way of explaining the world. It's a direct alternative to scientific method. Whether you take the bible literally or not is irrelevant, it's simply a laughable example of the same phenomenon. Why is the atom made up of protons, neutrons and electrons? To a believer the answer "God made it that way" is sufficient. It becomes case closed. With belief it must always at some point come down to "it's gods will".
If you're a believer, you might as well take the bible literally, it's as good an explanation as any other of the world as we see it.
The idea that the point of an education is to learn about the world is naive, it's to prove to employers you are willing and able to work for N years to achieve a result. If it were the former there would be no exams, no coursework and no awards of degrees.
So if employers don't care about being a high school graduate or if there are no jobs which require a high school graduate, there isn't much point going on to complete your high school education and then go on to university to rack up $150,000 in debt.
The fact that jobs are being shipped overseas says it's hardly worthwhile .
p.s. why does it cost $150,000 to go through university? Seems like rather a lot, surely with that kind of income there would be lots of colleges, academies and universities springing up and competing to reduce the costs.
Just be a trendsetter. On wet days a hat's a good alternative to carrying an umbrella if you get a waterproof one and on hot days it prevents skin cancer. You'll need a Barmah hat, a wide fedora or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
You're going to have to do better than that, saying it ain't so doesn't make it reality. Belief is fundamentally incompatible with science... By definition. It does however fit neatly and comfortably with atheism though.
LOL. Not qualified... You crack me up.
If they insist that god did it, they were theologians rather than scientists. Science requires evidence which they decided to replace with faith. Sorry, but that's the bare fact of the matter.
That makes them high priests, theologians. Not scientists. They may have thought of themselves and called themselves scientists, but they were priests nonetheless in exactly the same way as the Pope.
People who believe in god are irrational, they don't respond to rational arguments. They do respond to logical ones though.
You simply knock away their belief structure a bit at a time until there's nothing left but belief itself. Then without that steadying belief structure, it's a simple step from belief to lack of belief.
And I dispute your statement that atheism is a belief, in fact it's a lack of belief.
Why must result in god. There's no other explanation for why. The anthropomorphic principle explains how not why. The ONLY possible answer to why is god because the question why itself insists that there was an intelligence and intent behind the reason we're here. That intelligence and intent could only come from god. So you ask why, you come up with god, it's inevitable.
I mean, you could fuck about for 50 years questioning this and that but that seems like a right old waste of time when the answer is in the question in the first place.
Honestly, administering your own systems becomes a real pain in the arse. For all the standard stuff, I'd frankly rather not bother doing it for myself.
If Google produce a system with all the basics:
word processor, spreadsheet, email, all the office stuff, add on a small business accounts and customer relationship management you have a compelling product for small businesses and individuals. Charge $50 per year per seat.
Anyway, it wouldn't be aimed at us, it'd be aimed the people we serve. Damn... That puts me out of business... Wanders off to think about the future.
I'd rather not be burned at the stake. If they believed in god they were in fact theologians or philosophers attempting to explain the world in terms of god, not scientists. The fact that their belief isn't in the bible doesn't stop it being belief and based on theology.
They were theologians in practice, as are current christian "scientists". Explaining the mind of god.
And string theory is philosophy, not science.
Correct. If when it came down to it they said, "god's will", they were theologians. And I'm not a scientist either.
I'd go for a VNC(or similar) download. You heard it here first.
You should make that into a T-shirt.
Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent. I don't go around converting people to atheism but if they bring up the subject I'm going to make sure they know that they believe in a fairy tale.
Um... I don't know if you'd noticed, but the question "why does blah blah" has an implicit assumption. It assumes that there is intent. It assumes that there was a reason for "blah blah blah". It assumes that god exists.
By asking "why" you are already assuming that god exists. There's no other alternative.
What I'm saying is that "why" questions are circular.
Ain't what it says in the announcement: "For those that want to build their own UI that takes advantage of our design guidelines, they will need a license."
Nope, nothing to do with the library. It's the User Interface they're licensing.
From the announcement:
"For those that want to build their own UI that takes advantage of our design guidelines, they will need a license."
And by definition that includes every believer. A believer by definition thinks that god created everything, there is no alternative to that answer no matter how deep into the nature of the universe you delve at some point, god dun it. By asking the question, why, at all, you're giving intent and assuming right from the start that god exists.
You're really missing the point of my post (and of Dawkins), perhaps I didn't present it well. Believers state that god did it, they are claiming ownership of both the how and the why. The question of how is in direct opposition to science and the question of why is answered by assumption implicit in the question itself.
You can copy any UI that you want to.
This is just a clear threat to competitors that they're going to be spending millions defending frivolous law suits. Interesting that Microsoft have decided that their business model is now to sue competitors.
Mutually incompatible philosophies. Science demands proof, religion demands belief. You can be one or the other but not both.
You don't think I have exactly the same right to laugh at the poor deluded fundy nuts? Go learn the concept of freedom.
Science is a method of looking at the world. It's incompatible with all belief because at some point the believer says "god made it that way". There are no believer scientists. They may think they are but they're not really scientists.
Next time some nut starts to explain how "Jesus saved" or "God's love will guide you". Call them on it. Explain to them that what they believe is a fairy tale with zero evidence. By not doing so you're creating an environment where it's perfectly acceptable to indoctrinate people into religious dogma.
Or rather, as Dawkins points out, simply saying God did it is a way of explaining the world. It's a direct alternative to scientific method. Whether you take the bible literally or not is irrelevant, it's simply a laughable example of the same phenomenon. Why is the atom made up of protons, neutrons and electrons? To a believer the answer "God made it that way" is sufficient. It becomes case closed. With belief it must always at some point come down to "it's gods will".
If you're a believer, you might as well take the bible literally, it's as good an explanation as any other of the world as we see it.
It should be in the funny category.
The idea that the point of an education is to learn about the world is naive, it's to prove to employers you are willing and able to work for N years to achieve a result. If it were the former there would be no exams, no coursework and no awards of degrees.
So if employers don't care about being a high school graduate or if there are no jobs which require a high school graduate, there isn't much point going on to complete your high school education and then go on to university to rack up $150,000 in debt.
The fact that jobs are being shipped overseas says it's hardly worthwhile .
p.s. why does it cost $150,000 to go through university? Seems like rather a lot, surely with that kind of income there would be lots of colleges, academies and universities springing up and competing to reduce the costs.
Just be a trendsetter. On wet days a hat's a good alternative to carrying an umbrella if you get a waterproof one and on hot days it prevents skin cancer. You'll need a Barmah hat, a wide fedora or something like that.