Are you going to point out why they have no reality behind them, or are you going to do what you're claiming Verithrax did (i.e. state something without "good" evidence)? And I see plenty of reality - fifteen lines of it at 1280x, to be precise.

In regards to your list o' Christians:

1. I thought you said Wikipedia wasn't a trustworthy/good/unbiased source? I know you were saying how awful it was a while back. What has changed since then?

2. That list is like the list of Mac games. You know why those lists exist? Because each is a small portion of the whole shebang, large enough to actually warrant a list but small enough to actually be a list in the first place. You won't see a list of all PC games or an all-encompassing list of "thinkers in science".

Religion does not retard science. Dogma retards science. When science conflicts with dogma, religion lashes out.

Really now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_video_games

I provided a long list of people who disprove his theory. 106 to be exact.

Newton said that it was his drive to understand G-d that lead him to his study of physics.

Dawkins would like to re-write history and pretend that the search for the Ultimate Truth (i.e. G-d) has no bearing on Science. And then continues to make these outlandish claims, that any basic understanding of History will prove false.

Religion lashes out?

I didn't know that Soviet Russia was all based on Religion. If you wrote about the wonders of Capitalism in Russia, you were arrested. Has nothing to do with religion.

It is amazing that otherwise intelligent people can believe this garbage. (Yes this is a reversal and paraphrasing of what Verithax said.)

Basically, Dawkins is suggesting a return to midevil Christian Europe, where if your ideas were different from the "establishments" (i.e. his view of the scientific community) you were branded a heretic and irrelevant.

Why is this not obvious to others?

Did anybody claim they did?

No, I claimed that having beliefs does not interfere with one's ability to contribute to science. (Apparently Dawkin's god, as if science was the end all and be all of life)

It sounds like you think Dawkins is above criticism. If his beef is with fundamentalists, then attack fundamentalist positions. But he doesn't want to attack fundamentalist positions, he wants to instead be a fundamentalist and attack all people who hold beliefs. And he wishes to spread lies and falsehoods in the process.

Note that they all lead to smaller lists, and that there's still no list of games for Windows, which would presumably be the largest list (not the publisher, and not MS-DOS, the OS).

So you've poorly addressed part of #2 and ignored the rest of it, you've still failed to address why you're suddenly trusting Wikipedia to further your argument (but what if the Wiki editors have hidden agendas, or even think like Dawkins!), and you haven't combined your posts. Tsk tsk, Daganev.



So the children who are being taught Creationism in schools will suddenly, upon finishing their classes, be able to have intelligent discussions about evolution?

Phelps, the Inquisition, Creationism, Giordano Bruno (Burned alive! And he was ultimately described as a pantheist; anything but a traditional Christian), Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin... just because the Soviets also tried to quash independent thought (And, in the process, propagate bad science. See: Lysenko) then all atheists do? Or religious organisations don't? For every Christian scientist, there are ten who believe in Spinoza's god, or who are just downright atheists; for each Christian scientist you name, there's one that got burned or stoned or shunned by a religious organisation - more often than not the Catholic church.

Reality does not bend to support your claims, Daganev.

You should perhaps try using your brain to think and improve yourself, rather than use your brain to purposefully annoy people.

Just because I saw it earlier..

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Pages/default.aspx

Games for Windows is Microsoft's new PC gaming marketing initiative, not a master list of all games for the Windows platform.

one has to wonder if Dawkin's rational belief in Atheism will limit his ability to accept scientific advancements, much how Einstein wasn't willing to accept Quantum mechanics, because he did not think randomness could be a factor in reality.


I'm not sure what is wrong with the collective logical abilities of people, but suggesting that being against the suppression of beliefs is the same as promoting Christianity is the type of argument that only fundamentalists make.

Your point?

People make lists of things for all reasons.

people make list of all animals, and divides them up into categories. People make lists of scientists and divide them up into various structures.

Computer game makers make lists of games that are advertised to be only able to be played on Windows. Just as some games are only available on Nintendo, or PlayStation etc.

These lists exist, and the existence of a list does not determine if it is common or uncommon.

My god your ability to reason in this area is severely hindered.

The fact that non religious institutions of dogma lash out against those who do not support their dogma, is proof that it is not a property of religion or belief, but is rather a property of dogma and power. Now you are trying to claim whats good science and whats bad science? I thought science was neutral?

There is nothing within the scientific processes or community which will prevent a power hungry leader from oppressing the people they lead.

But be aware at least of what it is you are actually objecting to, instead of creating these scapegoats and stereotypes.

I smell a "personal attack"! You're a member of the moderating team, Daganev, are you not? I thought moderators were supposed to prevent personal attacks from happening and, failing that, delete them when they are seen or reported. So, one would think that reporting your personal attacks, like a normal member's personal attacks, would invoke some sort of moderatorial punishment. But, alas, they would just get reported to you! It seems you've got some sort of special immunity, Daganev. I mean, you can shout whatever you want from the other side of your privacy fence, but if anyone so much as replies to you or even touches the fence, you charge them with a misdemeanor, because you just happened to put on your cop uniform as they were beginning to counter your belligerent remarks.

That, and you ignored my question about schoolchildren and Creationism. You should perhaps try being a politician or public speaker, you seem prone to completely changing arguments when they aren't going your way. The masses likely won't be as argumentative as a the players of a text-based game (who I think are, in general, at least a bit more intelligent than the average Joe).

EDIT: Might as well address this, too.



That list doesn't include everything, which is what the point was. Once again you try, and fail, to change the argument. The point was that it was not a complete list. The point of that was that the Christians in science had a small category because they were so small in number compared to the whole. This means we can assume that there weren't many Christian scientists, compared to the total number of scientists, because of their beliefs holding a majority of the intelligent Christians back from progressing in the scientific field, because it conflicted with their religion. That, or Christians are stupid. You decide.

I don't get your reply to me pointing out that your link isn't what you purported that it was; frankly the whole post is incomprehensible.

The fact that religious organisations aren't the only dogmatic movements isn't an argument for religion; it's an argument against other dogmatic movements. Nationalism and some strains of Soviet-influenced communism being the only examples of non-religious thought which I can think of, but Fascism and Nazism were influenced by Christianity and Soviet communism based on a personality cult not unlike a religion - it was atheistic because it didn't care for competition, really.

Of course there's bad science! Science isn't neutral; it's biased for reality. Bad science is science influenced by dogma, in spite of reality - intelligent design theory is bad science; Lysenkoism was bad science. Or, a broader definition - just plain wrong science, done with faulty methods and looking for biased conclusions.

Wait, did you just take His name in vain?

Daganev, even I'm starting to see personal attacks in your posts. Anyways, my post was more on the lines of what you said yourself; that a group that eventually develops dogmatic tenets will lash out at those things that happen to contradict their tenets. Thus, this can apply to the Soviet Union or the Catholic church of the early 1400s.

More fun quotes from dawkins:

After agreeing to lecture, I discovered that I had been assigned the title Science Enriching Faith. In spite of my initial qualms, the more I thought about the title, the more rationale I could see for it. The need to believe in a divine intelligence without direct evidence is, for better or worse, a fundamental component of many people’s psyches. I do not think we will rid humanity of religious faith any more than we will rid humanity of romantic love or many of the irrational but fundamental aspects of human cognition. While orthogonal from the scientific rational components, they are no less real and perhaps no less worthy of some celebration when we consider our humanity.

Dawkins: As an aside, such pessimism about humanity is popular among rationalists to the point of outright masochism.

Bashing your style of argument is not a personal attack. Your arguments are an affront to logic and civil debate. That says nothing about you. It says everything about your arguments. Am I the only person able to separate the two concepts?

Have you ever thought of the possibility, that perhaps, the number of people who are involved in two fields of study is unique?

Naw, couldn't be?

Maybe I should just take a line from dawkins and become a fundamentalist myself.

It sure would be easier than trying to talk civilly.

Sources and context, please. Quote-mining does not make me happy.