Religion As A Virus Of The Mind

[Procrustes Stretched]

Memes are supposed to be ideas that evolve through natural selection, with successful ones spreading, and unsuccessful ones dying off. I was trying to determine why a person who wants to pretends that religion is stupid is attempting to rely on a concept that has no basis in science.

Dawkin's ideas are falling to advanced science, yet people still look to him as an expert. He really sin't, and the soomer uninformed proponents of evolution realize it, the better off they will be in the debate.

The Dawkins dogma – New Scientist K21st – Essential 21st Century Knowledge

Pretending religion is stupid?


I do not really think religion as a concept is stupid. Knowing and admitting religion, myths, symbols etc, are not 'real' does not preclude the practice of religion or spirituality for the purposes of mental health.

I think religious beliefs as commonly practiced, as the laws of a supernatural all powerful being, is stupid and ignorant.


Most all concepts are NOT based on science. You're arguing nonsense now. It may be time to read and not post.

You are still attacking Dawkins.

please, get a grip.

 

[uscitizen]

Butt the moremoans know what planet God lives on!
Not sure if Hubble has spotted it yet though.

And getting into heaven requires a secret password.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dawkin's memes deserve no more consideration than Behe's irreducible complexity. If you have a problem dealing with the truth you should go home and sulk.

nope.

here is an anonymous quote you might appreciate when you get unstuck: "the argument from irreducible complexity is essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century"

then we get this:

The British scientist Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" in The Selfish Gene (1976)[1][4] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary
principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

---

Dawkins is NOT trying to discredit religion although in some ways that can be the message taken away by a look at memes as a concept, but you see it that way. Why? I have no idea, but memes is an explanation ::: as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

you get hung up on the obvious motives of Behe and mix them up with Dawkins' concept which is outside a discussion of religion.

Behe has a religion-ist agenda for sure. His religious beliefs dictate his scientific research. He is looking for data to support religious claims -- beliefs. Dawkins sometimes deals with bogus religion claims and refutes them, but Most of Dawkins' efforts are outside of the narrow provincial discussion of religion.

And the premise behind the selfish gene is gradually being discredited discredited.

For reasons to do with how science is communicated, a human love of simple narratives, and Dawkins’s energetic advocacy of these metaphors, the public has been left with a view of evolution and Darwinism which does not truly reflect thinking among evolutionary biologists. This view also perpetuates the existence of “opposing camps” when there is no need. Worse, it skews popular notions of Darwinism. This is why these metaphors are so important: metaphors stretch to the heart of “what science is for” and to the kind of answers it can provide.

...

We are testing that empirical claim and finding that things are a lot more complicated and subtle. This must mean that as an organising interpretation of evolutionary biology, the metaphor of the selfish gene and, by extension, that of the extended phenotype, are insufficient. They are now problematic because what they claim or offer is no longer as good as the alternative analyses.
While Dawkins’s contribution is indisputable, his strong advocacy of a narrow-focus view of evolution is rightly being called into question. It paints an inflexible picture not only of the evolutionary sciences, but also of how science works. This in turn closes off dialogue in both public and academic spheres. It can, at worst, constrain future research. Nowhere is this more evident than in theories about environmentally driven acquired characters, which have long had a reputation as Darwinian “heresy”

The Dawkins dogma – New Scientist K21st – Essential 21st Century Knowledge

You can quote from Dawkins all you want, every time you do I will use science to refute your attempts to defend his idiocy. Just because I know he is wrong does not mean I base that knowledge on religion, but feel free to keep making a fool out of yourself as you make assumptions about my intent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You should go and find a real scientist to hang your posts on, Dawkins is considered a full blown idiot among real scientists.

I do not read or answer most responses to rep PMs. Too many trolls with too much time.

sorry

Don't really give a fuck if you read my response. If you don't like my posts point out the problems you have in public. It is not my fault you fell in love with a psuedoscience simply because it fits into your world view. Maybe you and JBuekema can have a mutual admiration society for your false beliefs.

The new pseudoscience of memes

Memes Are Not Science

Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes

I was more than willing to discuss this rationally, but you want to go out and neg rep simply because I hold contempt for stupidity like this. I hold Dawkins in contempt because he does not deserve respect. If you want to defend him then be my guest, but I will point out your stupidity every time you do so. The man is an insult to scientists and right thinking people everywhere.

JB?

you have no clue what you are talking about -- again.

from the link you posted:

Despite the cult popularity of the idea, memetic theory is hardly discussed in recent texts on evolutionary psychology and linguistics. The prevailing consensus seems to be that the meme is a nice metaphor but one that has perhaps been taken too far. Memes, after all, are hard to define, quantify, and measure; their very existence is somewhat nebulous, inferable[sic] but not scientifically verifiable.

Read more: Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes
​

I disagree with none of the above. Nor do any of my posts pre your irrational responses.

You being the one who introduced a strict scientific based argument where none was being argued, could not find links outside of one science type wiki and a few personal blogs?

 

[uscitizen]

Dawkins may well be wrong, but so are virtually all regarding religion.
imho of course.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said you did use the word mystical. You did use the word...Force.

Memes are supposed to be ideas that evolve through natural selection, with successful ones spreading, and unsuccessful ones dying off. I was trying to determine why a person who wants to pretends that religion is stupid is attempting to rely on a concept that has no basis in science.

Dawkin's ideas are falling to advanced science, yet people still look to him as an expert. He really sin't, and the soomer uninformed proponents of evolution realize it, the better off they will be in the debate.

The Dawkins dogma – New Scientist K21st – Essential 21st Century Knowledge

Ok, sorry but you are not getting what i said. Granted i did not put it in quotes, but it did seem to fit.

I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense

~Han Solo, starwars

Actually, I got you. I apologize for the tangent, but Dante neg repped me in an attempt to make me back down from attacking Dawkins while I was responding to you. I let my irritation with him spill over into my reply to you. My apologies.

It was appropriate and funny.

 

[uscitizen]

May the farce be with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fear, wars and hatred also arise out of religious beliefs.

I get along a lot better with intellectuals than emotionally driven people.

That is the typical answer of people who do not understand what they are talking about. To bad not anthropologists actually agree with this idea.

Disciplinary Views Of War: Anthropology: Information from Answers.com

I know the facts are not going to make a difference to you, but I still like pointing them out to people.

You mean we invaded Iraq not thinking god was on our side?

I am sure some people thought He was, but that does not make it true.

 

[uscitizen]

That is the typical answer of people who do not understand what they are talking about. To bad not anthropologists actually agree with this idea.

Disciplinary Views Of War: Anthropology: Information from Answers.com

I know the facts are not going to make a difference to you, but I still like pointing them out to people.

You mean we invaded Iraq not thinking god was on our side?

I am sure some people thought He was, but that does not make it true.

I said thinking. Since I am an atheist I would never think god was on anyones side.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Memes are supposed to be ideas that evolve through natural selection, with successful ones spreading, and unsuccessful ones dying off. I was trying to determine why a person who wants to pretends that religion is stupid is attempting to rely on a concept that has no basis in science.

Dawkin's ideas are falling to advanced science, yet people still look to him as an expert. He really sin't, and the soomer uninformed proponents of evolution realize it, the better off they will be in the debate.

The Dawkins dogma – New Scientist K21st – Essential 21st Century Knowledge

Pretending religion is stupid?


I do not really think religion as a concept is stupid. Knowing and admitting religion, myths, symbols etc, are not 'real' does not preclude the practice of religion or spirituality for the purposes of mental health.

I think religious beliefs as commonly practiced, as the laws of a supernatural all powerful being, is stupid and ignorant.


Most all concepts are NOT based on science. You're arguing nonsense now. It may be time to read and not post.

You are still attacking Dawkins.

please, get a grip.

Why? I like attacking Dawkins, and his stupid ideas. The man is doing more to hurt science than most creationists, and needs to be attacked every time he opens his mouth., If you do not like me attacking him stop mentioning his name.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And the premise behind the selfish gene is gradually being discredited discredited.

--

You can quote from Dawkins all you want, every time you do I will use science to refute your attempts to defend his idiocy. Just because I know he is wrong does not mean I base that knowledge on religion, but feel free to keep making a fool out of yourself as you make assumptions about my intent.

I did not say the god gene hypothesis was sound science. You are yet again arguing with yourself.

I did quote an author who referenced Dawkins.

I have no idea why you keep ignoring what others say. Maybe it's a quirk of your personality. But i don't care. Below is what was posted way back...

The British scientist Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" in The Selfish Gene (1976)[1][4] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary
principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

---

Dawkins is NOT trying to discredit religion although in some ways that can be the message taken away by a look at memes as a concept, but you see it that way. Why? I have no idea, but memes is an explanation ::: as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

---

good bye


​

 

[syrenn]

Memes are supposed to be ideas that evolve through natural selection, with successful ones spreading, and unsuccessful ones dying off. I was trying to determine why a person who wants to pretends that religion is stupid is attempting to rely on a concept that has no basis in science.

Dawkin's ideas are falling to advanced science, yet people still look to him as an expert. He really sin't, and the soomer uninformed proponents of evolution realize it, the better off they will be in the debate.

The Dawkins dogma – New Scientist K21st – Essential 21st Century Knowledge

Ok, sorry but you are not getting what i said. Granted i did not put it in quotes, but it did seem to fit.

I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense

~Han Solo, starwars

Actually, I got you. I apologize for the tangent, but Dante neg repped me in an attempt to make me back down from attacking Dawkins while I was responding to you. I let my irritation with him spill over into my reply to you. My apologies.

It was appropriate and funny.

Did you now No worries, no offense was taken. Thank you for the apologies just the same.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why? I like attacking Dawkins, and his stupid ideas. The man is doing more to hurt science than most creationists, and needs to be attacked every time he opens his mouth., If you do not like me attacking him stop mentioning his name.

way

to

hijack


a ..






thread

 

[lizzie]

Dawkins may well be wrong, but so are virtually all regarding religion.
imho of course.

Since religion is a belief system, usually dealing in the subject of right and/or wrong, those who practice it, in whatever form they choose, aren't really right or wrong regarding religion. Belief systems are based on societal acceptance as a general rule, and are based on accepted standards of subjective ideas. Morality is subjective for the most part, thus the right and wrong of it cannot be proven scientifically. There may be those who seek to prove or disprove religious belief, but there is no proof.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thread Jacking 35 up, 11 down
buy thread jacking mugs, tshirts and magnets

Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself.


What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post.

People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and the that becomes the focus of the tread.

Urban Dictionary: thread hijacking

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not read or answer most responses to rep PMs. Too many trolls with too much time.

sorry

Don't really give a fuck if you read my response. If you don't like my posts point out the problems you have in public. It is not my fault you fell in love with a psuedoscience simply because it fits into your world view. Maybe you and JBuekema can have a mutual admiration society for your false beliefs.

The new pseudoscience of memes

Memes Are Not Science

Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes

I was more than willing to discuss this rationally, but you want to go out and neg rep simply because I hold contempt for stupidity like this. I hold Dawkins in contempt because he does not deserve respect. If you want to defend him then be my guest, but I will point out your stupidity every time you do so. The man is an insult to scientists and right thinking people everywhere.

JB?

you have no clue what you are talking about -- again.

from the link you posted:

Despite the cult popularity of the idea, memetic theory is hardly discussed in recent texts on evolutionary psychology and linguistics. The prevailing consensus seems to be that the meme is a nice metaphor but one that has perhaps been taken too far. Memes, after all, are hard to define, quantify, and measure; their very existence is somewhat nebulous, inferable[sic] but not scientifically verifiable.

Read more: Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes Meme - Criticism Of Memetic Theory - York, Oxford, Press, Memetics, Human, and Memes
​

I disagree with none of the above. Nor do any of my posts pre your irrational responses.

You being the one who introduced a strict scientific based argument where none was being argued, could not find links outside of one science type wiki and a few personal blogs?

If you do not want to discuss things why the fuck do you post on a discussion board? If you want to control a conversation perhaps you should get a job as a professor at some university that stifles free speech, or start your own board where you can delete anyone who does not follow whatever rules you have. Trying to do it here is only going to piss you off because no one here is going to listen to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean we invaded Iraq not thinking god was on our side?

I am sure some people thought He was, but that does not make it true.

I said thinking. Since I am an atheist I would never think god was on anyones side.

Being a Christian I just try to be on his side.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante neg repped me in an attempt to make me back down from attacking Dawkins...

clueless.

Dawkins was never the issue


now


good bye


it's your thread now. keep the circle jerk going. keep up the stupid attacks that contribute absolutely nothing.

 

[uscitizen]

I am sure some people thought He was, but that does not make it true.

I said thinking. Since I am an atheist I would never think god was on anyones side.

Being a Christian I just try to be on his side.

Yeah good way to avoid burning in a like of fire for all eternity

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw]YouTube - Snowball (TM) - Another One Bites The Dust[/ame]

some would say proof of the existence of god.

I wanna bird that can dance like that My cats would love it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you do not want to discuss things why the fuck do you post on a discussion board? If you want to control a conversation perhaps you should get a job as a professor at some university that stifles free speech, or start your own board where you can delete anyone who does not follow whatever rules you have. Trying to do it here is only going to piss you off because no one here is going to listen to you.

not pissed off. just posting in-kind. bullshit draws bullshit.

intelligent discussion that avoids the sophomoric shit you bring is a rarity.

I have had continuing threads without this type of bs.

You were always absent.

You had a chance.

keep jerking......


I'm bored.

thank you