• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:03
CEST 10:03
KST 17:03
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes79BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch2Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8
StarCraft 2
General
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
Soulkey on ASL S20 ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D ASL20 General Discussion BW General Discussion NaDa's Body
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch [ASL20] Ro16 Group C Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Too Many LANs? Tournament Ov…
TrAiDoS
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1471 users

The Richard Dawkins Thread - Page 24

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 22 23 24 25 Next All
0z
Profile Joined August 2006
Luxembourg877 Posts
July 17 2008 08:10 GMT
#461
When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.
zobz
Profile Joined November 2005
Canada2175 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-07-17 08:30:21
July 17 2008 08:26 GMT
#462
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote:
Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.

There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
That's a very attractive theory
"That's not gonna be good for business." "That's not gonna be good for anybody."
HaFnium
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United Kingdom1074 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-07-17 12:42:28
July 17 2008 12:42 GMT
#463
On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.

I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.

Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.

I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.


Previously, a lot of efforts are spent on inter-species studying, the selfish gene theory opens a new area of biology/zoology where matters couldn't be explained thoroughly. The morality implication brought by his discoveries may be more concerned by the public though.

He brought science closer to a lot of people. Look at his position at Oxford, he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Surely Oxford must think he is a true scientist before he can spread it to general public... And his position means that his work are more known for their easiness of reading, hence making people think hes not a true scientist...
BW forever!
zizou21
Profile Joined September 2006
United States3683 Posts
July 17 2008 13:40 GMT
#464
On July 17 2008 17:26 zobz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote:
Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.

There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
That's a very attractive theory


o i c wat u did there
its me, tasteless,s roomate LOL!
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
July 17 2008 15:48 GMT
#465
dawkins' popular work is not a part of his resume as a scientist.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
July 17 2008 16:32 GMT
#466
On July 17 2008 17:26 zobz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote:
Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.

There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
That's a very attractive theory


it'd be more attractive if it lost a little weight
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
July 17 2008 20:42 GMT
#467
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote:
When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.


then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
0z
Profile Joined August 2006
Luxembourg877 Posts
July 17 2008 20:54 GMT
#468
On July 18 2008 05:42 MyLostTemple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote:
When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.


then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.

How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
July 17 2008 23:39 GMT
#469
On July 18 2008 05:54 0z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 18 2008 05:42 MyLostTemple wrote:
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote:
When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.


then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.

How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)


i think i may be misunderstanding u then. maybe we're on the same page. can u restate ur point?
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
July 18 2008 00:14 GMT
#470
I said that using convenient lies to encourage desirable behavior may not be a good thing, because them stupid plebs might someday find out that you were telling them lies. Good-intentioned or not, they may feel that the lies are an indication that them damn lying scientists aren't trustworthy after all, so this strategy is not a strong one in the long term (order of decades, not months).

As a counterexample, 0z points out that his parents lied to him, he realized it, and he does not have diminished faith in his parents. However, how likely would it have been that you believed your parents if they told you some other mystical creature was bringing you your presents, it just wasn't Santa Claus? Consider also that you probably have strong reasons to have faith in your parents other than what they told you before. You have a strong bias towards trusting them, which is the opposite with scientists and politicians. Especially with people who are both.
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
July 18 2008 03:46 GMT
#471
nm miss read initial argument. i agree.
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
Funchucks
Profile Joined June 2007
Canada2113 Posts
July 18 2008 04:41 GMT
#472
I think lies for children are part of the way a religion matures.

If someone gets up to the age where they learn about Santa and the Easter Bunny, and that doesn't clue them in about God, they're probably not both intellectually and emotionally equipped to deal with undiluted reality for the rest of their life.
I serve my houseguests slices of butter.
0z
Profile Joined August 2006
Luxembourg877 Posts
July 18 2008 08:25 GMT
#473
On July 18 2008 09:14 BottleAbuser wrote:
I said that using convenient lies to encourage desirable behavior may not be a good thing, because them stupid plebs might someday find out that you were telling them lies. Good-intentioned or not, they may feel that the lies are an indication that them damn lying scientists aren't trustworthy after all, so this strategy is not a strong one in the long term (order of decades, not months).

As a counterexample, 0z points out that his parents lied to him, he realized it, and he does not have diminished faith in his parents. However, how likely would it have been that you believed your parents if they told you some other mystical creature was bringing you your presents, it just wasn't Santa Claus? Consider also that you probably have strong reasons to have faith in your parents other than what they told you before. You have a strong bias towards trusting them, which is the opposite with scientists and politicians. Especially with people who are both.


Have you noticed then, that people usually refer to the priest as 'father'? It might be that most people need some kind of consolation source after they outgrow the age where physical parents can do the job after all. Not scientists of course, their job is totally different, indeed many scientists themselfves follow some kind of religion which underlines this separation.
In terms of qualifying this as good or bad I think one has many options, simiarly many people find it bad that the lion needs a good bite of antelope flesh to keep himself going, but another point of view is that this is just how things are.
0z
Profile Joined August 2006
Luxembourg877 Posts
July 18 2008 08:28 GMT
#474
On July 18 2008 08:39 MyLostTemple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 18 2008 05:54 0z wrote:
On July 18 2008 05:42 MyLostTemple wrote:
On July 17 2008 17:10 0z wrote:
When I discovered santa klaus wasn't real, i didn't stop believing my parents.


then you should agree with the point that keeping lies around to make people behave better is probably not a good thing or to say the very least, there are better ways to go about teaching people to act justly.

How does it follow that I should agree with that point? I would rather interpret my remark as an indicator that I lean towards the opposite opinion. (Actually I don't know if I lean or not, it was just a balancing counterexample to some remark of somebody, i think BottleAbuser)


i think i may be misunderstanding u then. maybe we're on the same page. can u restate ur point?

The point is that you didn't provide argumentation for your claim that putting people in the dark is always bad and bottleabuser provided an argument which alone doesn't hold, due to the counterexample I gave. Bottleabuser then expanded his argument and the discussion went on - see above.
BottleAbuser
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)1888 Posts
July 18 2008 08:41 GMT
#475
I want to believe that everyone trained in logic will see the inconsistencies with religion. The evidence doesn't allow me to do so. Logical attacks on religion fail. Dawkins, in this regard, is beating a dead horse. There is no hope for the eternally (or at least until they're dead) damned. Is there?
Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you.
IdrA
Profile Blog Joined July 2004
United States11541 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-07-18 09:27:21
July 18 2008 09:26 GMT
#476
On July 18 2008 17:41 BottleAbuser wrote:
I want to believe that everyone trained in logic will see the inconsistencies with religion. The evidence doesn't allow me to do so. Logical attacks on religion fail. Dawkins, in this regard, is beating a dead horse. There is no hope for the eternally (or at least until they're dead) damned. Is there?

logical attacks on religion can be overriden by faith and brainwashing, they are not entirely useless. dawkins is aimed at the people on the fence or the weakly religious. laying bare religions logical issues can very often 'convert' them.
http://www.splitreason.com/product/1152 release the gracken tshirt now available
Dagor
Profile Joined March 2008
Germany64 Posts
July 18 2008 10:42 GMT
#477
On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:

I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.

Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.

I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.


Hahahahahaha. Oh man. you cite some highschool science stuff and because that is easy therefor evolutionary biology is easy. Yeah i alway thought those geneticists get far too much credit. The mendelian Laws are really not that complicated...

Evolutionary Biology today is a very complicated science that involves a lot (and i am talking a lot) of mathematical modelling. You can actually do quite a bit with all the new information from modern molecular biology.
Here is one random example Evolution at a multiallelic locus under migration and uniform selection

People like you really crack me up. You clearly don''t know what you are talking about but still you know of course better than those stupid scientist, those pathetic experts. What do they know.
Oh and Dawkins did not fail as a scientist. Go to the website of the university of Oxford and download his curriculum vitae, than take a look at the list of his publications in Journals. After that come back and tell us again that he failed as a scientist.
LordofToast
Profile Joined May 2008
United Kingdom250 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-07-18 22:33:34
July 18 2008 22:33 GMT
#478
Lets lighten this thread up. I found richard....
+ Show Spoiler +


Thrill
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
2599 Posts
July 18 2008 23:03 GMT
#479
Dawkins provides a counterweight to the outspoken frontfaces of religion and is thus in some ways a favourable speaker for scienece. Just don't make the misstake of regarding his point of view as the general concensus of a theoretical collective of current day scientists.

Dawkins earlier work which he as a point of argument (and in many ways as a Devils Advocate) has decided to stick with later in his career doesn't really fall within the boundaries of science at all as it fails to present actual disputable theories. Without comparing the two, i will make a parallell between his work and that of number mystics. Both are attempts to find a thoughtmodel that 'fits' for a broader scope of collected thoughts. Sure - while we see several evident examples of mathematically perfect shapes appearing in various aspects of nature, putting our finger on this really doesn't lead anywhere, just like declaring that 'genes determine everything' while seemingly accurate in many cases - leads nowhere.

What should be regarded as a Dawkins threads main purpose is its ability to disarm theology. "If Dawkins is so wrong, what's to say your prophet isn't? Dawkins evolutionary drives and functional principles are as valid points of view as Christianitys moral standpoints."

Discussing Dawkins work is off topic in my mind. Yeah, honestly. If you want to do that you're way off and in as deep waters as anyone arguing the Theodosian (no idea if that translates to anglian differently) problem with a spokeseperson for Christianity - something which should be done 1on1 if you want anything fruitful to come of it.

Dawkins is a brilliant man with outstanding academical achievement in his backpack. Concidering his radical theories anything more than a troll for the religious scholars is an insult to his intelligence.

Btw, nothing would have given me more satisfaction than if L. Ron had stated in his will something along the lines of "Oh, guys - scientology? Looool, was just trolling you ffs, damn people are stupid. I'll be laughing at ya throughout eternity." Dawkins doesn't even need to do that seeing how it's so apparent from speaking with the man - he's a thinking human being and not a zealot which you'd have to be to actually believe in some of the stuff he's trolling us with.
Hier
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
2391 Posts
June 12 2015 01:19 GMT
#480
I was watching a video of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss give their Something from Nothing talk at Australian National University on 10 April 2012.

Lo and behold a guy comes up to the microphone to ask a question branding a TL shirt! We are everywhere! Fess up, who was that?

The video is time stamped.

"But on a more serious note..." -everyone on this forum at some point.
Prev 1 22 23 24 25 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 57m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 213
ProTech77
OGKoka 28
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 1339
actioN 817
Leta 140
Dewaltoss 36
NotJumperer 20
Rock 19
Sacsri 19
Rush 18
ajuk12(nOOB) 13
SilentControl 4
League of Legends
JimRising 519
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss426
olofmeister0
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King43
Westballz25
Other Games
summit1g7790
C9.Mang0308
crisheroes300
Hui .146
byalli95
NeuroSwarm65
Happy34
Trikslyr23
trigger1
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH279
• LUISG 23
• Light_VIP 14
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
1h 57m
Zoun vs Classic
Map Test Tournament
2h 57m
Korean StarCraft League
18h 57m
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
23h 57m
RSL Revival
1d 1h
Reynor vs Cure
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 23h
RSL Revival
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.