Leaderboard

You do realise that your high school teacher was teaching children? Well, maybe not children, but certainly not adults.

True, if your school syllabus includes teaching religion, which is however excluded in some countries, e.g. the USA and France. You do not teach religion in science lessons, though. You teach it, if you teach it at all, in classes on religion. Creationism is not basic theology however. It is one of the beliefs of certain Protestant denominations - and possibly some versions of Islam, I think. Ciao, love and kisses.

That very much depends on the age of the children. In the 6th form, yes, in a class on religion or philosophy it can be instructive to expose the students to the issue, seeing as by then they will be alert to the philosophical distinction between religious and scientific ideas - and will most likely be aware of the politics lurking behind the issue. However it makes no sense whatever to confuse younger children with rival models, one of which is known to be false, and most certainly not in a science class. After all, we don't teach them the caloric theory of heat, the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the geocentric model of the solar system. (Such things might be taught in a history of science class, later on, to show how ideas have developed through time.)

Be serious. Joan of arc was burned at the stake because of her opinion. Muslims and Christians have killed each other since they've existed due to having opposing opinions. People have been losing their jobs and their lives over their opinions since opinions have existed.

That’s all well and good lil’Gaga Gigi, but we can all acknowledge you’re trying to dismiss him and frame him as small and unworthy. You sound childish when you do, and it makes you easy to ignore as a petulant trollish waste of bandwidth (like I just did here to you)

But your position suggests that you should use other methods. What is the reasoning behind this? We were discussing science, not medicine. Your citations could easily be interpreted as medical folks should be better versed in scientific rigor. How does that lead to the conclusion that there should be reports that no bias exists? Being more open should increase the reports of bias. This is deflection; you’ve not answered the question or addressed the point.

So you are saying that philosophical bias has some responsibility in scientists steering clear of what is often called fringe science? I am wondering: could this avoidance also be feasibility challenges? How would you propose to do an inquiry into the nature of ghosts or disembodied minds? It would seem that practical obstacles, other than bias, present themselves. Being nonphysical puts quite a damper on observation, measurement and the other method tools available. I've noticed you not mentioning bias in regard to our massive apathy about studying fairies. Tinkerbell seems to provide little opportunity for research, and almost everyone over age ten seems to understand that, as a discipline, Tinkerbell Studies is a dead end.

I just pulled out my non-US coins (many gathered from geocaching) and a surprising number are magnetic, including the Canadian twonie , quarter and nickel, Italian 500 L(bimetal, like the twonie), Iceland 1Kr and 5Kr, 1 Yuan (China?), French 1/2 and 1 Franc, Ecuador 5 cent, Netherlands 1 Guilder, and a few more not easily identifiable (but a few are probably Russian rubles)

Dawkins or @Gian? 😁 Dawkins has I think mellowed somewhat with age and may even realise that throwing coconuts at the Aunt Sally caricature of religion he has spent years attacking is a is bit counterproductive. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism have at times come across as evangelical preachers!

This is an extremely poor argument, especially in the context of racism. Are you arguing that if folks respected racist opinion more, folks would somehow be less racist? We see how well that works under Trump and other reactionaries. Also it seems that you have no idea what happened in the 2000s. The issue around that time was a massive effort by evangelists to influence science teaching in the US by trying to put creationist view next to evolutionary science. At that point folks atheists, including Dawkins became fairly vocal to resist such influence to diminish science teachings and putting belief over facts. Still no idea how the various thoughts on Dawkins, cancel culture, racism and whatever has been brought up by OP connect, though.

You are trying to poison the well by being a disrespectful jerk, Dawky... really? Religion deserves no respect and Richard Dawkins gives religion none and rightfully so. You seem to be disappointed we don't bow down to your nonsensical disrespect of Dawkins. I respect anyone who stands up to the idea of a god as nonsense and I lack not only a belief in a god I lack respect for you... personally!

Discuss Dawky's comments. And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

CharonY Of course it's silly, and it's precisely that methodology that Dawky uses to "critique" religion, so he's being equally silly. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX PS My words were that racism and intolerance seem to have got worse over the last 15y. I did not say I thought they had only appeared in my lifetime. It was all there anyway MOONTANMAN Honey it's not disrespect to disagree GIAN🙂XXX

I knew I was going to be in a deep hole again coming back here. I think what I need is a place to discuss the metaphysical. For all I know, spirtis and souls are some form of energy. Who says they have to be material? To me, a SOUL is an eternal conscious self. It's true nature, if it even exists, is about as mysterious as the root cause of gravity. Let us now define NATURE; NATURE Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com noun the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization: In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers: The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals. natural scenery: Tourists at the resort are surrounded by nature. the universe, with all its phenomena: Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature. characteristic disposition; temperament: an evil nature. a self-willed nature; an evil nature. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace. I look at NATURE in the broadest senses as in 5, 6, 7 above.

Mother Nature a childish term? My high school science teacher even used the term in class. I don't mind learning science as in the boilng point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit. I say there is much more to human thought than science though. Science is not absolute knowledge of everything in the universe. I posted this in the General Philosophy section because it has more to do with human thought and wonder in general. What happens to us when we die (beyond becoming worm food) is an age-old curiosity. Do scientists reject the metaphysical totally? According to my dictionary, metaphysics is actually a branch of philosophy. I have revised my Canon of Faith as follows: 1. Nothing is higher in all of existence than Mother Nature, the Goddess of the Universe. Mother Nature is a mere human personification of nature, which is probably not any conscious, living person or entity with a free will. NATURE is the absolute sum total of everything, both known and unknown, in the one and only Universe. Since Man, himself, is a product of nature Herself, it can only be logically deduced that anything done, said, made or thought by Man is also attributed to Nature in the broadest sense of Nature. Man and his doings are merely a part of Nature. 2. Any gods or deities (conscious, living, intelligent and perhaps immortal entities above Man) which might exist could only be attributed to nature Herself if such things actually do exist. There is no room for such notions as the supernatural or magic in this Canon of Faith. Mother Nature is not, and cannot be, above Herself. 3. Life and conscious existence following the death of a human being or any other material (physical) living being is possible and even probable. There might be eternal spirits, everlasting conscious selves (or souls) which existence could only be attributed to nature if such things actually do exist. They might be associated with a living human body or some other physical living form as an animal or plant on Earth or elsewhere in the universe. To only consider human beings as possible possessors of souls (eternal conscious selves) is foolhardy and narrow-minded. Reincarnation is a likely possibility for what might lie beyond physical death. 4. The universe is eternal and everlasting. Time, matter, space, gravity, motion and energy are literally forever. None of these entities have a beginning or an end. Forever is much too long for any individual (unique conscious self) to experience one and only one single instance of life or consciousness, for a limited amount of elapsed time, over the entire course of eternity. This notion is bolstered by the fact that the human author, at the time of this writing, is conscious and living (in the flesh) after the literal passing of forever already. It is as illogical and small-minded to discount the possibility of future life and consciousness following one’s physical death as it is to dismiss all possibility of conscious life beyond planet Earth. 5. It is bestowed by Mother Nature upon each and every peaceful living human being of planet Earth and each and every peaceful living intelligent entity in the universe, human or otherwise, the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-preservation. Nothing in this canon can be humanly proven or disproven by any known observable test or experiment. This is a belief system and not based upon any absolute verifiable scientific knowledge. Since nothing within this canon regarding nature, god, life, consciousness, eternity or death can be verified as any truth, this faith might not even be considered by some to be within the realm of philosophy. The faith described herein might be best allied with human thought within the realm of the metaphysical.

Apologies Hun, I meant no disrespect ❤GIAN

Cancel Culture has certainly not always been there or not on the scale it is now; I don't recall anyone before about 2005 losing his job because of opinion. Debate was always sacred at university and the phrase "He's entitled to his opinion" was widely used and went without saying. Richard Dawkins has been cancelled for simply expressing a point of view several times, and even if his ideas are stupid, cancelling him is even more so. The whole point of argument and debate is to overthrow not elevate nonsense; it's difficult to debate it without mentioning it. In order for you to decide that cowboys and aliens is nonsense, the concept had to be there for you to disagree with it. I repeat, if you don't teach the children to discern that Cowboys and aliens is bs, someone else will. And as for Creationism, that is already very much there in the public consciousness. So if you don't give the children proper critical skills they're sunk. Why do you think all these conspiracy theories are so popular? Why do you think people are so susceptible to any old bs on the internet? It's because children are not being taught proper critical analysis. What they're being pumped full of are other people's agendas. And inevitably - you can see this for yourself - Noam Chomsky is so right that the people most "educated" are those who are most willing to accept damned stupid ideas. The reason is that more "education" in our society = more brainwashing You won't find many construction workers on a building site who believe in Q-anon. cheerz GIAN😊XXX PS On your point about teaching creationsim and religion alongside science, one can state that it is true the Earth was formed about 4.5billion y ago, while also stating it is true that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street. They're both true.

I think it's more a case of what you "feel" should not be dismissed out-of hand. I suspect alot of scientific discovery starts with someone just having a feeling, or hunch about something. But Dawky and people like him were extremely unwise in the so-called "atheist spring" post 9/11 to encourage people to be disrespectful, which is another word for bigoted. What Dawky's too dumb to realise is that if he encourages bigotry in one department eg religion, it never stops there. Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

MOONTANMAN Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture. And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat. The Flat Earth Society have made scientific experiments which they claim prove the Earth is flat. Therefore as Dawky et al are all scientists, they must of logical necessity believe the Earth is flat. That's how ridiculous he's being in his anti-religious methodology. He's just one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in. That's why when I asked a priest friend of my mum and dad about Dawky, he replied "I don't think we're particularly worried by Professor Dawkins." Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX PS I respect you and everyone else here💘💋 PPS Most people I know are atheists Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century. Both seem to have got worse in my lifetime GIAN🙂XXX