Read the following statement:
'Dawkins talking about memes is like believers talking about God - an invisible, unverifiable postulate, which helps explain some things about experience, but ultimately lies beyond empirical investigation.'
Dawkins is a religious zealot promolgating theory as fact and expressing his own brand of religion - it's called atheism.
Read the entire story at
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgr...
Only a person who is totally subjective could deny this well researched and objective examination of Dawkins.
2007-05-14
04:37:21
·
19 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Read the particular section of this article
entitled "Faith and Evidence."
2007-05-14
04:38:52 ·
update #1
then read: "Is God a meme? Or a virus?"
2007-05-14
04:39:49 ·
update #2
After reading the comments so far I can see that there is a very closed minded attitude by those who are strong advocates of Dawkins. You need to broaden your scope of research to include opposing views by scientists who oppose his conclusions.
There are over 700 very reputable scientists who are refuting evolution and the list is growing by leaps and bounds.
Subjectivity is hard to overcome in this case because if Christianity is real - all of you who conclude it is not through your restricted research will have to face up to the God who you deny, and deal with the sin in your life.
That is why you are - like Dawkins - unable to think outside the box. Hopefully some of you will get past your heavily biased and prejudicial thinking and broaden your understanding of both sides.
After all, can 700 scientists be totally wrong in refuting something they all held to be truth before they expanded their research?
If your eternal destiny hinges on this - pray for wisdom.
2007-05-14
04:57:20 ·
update #3
Let me correct myself on the last sentence. Your eternal destiny DOES hinge on this and you certainly need to pray that God will open your heart and mind to understand "spiritual" truth.
Human intellect is a shabby cloak to wear to the judgment seat of Christ.
2007-05-14
06:09:46 ·
update #4
Dawkins and other atheists must rely on numerous beliefs since atheism contributes nothing to a moral code, meaning of life, or the value of humans over other life forms. In fact, atheism contributes nothing to the concept of intrinsic value of anything such as love, compassion, altruism, or even life itself. Atheists sometimes claim altruism is good for social order, but if one's life ends at the grave, it is only rational to live only for self. If one is clever enough and powerful enough, one is able to use others for one's own purposes with impunity and not be accountable after death.
By the way, Dawkins also believes in the high probability of life on other planets, with absolutely no proof or even evidence. This is called faith.
2007-05-15 19:38:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by dankeeran 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
1.) Your link doesn't work.
2.) Memes do exist. It's true that they are not hard science, so postulating how they behave is purely theoretical. You seem to miss the fact that he does offer evidence of his meme theory.
3.) Dawkins is not religious and he is not a zealot in any religion. When a theist levels this charge at an atheist he shows not just how little he understands the definition of the word religion, but also his failure to grasp what it is an atheist is trying to say. I will give you that Dawkins is one of the most recognized atheists out there. However, compare his bahavior with that of a real zealot and you'll see how silly this statement truly is.
4.) "Only a person who is totally subjective could deny this well researched and objective examination of Dawkins."
Objective? Yeah, right.
2007-05-14 04:49:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Peter D 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Memes are a partly illustrative concept explaining the transmission of cultural modes. They do not "exist" in the manner that genes exist - that is, they have no physical property (other than the functions of the physical mind in which they operate). But they describe that process very effectively. You need a pretty profound leap of the imagination to say that makes Dawkins "a religious zealot".
Are you one of those Christians who defines God as the physical laws of the universe then? Thought not.
2007-05-14 04:42:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bad Liberal 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
It amazes me that believers think they can prove an atheist has faith or atheism is a religion.
This is how the mind of a believer thinks, so it is understandable. I guess.
Bottom line is atheists do not believe in the existence of a supreme deity. Call it faith or religion if it makes YOU feel better. They know what atheism is and what it isn't.
By the way, I am a believer too. I just don't want to impose my belief system on others.
2007-05-14 04:46:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
In a manner of speaking yes. Atheism is having faith in what you believe. But that is quite a stretch to get to what you are implying. If you don't like his viewpoints, then you have the option of not reading it. I certainly am not going to read the bible simply so I can go on YA and point out all the non truths contained therein.
2007-05-14 04:45:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by chris m 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I've got his book right here, and I can tell you that guy is full of ****. Dawkins simply uses memes as an analogy to genes. The guy who wrote that 'story' obviously missed his point big time.
Atheism isn't religion any more than "bald" is a hair color.
2007-05-14 04:45:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Heh... I'm getting an error message, chief.
And the idea of a 'meme' is simply a tool to study the movement of ideas using virus transmission as a metaphor for starters. It's a testable proposition, if properly defined.
2007-05-14 04:40:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Doc Occam 7
·
11⤊
1⤋
Atheism is as religious as not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Dawkins may be an atheist but he is merely an elitist, not a religious zealot. And yes, there IS a difference.
2007-05-14 04:47:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Darwin, not Dawkins is the true king of kings of kingly kings don't ya know. His views are totally awesome and show large amounts of truthiness.
2007-05-15 16:06:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jesus H. 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
A Christian POV. Christians use the time era in yet in any different case. a million) faith is believe. human beings believe each and every time they sit down in a chair that it's going to hold them up. in case you spot somebody 'restoration' the chair you will no longer believe to sit down down in it. If somebody else comes alongside they'd have blind faith that the chair will carry them up. This faith walks had in hand with doubt and scepticism. 2) faith is a mysterious present from a mysterious god. This faith is the form you have have been given it or you haven't any longer have been given it.. that's the comparable faith because of the fact the 'believing in some thing that's no longer actual' faith. Logically if god does no longer exist then the present does no longer exist. i think of the notice that must be in an answer is premise. All ideals, non secular or in any different case, are equipped on premises. human beings believe or believe that their premises are actual. some Atheists get bent out of shape because of the fact in this particular section in accordance with premises there's a point taking part in field and that places them out of their convenience zone. The source of the subject is that Christians use the time era to point various issues. some Atheists have blindly picked up the ailment. LOL *places on pastafarian pirate hat* would the Sauce be with you.
2017-01-09 20:11:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋