Have you ever read Dawkins?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

but then such a use of the first person plural would imply that you see all atheists as sharing a set of common beliefs. Oops!

what? humanists?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Now, let me see, what do we call it when a group of people subscribe to the same set of commonly held beliefs? Oops!

Don't say religion...

Ok so a Christian and Jew (insert religion here) have commonly held beliefs it doesn't mean they have a common religion.

However there are common traits in people who have particular points of view.

I'm very big on dualisim at the moment so I'll post a linky

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why were the Scots in Ulster, and what religion were they. And who put them there and what religion were they.

They were there because of the Plantation of Ulster. This certainly had a religious component, but the primary purpose was political.

The original plan was to civilise Ulster by giving land to Irish Catholic noblemen who had supported the British crown. However, some of these ingrates then proceeded to rebel even while being earmarked for preferment - so the English crown moved to plan B. This was to include a large number of Scots - making up about 50% of the total of settlers. Although the majority of these Scots were Presbyterian, that was not the reason for choosing them. After all, the decision to include the Scots was a decision of James I - who hated Presbyterianism.

The political purpose of the Plantation was to make Ulster a civilised place (evidently a failure to this day) and to produce a population that would be loyal to the British crown (slightly more successful).

The religious component of the Plantation was to promote Anglicanism. Lands belonging to the Catholic Church were given to the Church of Ireland. This element of the Plantation was a failure since most of the Scots settlers resisted Anglicanism in favour of remaining Presbyterians. This resulted in discrimination against them which sparked a subsequent wave of transAtlantic emigration - hence the Bible Belt in the Southern US.

A second, and much larger, wave of Scots settlers into Ulster was as a result of famine in the borders region of Scotland in the 1690s. This migration, which had nothing to do with religion, is the reason why Ulster ended up with a Scots-Irish majority.

So, to answer your questions:
Why were the Scots in Ulster? Primarily because of famine at home and also because the British wanted settlers who would be loyal to the Crown.

What religion were they? They were Presbyterians.

Who put them there and what religion were they? The British Crown and nobility who were Anglicans. In James I case we are talking about a variety of Anglicanism that was much more sympathetic to Catholicism than to Presbyterianism.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

it might be rational and logical to biologists but that doesnt make it right and by my reading he had loads of dissenters in the scientific community.

Correct. In fact Dawkins himself is a "dissenter" (interesting choice of words) of some of what he wrote in 1976. Thus is the nature of science.

CDfm wrote: »

they think his theories can explain simpler life forms but not man.

I've heard a lot of criticisms of the gene-centric position but I've never heard that one. Who says that and why would a gene-centric evolution system not be able to produce a complex organism like man (not the best example as there are far more complex examples of organisms)

CDfm wrote: »

it does not explain it the way Law of Gravity does gravity.

The law of gravity doesn't explain gravity. It models the effect of it in a rather imprecise manner. Currently there is no theory that explains gravity.

CDfm wrote: »

So its obscure and is just on of a number of possible theories.

And?

Mena

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure who the 'we' stands for. Whether you, Mena, have a faith system or not is surely unrelated to Wicknight's beliefs. Unless, of course, you are using 'we' to apply to all atheists - but then such a use of the first person plural would imply that you see all atheists as sharing a set of common beliefs. Now, let me see, what do we call it when a group of people subscribe to the same set of commonly held beliefs? Oops!

I use the collective "we" to speak of enlightened peoples , as opposed to those chasing fairy tales.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Don't say religion...

Ok so a Christian and Jew (insert religion here) have commonly held beliefs it doesn't mean they have a common religion.

However there are common traits in people who have particular points of view.

I'm very big on dualisim at the moment so I'll post a linky

Did I use the R-word?

If people share enough common beliefs for them to view themselves as an iidentifiable group (Mena's use of the first person plural pronoun) then that would seem to be a faith system.

If however people choose to believe stuff that they don't actually share in common with anyone else (eg that a retaining wall is actually a building) then that is an individual faith step rather than a faith system as such.

Mena

Well the way I understand the word "Faith", is essentially belief in something without proof.

So in essence I'd be someone of no faith, in almost anything.

PDN

Mena wrote: »

Well the way I understand the word "Faith", is essentially belief in something without proof.

So in essence I'd be someone of no faith, in almost anything.

Here we go with the debate about evidence versus proof again. Time for both sides to dust off the old arguments once more.

Can anything, other than mathematical equations etc, be proved 100% to be true?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Did I use the R-word?

You were thinking about it!

PDN wrote: »

If people share enough common beliefs for them to view themselves as an iidentifiable group (Mena's use of the first person plural pronoun) then that would seem to be a faith system.

Like Fianna Fail for example?

PDN wrote: »

If however people choose to believe stuff that they don't actually share in common with anyone else (eg that a retaining wall is actually a building) then that is an individual faith step rather than a faith system as such.

No it's the PD's

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Can anything, other than mathematical equations etc, be proved 100% to be true?

Can mathematical equations be 100% true?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Can anything, other than mathematical equations etc, be proved 100% to be true?

Apparently the existance of God can.

studiorat

Galvasean wrote: »

Can mathematical equations be 100% true?

In theory? no:D

Climate Expert

PDN wrote: »

Here we go with the debate about evidence versus proof again. Time for both sides to dust off the old arguments once more.

Can anything, other than mathematical equations etc, be proved 100% to be true?

Yes, plenty of things can.

And you should start thinking in terms of probability or likelihood. Everything doesn't need to be so black and white.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't the point of The Selfish Gene

The point of it was the argument that the main unit of replication in a biological ecosystem that is evolving is not the species, not the individual organisms, but the genes themselves. The organisms are carrier of genes.

It was a shift in how someone views evolution, not as organisms competing with each other, but genes manipulating organisms. This is the origin of the title, The Selfish Gene. The gene is using the organism to propagate itself.

While this idea did not originate with Dawkins, he expanded up on it and his book and the work behind it really demonstrated this in a clear and understandable manner so that for most biologists this concept "clicked" with them. It was this gene-centric way of looking at evolution that was the point of the book.

Are you for real? Biologists had to wait for dawkins for a gene centric view of evolution to click with them?
How do genes manipulate organisms ?

This is just reductio ad absurdum. rather than phenotypes competing we heave genotypes competing, those genotypes are collections of genes and those genes made visble by phenotypes.

What's new about that. It was obvious from days of Mendel.
The gene is not using the organism- the gene is not doing anything. You are talking as if genes are conscious. That is clearly not so.

If you want to give Dawkins credit for popularising the idea fine, but it is an obvious idea.

By the way I am going to begin reporting posts about religion and northern Ireland as they are an irritating diversion.

what is it with you people and Dawkins. Do you feel that he is the king of atheism and you have to defend him or something? I have already acknowledged that some of his books are good.

How do genes manipulate organisms this is logically incoherent.

mountainyman

studiorat wrote: »

Apparently the existance of God can.

The existence of God is experiential.

studiorat

mountainyman wrote: »

By the way I am going to begin reporting posts about religion and northern Ireland as they are an irritating diversion.


How do genes manipulate organisms this is logically incoherent.

+1 for NI

Surely the contents of a gene manipulates the organism?

By manipulate I don't mean in any consious way

PDN

Climate Expert wrote: »

Yes, plenty of things can.

And you should start thinking in terms of probability or likelihood. Everything doesn't need to be so black and white.

I do think in terms of likelihood. That's why I take the position that we should believe things based on evidence rather than proof. Faith is where we see evidence as pointing in a particular direction and make decisions based on that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If people share enough common beliefs for them to view themselves as an iidentifiable group (Mena's use of the first person plural pronoun) then that would seem to be a faith system.

Not if the beliefs have little to do with faith. The Kelly Brook Appreciation Society isn't a faith system.

This discussion is some what of a dead end though because you appear, if I remember correctly, to have a peculiar definition of "faith", which doesn't have a definition that expands much beyond simply being a belief you hold based on reason and evidence, which to most people is actually the opposite of "faith".

To me faith is a belief one trusts to be true despite reasons or evidence suggesting otherwise, eg -

- "Your husband was swept out to see 3 days ago, why do you think he is still alive?"
- "I have faith he will be ok?"

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Faith is where we see evidence as pointing in a particular direction and make decisions based on that.

Does that mean everything is faith then? I see my bus about to pull away, I conclude if I don't run I'm going to miss my bus, so I start running and catch my bus?

Did I have "faith" I was about to miss my bus?

Not sure that is the definition most people would use. It makes the term faith rather redundant. When Christians say God does just appear to everything because he rewards faith and faith is important what does that mean in the context of your definition?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This discussion is some what of a dead end though because you appear, if I remember correctly, to have a peculiar definition of "faith", which doesn't have a definition that expands much beyond simply being a belief you hold based on reason and evidence, which to most people is actually the opposite of "faith".

To me faith is a belief one trusts to be true despite reasons or evidence suggesting otherwise, eg -

- "Your husband was swept out to see 3 days ago, why do you think he is still alive?"
- "I have faith he will be ok?"

The problem is that you are on the Christianity forum. Therefore you may expect us to use a definition of 'faith' that is biblical rather than one that is most commonly used in other contexts.

If you decide to post in an Arsenal forum then you will discover that the word 'Manure' refers to Manchester United. Now, you can understand that the word 'manure' has a distinct meaning in that context. If you persist in entering into debates on the basis that most people use 'manure' to refer to what comes out of a cow's rear end then you are likely to create more heat than light in the Arsenal forum - which, come to think of it, would probably be the reason for posting.

Fanny Cradock

Mena wrote: »

So in essence I'd be someone of no faith, in almost anything.

You then tirelessly evaluate every aspect of you life and everything in it? Leaving religion completely out of the picture, we all take things on faith.

*People deposit money in the bank - they expect the banks to safeguard it.
*People cast a vote for a certain politician because of electoral promises made - they expect those promises to be met.
*People adhere to the traffic code - they expect that when they go through a green traffic light others will stop at the red.
*If I tell you that I'm am a Caucasian, Irish male would you accept that statement, or begin a rigorous investigation to determine the truthfulness of my statement?

I can predict that a storm will be brewing after this statement is made. But it's far more truthful to say that 'in essence, you would be a person of no faith in almost nothing'. (Sorry, messy sentence there.)

WN wrote:

To me faith is a belief one trusts to be true despite reasons or evidence suggesting otherwise, eg -

- "Your husband was swept out to see 3 days ago, why do you think he is still alive?"
- "I have faith he will be ok?"

It looks as if we are at an impasse, then. While your examples certainly are faith based statements, I would take a much broader view of the term faith. For instance, I have faith in the character of my friends or family. I believe that they will come through for me if I'm in need, but that's not to rule out the possibility that they may not.

20goto10

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*People deposit money in the bank - they expect the banks to safeguard it. *People cast a vote for a certain politician because of electoral promises made - they expect those promises to be met.
*People adhere to the traffic code - they expect that when they go through a green traffic light others will stop at the red.
*If I tell you that I'm am a Caucasian Irish male would you accept that statement, or begin a rigorous investigation to determine the truthfulness of my statement?

I'm a time traveller from 2250 come to study the economic crash. I also brought my pet goobie who comes from a fairy like species that have been living amongst humans for centuries only we couldn't see them until jambo jiggins invented the kaleidoscoptropic tramsdimensional telescope in 2133. You can't prove it, so its true. HA.

studiorat

Obviously there's a bit of difference in the way Faith is used within the Christianity Forum too.

Trust is probably a better word to use outside of a religious context.

I trust friends, family, banks whatever...

Also Fanny if you expect other people to stop at red lights you are putting yourself in the "hands of the gods". Most people would still check! So I'd suggest the Male Caucasian point is in fact untrue(smiley face)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

- "Your husband was swept out to see 3 days ago, why do you think he is still alive?"
- "I have faith he will be ok?"

Thats not the type of usage I've ever seen applied to faith.

Many Non-believers like to assert that faith is simply a belief in something there is no evidence for. Its simply a straw man though.

Faith in a Christian sense has many levels too. It encompasses trust as well as belief, neither of which are without evidence.

mountainyman

studiorat wrote: »

+1 for NI

Surely the contents of a gene manipulates the organism?

By manipulate I don't mean in any consious way

Aah but how do you have a non conscious manipulation?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I do think in terms of likelihood. That's why I take the position that we should believe things based on evidence rather than proof. Faith is where we see evidence as pointing in a particular direction and make decisions based on that.

Yes, but there's a point at which you jump off from that evidence to assume a position. The evidence, from your perspective, points towards God. However it does fall short of God. It's rather like extrapolating a trend line from limited data points. In science we do this "leap of faith" also- that is how a hypothesis is formed. We, somewhat chaotically, say "I speculate that previous findings are suggesting X". However, in science we must test that hypothesis or abandon it. Hypotheses themselves are never trusted as representing fact. Only theories, heavily tested and externally confirmed models, are assumed to represent fact.

I suppose in religious faith, the deficit in empirical evidence is made up by subjective evidence. It's certainly not the utterly irrational system that some atheists would make out, though naturally those killjoy scientist types will find it unsatisfactory.

Mena

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*People deposit money in the bank - they expect the banks to safeguard it.
*People cast a vote for a certain politician because of electoral promises made - they expect those promises to be met.
*People adhere to the traffic code - they expect that when they go through a green traffic light others will stop at the red.
*If I tell you that I'm am a Caucasian, Irish male would you accept that statement, or begin a rigorous investigation to determine the truthfulness of my statement?

I can see banks exist (present economic situation excepted)
I can see politicians
I can see other cars and take avoiding action where necessary
I know Caucasian Irish males exist as I see you lot every day :pac:

Now, a fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who created everything et al... That's a different matter. It's just far too much for me to swallow.

Fanny Cradock

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm a time traveller from 2250 come to study the economic crash. I also brought my pet goobie who comes from a fairy like species that have been living amongst humans for centuries only we couldn't see them until jambo jiggins invented the kaleidoscoptropic tramsdimensional telescope in 2133. You can't prove it, so its true. HA.

I'm sorry, do you have a point?

studiorat wrote:

Trust is probably a better word to use outside of a religious context

Trust. Faith. Expect. Surely semantic differences?

mountainyman

Atheism is a diversion from the real struggle. The struggle for socialism.

More on topic I accept that DAWKINS has demonstrated (though someone else came up with it) how life could begin through a process of iterative complexity. What is life after all but flawed replication.

However -- how does this prove or disprove the existence of God? surely one can postulate a perfect God who sets the Universe in motion and then lets it alone to play out according to her laws.

Fanny Cradock

Mena wrote: »

I can see banks exist (present economic situation excepted)
I can see politicians
I can see other cars and take avoiding action where necessary
I know Caucasian Irish males exist as I see you lot every day :pac:

Now, a fairy tale about an invisible man in the sky who created everything et al... That's a different matter. It's just far too much for me to swallow.

Did you read my post? I am not talking about faith in God, nor was I attempting to justify it. You stated that there was almost nothing that you placed faith in. I was attempting to show otherwise.