Atheism

Originally posted by Raisen
All atheists are smug and worship science even though the majority of them have little to no scientific knowledge whatsoever. They simply want to be "different" and in doing so, they manage to not be different at all according to their generational description and standard. Isn't that description apt?

Originally posted by Raisen
All atheists are smug and worship science even though the majority of them have little to no scientific knowledge whatsoever. Isn't that description apt?

I don't wear a lab coat, personally. I do however wear frames without the lenses in them. It makes me seem like I'm a casual scientist. Or at least a science nerd.

I wouldn't say I have little to no scientific knowledge though... I did watch a fair amount of Mythbusters episodes.

I invented science.

"They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard."
---Fantastic.

I personally don't care about religion and I'm not religious myself. It just seems that the atheists on this board are not very tolerant and highly critical.

Originally posted by Raisen
highly critical.

What's wrong with being critical? I wouldn't want to hold on to a belief that fails to hold up in a discussion.

I think he means "mean". As in, don't criticize people's beliefs because it's mean.

Highly critical? More like.....HYPERCRITICAL

Don't mistake skepticism for intolerance, Raisen.

Originally posted by Raisen

I'm an atheist and I don't claim scientific expertise in any field, nor do I see it as some kind of ersatz religion. I don't know anyone who does.

Short answer: No, not an apt description. Tell me, did you reach your perspective on atheists from watching the South Park episodes with Richard Dawkins?

Oh what does Richard Dawkins know? He's just the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel. Typical militant atheist and his "beliefs."

Hey, don't be disrespectful. Dawkins is the Pope of Atheism so far as Raisen knows.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh what does Richard Dawkins know?

A radical re-understanding of genetic drift in populations that challenged the previous notion of punctuated equilibrium when describing the tendency for phenotypes to plateau in their level of variance, over time, within a population (though without necessarily reducing the level of genetic variance)?

Originally posted by Oliver North
A radical re-understanding of genetic drift in populations that challenged the previous notion of punctuated equilibrium when describing the tendency for phenotypes to plateau in their level of variance...

@inimalist: I'm curious, ya gotta a link or a reference?

Originally posted by Oliver North
A radical re-understanding of genetic drift in populations that challenged the previous notion of punctuated equilibrium when describing the tendency for phenotypes to plateau in their level of variance, over time, within a population (though without necessarily reducing the level of genetic variance)?

Originally posted by Oliver North
A radical re-understanding of genetic drift in populations that challenged the previous notion of punctuated equilibrium when describing the tendency for phenotypes to plateau in their level of variance, over time, within a population (though without necessarily reducing the level of genetic variance)?

And he invented funny internet pictures.

Originally posted by 753
@inimalist: I'm curious, ya gotta a link or a reference?

it was the debate between him and Gould...

A specific one off the top of my head? not sure, I did a bunch of reading about the conflict between selfish-gene and punctuated-equilibrium in my undergrad (there is actually a book called "Dawkins vs Gould"😉. I'm nowhere near an expert on either, and I don't think one theory or the other can explain what we observe exclusively, but one of the main points of contention seemed to be an almost "metaphysical" definition of "species" that existed back in those days (ie: the idea of an organism working for the good of its species, as if it were a personal goal of the organism).

I could try to look some of the stuff up again if you are interested, its just been a while.

EDIT: wow, the wiki entry is essentially just a synopsis of the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm nowhere near an expert on either, and I don't think one theory or the other can explain what we observe exclusively, but one of the main points of contention seemed to be an almost "metaphysical" definition of "species" that existed back in those days (ie: the idea of an organism working for the good of its species, as if it were a personal goal of the organism).

Dawkins was one of the people who killed traditional group selection? That's a big contribution to the field. I haven't found the arguments against it super convincing but it really shook up ethology.

After a bit of googling I found this easy to read paper that he wrote about it in the 80s:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/dawkins_replicators.html

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dawkins was one of the people who killed traditional group selection?

to the best of my knowledge, he was one of the biggest contributors.

However, that may be more of a reflection of people looking back at his earlier work for significance after he became famous for his atheism, but I'm fairly sure the Gould/Dawkins conflict was at the heart of the issue.

I'm with you about the how convincing the arguments are. I can't imagine a theory that didn't include species level selection at some point, and epigenetics kind of throw a wrench in all of this.