My statement was disdainful; it was also accurate.
Your next link is no better. There have, indeed, been scientists who were mocked by other scientists. Scientists are human and occasionally fall prey to human errors. However, no one mocked Goddard or, really, ignored him. Note the timeline in this link, that indicates that rocket science was proceeding in at least three countries simultaneously. Goddard, in fact, was a member of one of two separate teams doing reserch in the U.S. How the Germans were able to launch V2s based on ignoring Goddard in New Mexico is a bit hard to figure out. The claim in your second link regarding Galileo is stupid on the order of the claim that Columbus proved the earth was round. Dozens of people were building and using telescopes with the purpose of examining Galileo’s claims at the time that he was getting in trouble with a few clerics. (If anything, Galileo would better fit your claim for people “attacking scientists” based on his harsh (and erroneous) attacks on Johannes Kepler.) Several of your other “examples” are indications of intradepartmental feuds that had nothing to do with “scientists” laughing at brilliant researchers.
That any given idea might have been ridiculed by somebody indicates nothing more than that there is always someone who is liable to ridicule an idea that he did not, himself, conceive–much like Galileo. The notion that since one can find some criticism of many ideas or persons then there must have been general ridicule heaped upon them is nonsense. The problem with quoting such manufactured lists is that they are only workable when waved in front of people who are ignorant of history. I’ll repeat my earlier statement, now including your second link: those lists are utter nonsense, probably invented by some anti-science crackpots to rationalize why their own weird beliefs should be given greater acceptance.
You are acting like the universe is some big ass computer and are presuming to know the mind of the universe. Who says it has to be “stored” anywhere? You make it sound like putting tools in a toolbox or storing something on your hard drive. Religion anthropomorphises the universe, atheism does a variation of this I will call mechanopomorphise.
All I’m saying is, if you’re going to use a movie to give as a link to atheists, to “make them think”, I’d choose a different one to this.
All this one does is make me think Rod Liddle cannot make an honest, objective documentary and that his mind is infested with misconceptions about what atheism means and the position that most atheists hold.
I mean “Stalin’s Russia shows what happens when atheism is taken to an extreme [paraphrasing]” :rolleyes:
As for your guess about my personal bias, sure, the movie wouldn’t bother me so much if it were berating skaters or something. But I’d like to think I’m pretty even-handed. I saw a documentary about Christianity recently, made by a Jewish director, that I thought was very unfair to Christians.
You may be interested to know that I do not consider myself a materialist, for example. I think the concept of materialism is not actually well-defined, and as far as it is defined, I think it’s an unnecessary assertion to make. All I say is, I have no reason to suppose that anything other than the material exists.
No, I am assuming for the sake of argumentation that your hare-brained theory that the universe thinks and plans and makes deliberate choices is correct. For there to be thinking, there must be something doing the thinking. But when you assert the universe is thinking, you are pointing at a bunch of empty space with scattered bits of dust in it. There is simply nothing there to be doing the thinking! Heck, a rock or peice of toilet paper is more likely to be thinking, because at least their parts are close enough to be interacting if they had a mind (heh) to.
And what is this ‘mechanopomorphising’, precisely, that it is so bad? “Presuming that things that are functioning function in some way”? Is that close? (It’s hard to tell; your latinate word contruction is quite flawed, with that extra ‘po’ in there.)
Wow, I feel so bad. Assuming that things that function function.
It’s a word I made up that is similar to Anthropomorphism which is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts. I am hearing things from neo-atheists that the universe is
Poster:
Which parts of the universe are storing its awareness? A human who’s had his head removed isn’t aware of much, because we store our awareness in our brain. Where is the universe’s awareness stored? In the vast tracts of empty space? In the scattered-far-apart balls of burning gas? In the scattered-far-apart balls of unburning gas, and of inert rock?
Poster:
Does it bother you that there is no imaginable way to store an active universal intelligence in empty space and widely distributed and essentially noninteractive stars and planets?
Me:
You are acting like the universe is some big ass computer and are presuming to know the mind of the universe. Who says it has to be “stored” anywhere? You make it sound like putting tools in a toolbox or storing something on your hard drive. Religion anthropomorphises the universe, atheism does a variation of this I will call mechanopomorphise.
It would mean: attributing uniquely mechanical characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts instead of “uniquely human characterists”
Could someone who actually understands that unproven is not the same thing as disproven please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific journal which provides support to the claim that NDE’s are hallucinations? You do understand that you should have made it clear at the beginning of the conversation if you are only going to accept peer-reviewed scientific studies, and that you are required to meet the same standard of evidence yourself if you demand it of others?
And, despite not knowing what the hell a “neo-atheist” is supposed to be (a person who doesn’t believe that that character in the Matrix movies was actually a god?), I’ll take your silly faux-latinate term’s definition and extend it even further: I attribute(?), or rather, assert that even humans have to function. Everything in the universe that does anything has all the mechanical workings required for them to do what they do. Nothing functions that does not have the werewithal to do so.
Oooh, what a radical notion! I’m such a rebel! Stay tuned for my next assertion (which really throws the “neo-theist”: “That which doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist!”)
Neo-Atheism- an unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one’s opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn’t believe in.
New Atheism is the Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. It’s purpose is the Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.
New Atheism Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.
Neoatheism is the new black
It’s simple. Neo means new. The trend of neoatheism was started by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris back in '94-'96 with the publication of their books.
70 percent of neoatheists are 10-30 year olds. I am at least twice the age of the average posters on this thread. I have something you don’t; an historical context from which to view atheism from an overview. Way back in my day most everybody went to some form of a christian chruch. Agnostism was an approved position that was not challenged by anybody except for hard line christian fundamentists. Atheism back then was accepted as simply somone who didn’t believe in god(s). Nobody never gave it no mind. There were very few atheists back then. Those that were had had a live and let live attitude and everybody went about their business.
Neoatheism, however, is much more vitriolic* (virulence of feeling or of speech)* and vituperative (uttering or given to censure : containing or characterized by verbal abuse) than old-school atheism. Two different animals. Neoatheism has a political agenda.
Ah. A neoatheist is an atheist who isn’t cowed into submission by the predominance and power of the theists. Got it.
And “unrelenting, never ending foray into self-aggrandizement, debasement of one’s opponents, and ridicule of things one doesn’t believe in”? Dude, that’s not atheism. That’s the internet.
New ideas or concepts are poo hooed or disregared, then they are challenged in various ways. Simple differences of opinions to outright persecution. Willem Reich is a good example. And please don’t give me any grief about him. Some of his works, like orgone therapy, were viciously
attacked by the establishment to the point where he was sent to jail and died of a heart attack. He established a respected branch of psychology, bioenergetics, which is the energy flow through living systems.
If you look every person on the lists you find many varying degrees of resistance by the existing Paradigm. To call the list “utter nonsense” is a psychological attempt at diminishing and minimizing as a way of discrediting it.
Irrelevant even to the extent that’s true, since the ideas you are pushing are OLD ideas.
And the new ideas that have become respected, did so by producing evidence that they were true. Not by loudly demanding respect without evidence, and calling anyone who asked for some closed minded.
neo- based on a style, set of ideas, or political system that existed in the past.
NeoAtheism is a phrase that has been coined to label what is a new cultural trend. Neoatheism at its most benign means simply a newer, revived version of its predessor. At its worst it is used exactly when a neoatheist derisively uses the term “true believer”. Neoatheism is strong, explicit atheism on steriods. It is much more aggressive and vocal version that is much more polemic - 1 a: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b: the art or practice of disputation or controversy.
*****Reich’s situation is similar to Telsa’s in that they were both respected by their peer community and contributed ground breaking works. Both, later in life, had veered far astream from the existing paradigm. As a result they were ridiculed and labeled crackpots. Overall, the validity of much of their work is still respected and used today.
Reich is considered the grandfather of body-centered therapies from which have sprung many similar or sub-divisions of his work. Among them are Rolphing and Hellerwork, and other body-centered therapies. Pilates, yoga and breath work techniques are now being given serious consideration respect. Many of these techniques are now covered by health care insurance and have been accepted by mainstream AMA.
Now, here’s the real kicker. Hellerwork, which is deep Myofascial release, a shifting and realignment of the muscle groups encased in myofascia, was originally was one of those crackpot, alternative therapys that insurance wouldn’t cover. But if your doctor writes a script for miofacial release and sends you to a hellworker, you’re good to go. The insurance will cover and not cover this technique depending on what you call it. They are being misdirected by “sleight of mind”.
Standard physical therapy uses MR as a technique for the appropriate cases. I have done both through an MD’s script that came from Dr. Stan Herring, who is THE guru of orthepedics in Seattle and runs the University of Washington and Harborview physical therapy departments.
What was once labeled as pseudoscience crackpottery is now accepted by the mainstream and covered by insurance. And you can include acupuncture, chiropractic treatments. But there will always be people like The Amazing Randi who are caught ridgidly in stasis within the existing paridigm. These people will ridicule, scorn and attack and eventually will end up with “mud on their face, big disgrace, got their cans kicked all over the place”.
But fortunately, existing paradigms which are extremely resistant to change will be pulled along into the new paradigm. The new guard sooner or later replaces the old guard. New ideas and theories are first poo hooed, and when they start gaining momentum and acceptance they are ridiculed and attacked and then if they are valid they are eventually accepted. Not all, of course, but many.
Or, at least, something happened to your brain that made you feel as if you had. If you were truly aware of the totality of everything, then perhaps you could tell me where my lost car keys are, because I totally need them.
