a secular society by 2030

[Latics Fan SJK]

Paul Dominic is bombarding everyones Twitter pages, including my own, explaining how he's infuriated that thy Bluemoon COC is being "adhered" to yet again.

 

[squirtyflower]

Has he been doing it this morning sjk?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Paul Dominic is bombarding everyones Twitter pages, including my own, explaining how he's infuriated that thy Bluemoon COC is being "adhered" to yet again.

You have him on Twitter?
So is he banned from here then,other than his new identity on this thread?
If so,ask him why God allowed it to happen.

 

[allan harper]

Paul Dominic is bombarding everyones Twitter pages, including my own, explaining how he's infuriated that thy Bluemoon COC is being "adhered" to yet again.

He really should get out more often, Taking his disapproval to another site to vent his spleen.

 

[Skashion]

Fucking brilliant: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/PaulRikki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/PaulRikki</a>

The guy is a web design genius too: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html</a>

 

[BWTAC]

Fucking brilliant: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/PaulRikki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/PaulRikki</a>

The guy is a web design genius too: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html</a>

Fucking hell, that's just how I had imagined he looked like, breasts and all.

 

[allan harper]

Could be going a bit too far now.

 

[Weloveyoucitywedo]

I'm no Damocles, but I'm bored and this looks fun.

Why am i on a wum?

The guy is a cambridge educated biologist, author of more than 80 scientific papers. His book 'the science delusion' has sold more than 1 million copies worldwide.

These powerful assumptions, have led science down the wrong path according to Rupert. He explains how originally the scientific field held a kind of Cartesian dualistic view of spirit and matter, which eventually was replaced solely by matter.

According to Sheldrake, the ten dogmas of science hold that:

*Everything is mechanical; only mechanistic explanations will do. Dogs for example are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines 'lumbering robots in richard dawkins vivid phrase with brains that are like chemically programmed computers

This is not inherently an assumption of science or scientists, but it is the only way that science can be successful with our current level of knowledge. Science is, by its very definition, empirical and based upon repeatable experimentation. 'Mechanical' in the context used by Sheldrake is completely ambiguous and has no proper definition. If by 'mechanical' he means, 'things are measurable and describable by mathematics'... well yes... but mathematics isn't a human invention, it is integrated into the very fabric of the universe, we are simply witnessing it as best as our minds can comprehend. We can't measure things empirically in any other way (at the moment). Thus with no maths, we can do no science.

*Matter is unconscious / inanimate.

Science (and scientists) again, make(s) no such assumptions. But if you make an assertion that matter has some sentience then it is your burden to prove it. He doesn't do that here, he places a claim of negative proof upon science. It's a bit like me saying "science says there is no such thing as unicorns". Believe it or not, science doesn't ever say there is no such thing as unicorns, it simply says that as there is no proof of unicorns existing and so it is currently not included in the accepted scientific paradigm. If proof is found of unicorns/matter having sentience, then it will be. It's that simple.

*The matter and energy of the universe is constant, and always the same (with the exception of the big bang where it just suddenly appeared)

This point shows a staggering lack of understanding of the big bang for a Cambridge educated scientist. It didn't 'appear', because the big bang was not a causal event, meaning there was no 'before' it in terms of our own laws, because our laws don't apply the same way at the time of the big bang, they break down. For things to 'appear' there has to be a time before where they weren't there, but in the case of the big bang, no such time exists. Time itself didn't exist until the big bang.

*The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning and they will stay the same for ever.

Now he could mean two things here, if he means 'the human interpretation of the laws of nature' then:
This is absolute brain-curdling bollocks, enough to be insulting and goes against everything science is about. Newton's Laws are called Newton's 'Laws' but guess what? They're wrong! Amazing I know. But they have been superseded by more modern theory. There is absolutely nothing in science which is fixed in the furniture, there is just a lot of stuff which is our best answer until somebody comes up with something better.

If he is talking about the law's of nature themselves then:
We know for a fact that the laws of physics have changed because they break down at the big bang, we accept as scientists that our laws are only necessarily true for our locality in space-time (i.e. our visible universe). So his assertion is false.

*Nature is without inherent purpose, and evolution has no goal.

This is again, not an assumption made by science or scientists (certainly not myself). Science has no opinion on the motive of things. It is just a useful tool for measuring where things are now and where they are going.

*Biological inheritance is a purely material process.

An assertion without proof, much like his 'sentience of matter' bit above. Show scientists that biological inheritance is not 'purely material' (whatever that actually means, again it's very poorly defined stuff), and it will happily be included into the paradigm.

*Minds are located within heads, and are nothing but the activities of brains.

Michio Kaku, one of the world's most renowned scientists often talks about the interesting anomaly of teleportation and the preservation of what is thought of as 'the soul'. i.e if you replicated every cell in your body, and built another one of you, would that 'you' share your intrinsic characteristics and personality? This is something which is far from being disregarded by scientists, on the contrary it's become something of an ethical dilemma. If somebody is teleported down a wire and they come out of the other end a murderous psychopath, then we will know there is something more to it and try to figure it out, until then, the above statement is complete conjecture and puts our level of knowledge at a level somewhat greater than that which we currently possess.

*Memories are stored in the brain, and are wiped out at death.

Again, some proof that this isn't the case, would be excellent. This isn't an assumption of science, naturists or scientists, this is simply something which has never been proven.

*Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.

I see now that about six of these 'dogmas' have actually been the same one. It all comes down to the roll of negative proof in science. Science/scientists is/are only interested in what can be shown to be true, it says nothing (and I mean NOTHING) of what CANNOT be true.

*Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works.

And again, I'm not going to repeat my point.

If religion is to be constantly challeneged, then i feel it's important to do the same with science.

So having read through his 'ten dogmas', (which are actually more like two points or maybe even all the same point repeated ten times) I have deducted his umbridge is with the logic that underpins science and not science itself.

Arguing against logic is asinine. Why would I argue against the only thing that helps me distinguish as a human what happens and what doesn't?

I would advise that, in future, you don't base all your opinions on one really badly written book (I read two chapters and it was full of wonderful praise for scientists which is great, but it actually seems to prove none of his dogmas). The whole thing would not stop somebody being a good scientist, because it is the logic under the science which he doesn't seem to grasp and not the science itself.

I think this guy is a genius actually, he knows as a Cambridge scientist that if he makes a book which goes against the grain he will make tons, and he has, so fair play to him...

Point of reference: I am a mathematical physicist, with all of one scientific paper to my name.

You talk as if logic is the only intelligence, anyone who has ever recovered from depression or anxiety for example knows you have to switch off the logic and use your emotional intelligence to deal with whatever the issue is.

You say arguing against logic is asisnine, that's only because from the age of 4 you've been through a dogmatic western education system that ONLY teaches logic, certainly when you go to university, logic is all that's taught. sadly in my opinion.

As city fans, we don't use logic. If we did we'd all be United fans. Logically there is no reason whatsoever for any of us to support city. When i was growing up United we're the best team in england, arguably the world, whilst we we're in division 3, if i'd used logic i'd go to watch united, but like most people on here I had an emotional attachment to City so that would overide any logical thought and i'm glad it did. Supprting city in itself is a logical fallacy but i'm sure we're all glad that we do.

COuld we prove we have an emotional/spiritual bond with city? No, we couldn't, but we all know it's true.

Only when you pull away from logic can science move forward, I would advise you to be a bit more open to new ideas and not base your opinions on your university indoctornation.

Remember, all logic is, is things that you've learned from other people, nothing more.

I also think dawkins is a genius, by going agaisnt the grain of british society he has made millions.

-- Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:56 am --

I'm not paul ainsworth by the way, what's the story with him?

 

[Shadz69]

Instead of praying for the souls of the heathen athiests PD resorts to calling them tosspots how christian of him.Flash is the biggest one followed by NF and SWPs back.You are famous on twitter Flash,well for PD's 20 follower's anyway.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Fucking brilliant: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/PaulRikki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/PaulRikki</a>

The guy is a web design genius too: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.pauldominic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2.html</a>

Oh my days - what on earth is that all about?
'Please your majesty can we have more bank holidays so that we can have more rain'?
Some of those tweets are beyond odd.
And I am simply not having it that The Flash is a bigger tosspot than me.
I suppose at least now he finally has the martyr status he so desperately craved.