Synthetic Life and Religion.wmv

[caveatemp]

Venter's creation reminds me of a joke. The secular humanist discovers how to make a man. He asks God to have a man making competition and God agrees. God forms a man from the clay of the earth and says, "Ok, now your turn."

The secular humanist begins work with the clay and God interrupts,

"Wait a minute, get your own clay!"

[godlessevangelist]

@caveatemp So god not only made man (in his image) but also made clay too? So there's basically NOTHING that god didn't do? And all of this based on zero, none, nada, nyecht, nothing, neicht, evidence.

You're ignorance, if not so dangerous, would be laughable. Tell me, have you ever heard of the scientific method?

[caveatemp]

@godlessevangelist You're so odd! You're arguing the premise of a joke?

You never did reply to me from your other video where you were clearly displaying 'dangerous ignorance' of simple logic, let alone the scientific method. And on top of it, you are caught in a self contradiction. You tried to engage me on the very same theistic argument that you call tedious here. You might make more sense to the world if you checked your arrogant pride some and dealt with the issues more.

[godlessevangelist]

@caveatemp Strange? You accuse me of not dealing with the issues and your whole blog entry had nothing of substance for debate. Just ad hominem attacks? Do you actually have anything intelligent to say? Or are you just going to tell me that Jesus loves me?

[caveatemp]

@godlessevangelist To pick up where we left off: You guessed human life begins “when the nervous system develops to what could be considered a sentient self sustaining life” which you qualified must be with “natural external contribution.” You then defined natural as ‘non-man made’ and “un-natural” as cultures with “agriculture and animal farming." If this is the foundation of your "right to life" ethics then it is in serious question. Do you want to rethink your reasoning?

[caveatemp]

@caveatemp Here's another substantive issue for debate: This idea that you push of the "memetic virus." How do you determine if an idea or ideology is a memetic virus? If you can't provide any scientific evidence for it then it is surely a subjective criterion without any evidential foundation. I put to you that this idea of the meme is a dangerous pseudo science prone to engendering airs of superiority and intolerance.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

There's some debate about whether biological viruses even fit the definition of life, because all they do is inject genetic material in a host cell and turn it into a factory for making more DNA/RNA injection modules.

Religion may not be quite degenerate enough to be a true virus, but for the proselytizing religions, their primary goal is to spread to new converts. There is potential for them to do symbiotic things, but too often they become parasitic.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar Yep. And I can say the exact same thing about atheism, transhumanism, secular humanism, etc.

It's pseudo science with nothing to back it up except your arrogance.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

Atheism doesn't claim to be a science, just a lack of belief in various imaginary friends.

Secular Humanism is a worldview rather than a science, but it's no more 'pseudo' than the studies that contribute to it, such as ethics, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and economics.

Transhumanism is about the application of science and technology to improve the nature of the human condition to the point that it is effectively transformed.

All quite compatible with the scientific method.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar I agree. It doesn't change the fact that the idea of a "memetic virus" is a dangerous pseudo-science.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

Meme flow is just a way of describing how ideas spread through a population, drawing parallels to gene flow as a sort of metaphor. It's an interesting perspective because the basic meme of language and the ideas that language makes possible do have a certain analogue in genes and the organisms they make possible. Ideas that spread well tend to survive and get passed on to further generations, while those that are unpopular tend to die and end up forgotten or 'fossilized' in obscurity.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar I know. It's a shame people like Richard Dawkins tries to pass it off for science.

You know, decades ago people thought religion would go the way of the Dodo. It hasn't. In fact, Christianity has exploded in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

Why are you implying you agree with me in your first line and then disagreeing in your second one? I don't see anything dangerous and unscientific about the concept of memes.

Religion doesn't go the way of the dodo because it isn't rare or harmless, but rather insidious and predatory. It's expanding in those areas because it takes advantage of poverty like it's always done. "Pie in the sky when you die" sounds awfully good to starving people.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar I agree with your definition of meme. I disagree that it is scientifically verifiable. It is dangerous because people use it to demonize an ideology. Tolerance is not accepting all beliefs as equally true. Tolerance is how you treat others with different world views. If you demonize them, if you say they are necrotic viruses, well, that's intolerant.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

It's a theoretical model used to describe phenomena. Theists often confuse that with some version of revealed truth. Science is a process, not a revelation. The concept of memes is itself a meme, if it provides a useful framework for discussing competing ideas, people may use it.

Not all ideas are equal, and it makes sense to accord greater respect to some over others. For example, there's an idea that genital mutilation is better than condoms in combating AIDS, but it's wrong.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar

I would say the meme is more a concept that belongs to psychology, like the collective unconscious. It's totally unscientific but useful. Theology is revelation as well as a process. The doctrine of the trinity wasn't elucidated until the 3rd century but it is completely supported by scripture of the 1st.

I agree with you about competing ideas. Someone said the right to believe anything does not mean anything you believe is right. This guy's argument has failed drastically with me.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

The meme model doesn't say that ideas are shared by some psychic means. Various forms of regular language are quite sufficient. The 'universal unconscious' only makes sense if you take it in a very loose way to include instinctual reactions and the subconscious interpretation of subtle expressions and body language. There's nothing to support any sort of psychic or mystical connection, but again, the meme model doesn't posit one.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar" Probably none of my empirical concepts has met with so much misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what follows I shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept, (2) a description of what it means for psychology, (3) an explanation of the method of proof, and (4) an example."

CG Jung

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

Thanks for pointing that out, I had it backwards as to which was the strict definition and which was the loose one. Jung's original is the term for those various instinctual responses that we inherit. So-called "New Age" drivel commonly steals the term to claim it as some sort of telepathic connection that they've obscured the original meaning of. It's like how Deepak Chopra steals and twists the jargon of quantum mechanics and astrophysics for his flaky spiritualism.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar Then we can share a distaste for Deepak Chopra.

By the way, did you hear he's getting married to Oprah? She's gonna be Mrs. Oprah Chopra.

[Keovar]

@caveatemp

I could find a lot of references of that as a joke, and of Oprah endorsing quackery like his, but that's all.

I did get a chuckle out of it, though. :)

Incidentally, the "Oprah Choprah" joke is a decent example of a meme. If someone passes it on as true, you could call that a mutation of the meme. If enough people fail to check for news sources and pass it on anyway, the mutation could be said to be successful... and it would end up on Snopes.

[caveatemp]

@Keovar If memes are "ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another" then certainly the Enlightenment worldview is a meme as well. It is "proselytic"- traveling horizontally through generations. It's fundamentalist form can be seen in the scientism of the "New Atheists" who maintain it is adversative to religion.

[Bill99Cass]

being pompus doesn't help There are no complete answers to anything so make up your own belief based on pure intention

[godlessevangelist]

@Bill99Cass Being pompus DOES help. Religion has had it's way since humanity began. Now it's time to point and laugh at the stupidity for the sake of our species.

Saying "there are no complete answers" is a cop out. If I were to say that the moon is made of green cheese, simply based on the fact that I like cheese, I'd be ridiculed. And rightly so. Saying that there are no complete answers and the moon "may" be made of green cheese is just ignorance. Just like magic man in the sky - IGNORANCE.

[catholictrooper]

I pose a few questions to you. When some one mentions the name God is it a name or an individual being that can be associated with the beings that the early pagans believed there were a multitude of? Another question is, if you think it is completely out of the question, that there could be an immaterial being that predates all matter and therefore time, as we know it? I was under the impression that scientific modernity was open to all possibilities because one may be true.

[bigguitar22]

Religions are manifestations of mankind's attempt to understand the world when we really didn't understand anything about the world. People can believe what they like but taxes should't fund it - they shouldn't receive exemption from taxes as most religions are organised rackets and they should have no inalienable right to be "offended" when someone suggests that their beliefs are crap! Unless of course they can provide evidence for their belief in the supernatural - which of course they cant.

[godlessevangelist]

@bigguitar22 I agree with everything you said, but I would expend on the "people can believe whatever they want" statement. Of course they can, but they should be willing to stand by those beliefs and not hide them behind church doors. This should especially be the case when those beliefs hurt people. Like the abortion issue, abstinence only education, persecuting gays, etc.

I consider it every rational thinkers duty to point out and ridicule those beliefs. The world needs it.

[rja125]

Good video.