Dawkins is a scientist, but he is not a psychologist. It shows. He falls into the same reasoning traps as the more fundamentalist religious people tend to do.
Having a PHD behind their names does not by default action make their questions either better or worse, it do help however to lend credibility just as news readers are viewed as authorities and therefore people tend to believe them, however; that does not make it so. Anyway; an open mind whether forwarded by a “sheeple” or a scientist is what tends to yield the “better” questions, Often scientists intimidate themselves purely because they are being told something is not scientific, however - that is off topic and deserves its own thread. but yes; I do get your point and don’t disagree with it per se Nexxo, “did God fake the dino bones” what the heck mate? No, space is of course very much as hostile as before but sure development has given us better technology, today high-tech is “cheap” whereas a high quality labour force is expensive, unless you go China, which has been the latest trend in which case you get both for a bargain whilst killing off our own work force and economy, look at the Americans they are frigging bleeding as a result and others are hurting too. Of course there is, nothing beats a human perspective, input and feedback. A robot can never ever, fully replace a human. Sure its dangerous, there are a lot of things in life that are dangerous. Apologize for the late reply, have been somewhat busy working with frigging welding procedures. Cheers
And remember, folks, not even God himself could sink the Titanic. In all seriousness, the Energia/Buran system flew into space all of once, with no crew on board. No, it didn't blow up, but you really can't get a good idea of reliability from a single flight.
Yes, you can't from just one flight, but I know that the Soviet rocket engineers were way ahead of the US ones at that time and I have many reasons to think that they did their job right.
You're right. The Russians were ahead of us for much of the Space Race. In order to get to the Moon, each side had to achieve certain milestones: 1. Launch a rocket; 2. Launch humans; 3. Orbit; 4. Perform spacewalk and re-enter the craft; 5. Dock two spacecraft. I've simplified that a bit, but you get the idea. The Russians beat us to just about every one of the milestones. Toward the end, they ran out of money, and their space program stalled. With enough funding, I think they would have beaten us to the Moon. -monkey
It wasn't the funding that troubled them so much - it was getting 30 experimental, complex engines to work reliably together in a launch craft at the same time. Engines that were so advanced they're still being used in a near-unchanged form to this day in some sat-launchers (can't remember which one it is now). The Buran project was the one of the many manned projects that was finally killed off with funding troubles.
Increasingly, I feel Dawkins comes over as primarily an apologist for humanism / atheism. His science seems almost secondary.
Exactly what I mean. He is not objective --he is on a crusade against religion. That is almost like belief.
I've always maintained that atheism is a religion. They venerate science as their god, and their fanatical devotion to using it to disprove everything is just as bad as the Christians who don't want to listen to anyone else. There are extremes to everything. Most atheists are really agnostics, as they will profess to not know, and not be able to uncover, if there is any evidence of the existence of a god. The ones who vehemently deny the existence of one oftentimes are slaves to that very vehemence-their defense of their point becomes a god to them. While this is merely an opinion, and I am not spoiling for a fight today, I do hope it gives a bt of food for thought.
Science can become a religion. But it should be a philosophical tool that enables us to live better. So should faith.
Need to warn you, Nexxo. Slippery slope. (I try not to quote too many verses from the Bible in these posts, but Acts chapter 12, verses 21-23, came to mind as I read the last two posts! - you'll probably call me a Fundie now )
It is what I've told my atheist friend, that he does believe in something, he believes strongly in the lack of a god. He claims that people are dumb for believing in a god you can't prove, but at least to me, it is equally assuming to say that there is no possibility for one. As you may guess, I am agnostic, and wouldn't be surprised if there is a god and wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one.
Didn't know the exact location. Just knew it was somewhere in the book 'Acts of the Apostles', and went looking for it. (and I do read the Bible quite a bit)
