Dunno, how?
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
Dunno, how?
*cough cough* Topics give me emphysema.
How do you catch an unique animal?
You "neak" up on it.
Right, I'm out. Laterz!
Add what?
The "Oh noooo"
You'd run into the Shopping Maul.
If you were with Oli make a run for it because you're faster than he is. Then you're safe.
If you were with Oli make a run for it because you're faster than he is. Then you're safe.
Because I'm a gentleman and I'd sacrifice myself for SAM.
If you were with Oli make a run for it because you're faster than he is. Then you're safe.
Ah, you don't know Oli, he would throw himself on the bear to keep me safe.
Ah, you don't know Oli, he would throw himself on the bear to keep me safe.
Bah, I'm getting predictable again.
Once again: clear and precise "scientific" definitions come after understanding, not before.
"Meme", like "force" or "cause", seems to be a pretty useful term/concept in spite of the lack of a clear definition, and the probablity that it's a shorthand or heuristic for something quite different in fundamental nature.
And having coined a few terms or concepts useful in discussion is not the core of Dawkins's "representation of atheism".
How about "any nameable coherency that must be learned and can be taught" ?
btw: Darwinian evolution does not proceed through chains of cause and effect. The "cause and effect" laws of the universe do not produce Darwinian evolution. That does not mean a miracle is required, or assumed.
"Meme", like "force" or "cause", seems to be a pretty useful term/concept in spite of the lack of a clear definition, and the probablity that it's a shorthand or heuristic for something quite different in fundamental nature.
And having coined a few terms or concepts useful in discussion is not the core of Dawkins's "representation of atheism".
How about "any nameable coherency that must be learned and can be taught" ?
btw: Darwinian evolution does not proceed through chains of cause and effect. The "cause and effect" laws of the universe do not produce Darwinian evolution. That does not mean a miracle is required, or assumed.
No but empiricism still precedes conclusions. Or have they changed that as well?