All religions are brainworms. Basically any idea or coherent set of beliefs constitute a meme or brainworm, in that they try to replicate and spread to other brains.

so says the theory anyway. Sayin it don't make it true

Nor does denying it make it untrue. If a brainworm is an idea or bundle of ideas, how is islam or any other religion not a brainworm?

I think you made that comment because you feel the need to attack any atheistic position, and you have not given the matter any real critical thought.

well i think you made ^that comment because you assume i am "anti atheist" rather than taking the time to realise that i am a contrarian and I wish people would use logic and reasoning to make a point rather than hype and buzzwords and smoke and mirrors.

If a brainworm is an idea, Islam is a brainworm.
But the idea of a brainworm is just an idea. It's just a way of putting it. It can make logical sense but not be true.

When people who have a firm position on something (i.e. atheists or devout believers) come across a theory that sounds coherent, they repeat it ad infinitum in order to make it more "true", because as we all know, repeating a lie makes it the accepted truth.

Within the brainworm theory, i agree, islam is a brainworm.
Within the entire universe I disagree, i think it is the wrong way of looking at things. To me, these evolutionists want to project their evolution theory onto everything, because they only see the world in terms of evolution. Just like religious people only see the world in terms of religion.

I am a designer, and i often fall into the same trap, i think everything is about design. (i mean graphic design, not "intelligent" design).
It's called "vocational prejudice" or something. I genuinely believe the world could be a perfect place if we had more typographers and better architects. Then i realise that i only put so much priority on the importance of design because I AM a designer.

Anyway.

If god is everything, how can god not exist? lol.

Stick with me budzos, i know you vote for unpopular clips that i also vote for so we can't be so opposite as you think.

Well, I like semantics and precision of speech. All memes are ideas (or groups of ideas) but not all ideas are memes. It has to replicate before it's a meme. How many times is not for me to say. I suppose just once would be enough from a certain POV.

i worked in an office during the dotcom boom that had a big flipchart full of buzzwords and "NEW PARADIGM" written at the top. It was hilarious.

ha, memes, the idea of viruses taken to the extreme.
makes me puke.
a sort of organic gnosticism if I ever saw one.

even if you disagree, upvote it so more people will see your opinion about it
my brainworm tells you to do this.

I did
but don't sell me man, don't sell

bah, you designers are all the same...

atheism doesn't require critical thought. In fact it requires no thought at all. I don't see why Dawkins takes so much time to try and defeat religion. If he doesn't believe in God then why try to prove that there isn't one? In fact Dawkins has yet to even begin to disprove that there is no God. His observations are based on examples of human error and a narrow line of scientific reasoning. He leaves too much out of his arguments to persuade anyone who has more then very limited experience and knowledge.

It's kind of ironic that this doesn't have 78 votes. lol

btw
the intelligent design hypothesis is flawed, but not in the way the pseudoevolutionists think, but in the way it implies a higher being who designs and does not in necessity create.
a designer does not create ex nihilo, out of nothing
he DESIGNS, so the problem still remains, the problem of matter for instance, or of pure substance
which not even the jargon of quantum mechanics can devalue
i.e. where does substance come from.

matter, substance etc. is independent of the designer, the "stuff" of the universe remains a mystery, whichever way we chose to interpret it
be it sci-entific capitalist ideology
or this new rationalistic creation theory

boooya. good random btw there.

thanks gorgonheap, it wouldn't be right to have this here without a downvote

Well thanks for understanding Mink.

damn those dam beavers

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by mauz15.

one of my favorite tedtalks ......*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by bleedmegood.

God? God? The very label is a meme. The FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTOR laughs at the label "God"! Look in front of you. What you see is what exists. If you see "God", you've been tokin' too much. Get over it Ooooh! Ahhhh! There MUST be something out there and everywhere to replace Mom and Dad!

>> ^gorgonheap:

atheism doesn't require critical thought. In fact it requires no thought at all. I don't see why Dawkins takes so much time to try and defeat religion. If he doesn't believe in God then why try to prove that there isn't one? In fact Dawkins has yet to even begin to disprove that there is no God. His observations are based on examples of human error and a narrow line of scientific reasoning. He leaves too much out of his arguments to persuade anyone who has more then very limited experience and knowledge.


Are you saying that belief in a god requires critical thought? Concluding that something exists despite a lack of evidence to support that conclusion is critical thinking? Accepting without question ideas formed by others ~2000 years ago, passed on and on and on is critical thought?

Atheists are generally not brought up that way; they're the product of years of critical thought -- thought which is guilt-inducing and contrary and to what they're told in an overwhelming atmosphere of religious indoctrination from early childhood. Many, including myself, went to Sunday School just like you may have and were told there's a god before they had a choice to conclude that for themselves. Religion currently enjoys that perk.

Atheists have generally had to deprogram former beliefs to form conclusions, based on evidence or the lack of it: (evidence(or lack of)-->thought-->conclusion VS. statement-->reward/threat-->conclusion/belief)

Dawkins "takes so much time to try and defeat religion" because religion a majority view -- not because it makes so much sense-- but because it doesn't. Turn your question around: Why do those who espouse belief in a god "take so much time" to push that idea? Why is that "good" but a contrary view like Dawkins' is "bad"? Think critically.