# Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?



## 2020hindsight (9 November 2007)

Found this excerpt from a book on Richard Dawkins. 
I am personally in full agreement 

"a paradise of a religionless world"



> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7091195/Some-thoughts-on-the-Dawkins.html
> Some thoughts on the Dawkins paradise.(Religion)(Richard Dawkins )
> 
> SINCE SHORTLY AFTER my religious boarding school failed, despite what then appeared to me to be its chaplain's and principal's best efforts, to convert me to atheism, I have been looking, like some Bravo swaggering down the Rialto, for some atheist publication or argument that would be a foeman worthy of my intellectual steel.
> ...




On "The God Delusion":-
 Richard Dawkins Reads The God Delusion

But equally he features in many youtubes arguing evolution, 

plus many on general science

plus many on social issues etc 

(and all these could be discussed to advantage imo).   

Incidentally, nothing I have heard him say has ever come across as outlandish to my ears.    And I personally enjoy his wit.  Maybe others would disagree.


----------



## sam76 (9 November 2007)

*Re: Richard Dawkins - right or wrong*

One half of me wishes that we could live in a world of no God.

The other half of me thinks the greatest trick the devil ever played was to tell the world he never existed.  (not sure if that's the correct recital)


----------



## So_Cynical (9 November 2007)

*Re: Richard Dawkins - right or wrong*

I only found out about Dawkins a couple of months ago..i like him.

And the "tea pot" analogy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07JvzfO0vOk

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further". Richard Dawkins


----------



## weird (10 November 2007)

*Re: Richard Dawkins - right or wrong*

Most people have trouble with basic numerical algorithm programming, heck even long division for that matter ... so attention span must be considered when trying to give logical arguments ...  two + two equals .... 22 ?! 

We all should write a book, or get a youtube video. Hasn't everyone yet in trading ? Go write one now !

One area that our education surely lacks is in communication studies ... and analysing 'logical' arguments.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

*Re: Richard Dawkins - right or wrong*

this is a fairly thorough investigation of one simple theological question ...

how "bad luck" happens to 1000s in an Earthquake,  but if one if saved, then "God" intervened in THAT case. 

I agree with this bloke's conclusion.  It's all blind faith.  viz...

"You cannot deal with religion on a rational basis.  McGrath should have stuck to the main reason to be religious - and that is that it is simply an act of faith.  McGrath cannot respond to Dawkin's unremitting logic.  My suggestion to my religious friends is 
"don't try to be logical - be like Tertullian, and stay away from rationality".

  Re: An Analysis of The God Delusion - Part Three



> The failure of reason and rationality in the ideas of Alistar McGrath


----------



## weird (10 November 2007)

In similar circumstances, someone may have picked up a 4 leaf clover and also said I survived because the luck of the Irish. Should the skeptics dismiss the entire notion of the existence of the country of Ireland, based on their disbelief of this person's claim ?


 Your picking on a human circumstance, where people are just happy to be alive ! I hope the book is not using these as arguments, because even church folk would pull this apart.

These are silly arguments .. and would be dismissed as wishful thinking even in religous groups.

Most religions, recognise that people have a very limited understanding of reality, and are too prone to putting themselves in the centre, instead of God.


----------



## Sean K (10 November 2007)

I'm not sure if it's possible to have a Godless world. Humans are too stupid.


----------



## Timmy (10 November 2007)

I'm with Dawkins on just about everything.

Except this..

"No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/ Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no northern Ireland "troubles," no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people ... no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheading of blasphemers ... "

If there was no religion humans would find another reason for violence towards their fellows.


----------



## jeffho (10 November 2007)

I agree with most of what he says. Also agree with John Lennon's "Imagine"


----------



## Sean K (10 November 2007)

Sorry Weird, most here probably already understand my position on this topic, so I deliberately kept it short. I do however believe that you could read quite a few things into those 2 sentences.  Firstly, I think that there is no way we can take God out of the world because there are still too many questions left unanswered and we will always replace the gap in our understanding with ‘God’. Just call the gap God for now and don’t worry if it’s Inti, Allah, Ra, Brahman, Yahweh, Elohim, or whatever. Secondly, humans refuse to recognise and accept that there may be a gap, and replace it with such absolutely brilliant metaphysics such as Creation, The Dream Time, Hahgwehdiyu, or The Enuma Elis. Or, perhaps you subscribe to one of my all time favourites and you call yourself a Raelian….Let’s imagine what could be God, but true faith or belief in It, and allowing the fantacy to control your life, is pure idiocy.


----------



## Driver (10 November 2007)

I too, have become a bit of a Dawkins fan - and if you're interested in this, should look up (youtube) some of the stuff the late great Douglas Adams has said on the subject. There are a few very simple explanations (from Adams) on the why man created God. If you look back on science, you'll see that often the gaps (as kennas put it) or things we couldn't explain scientifically, were explained by religion. Think about going back in time even 100 years ago - you're average person, would see a lot of our current technology as "god-like" - iphones, lasers, going to the moon. Now imagine going back 200, 300, etc and the ability of even scientific men of that time would be challenged.


I think the more you logically think about it, the more it becomes apparent that God is a very human creation - and will never be eradicated for multiple reasons.

It is the ultimate form of control. It is pretty much cult-like - having been brought up in a somewhat religous family, what I thought was a very reasonable family (i.e. NOT fundamentalist at all) & an Eastern religion that is not typically an aggressive one - it now amazes me how intolerant religion is as whole. How it prejudices peoples thoughts & views. It also amazes me how ingrained or subconscious these thoughts become - I'm tempted to use the word 'programmed' - so that people act & behave in a way that they themselves don't realize or can rationally explain. 

Superstition & luck are also things, as humans, we believe in & cling to because they make us feel better. And the fact that even the atheist & agnostic among us fall prey to those, underlines how difficult it would be for the remainder to throw off the shackles of religion.

I was somewhat heartened to see the wiki entry on religion saying that atheism is coming up third - because another one of my gripes is the silent majority. The people that don't practice or preach a religion, and are for all purposes not really believers - who, when it comes time to tick a box on a form, put down a religion for the sack of tradition or family or something... I worry that that kind of support is what continues funding and perpetuation of religion.

Lastly, the other main reason, I can never see religion going away is that it offers the perfect insurance policy (for the insurance/religious company, that is!). Pay up front, and we'll look after you in the afterlife. Can we show you proof - yeah, sure - you just have to believe... Death without an hope of an afterlife - the thought of non-existance of your 'self' is pretty damn bleak & depressing - which is why religion and it's offer of the continued existance as you as the entity you are today (rather than worm food) is it's greatest strength.

BTW - I'm pretty sure it isn't factually correct - it seems 'too perfect', but I find it enjoyable nonetheless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

weird said:


> In similar circumstances, someone may have picked up a 4 leaf clover and also said I survived because the luck of the Irish. Should the skeptics dismiss the entire notion of the existence of the country of Ireland, based on their disbelief of this person's claim ?
> 
> Your picking on a human circumstance, where people are just happy to be alive ! I hope the book is not using these as arguments, because even church folk would pull this apart.



weird
you are comparing religion with Irish superstition. 
for once I agree with you.
(they are two sides of the same coin)

(charming as the Irish are - with their Blarney stones etc - they are not gonna win too many science awards in that mode)


----------



## Ageo (10 November 2007)

Hehe its funny how people think religion is responsible for wars etc... like anything in life you need to take responsiblity for your own actions. If these guys that started these wars didnt have religion as an excuse they would use something else, remember there are both peacefull and evil people in every race, gender and religion so this tells us that its not the tool or the faith or the object that supposedly drives them but its actually their personality and their beliefs. If someone has hatred in their mind and the only thing their seeking is blood then no matter what the excuse/reason is they will always be evil.


----------



## ithatheekret (10 November 2007)

Well , if you've read Revelations ( which they should make a movie on ) , you could also add his name to the Anti-Christ list  :


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

guess everyone knows you can read the bible on line these days. 
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=holy/newtestament/revelation

New Testament remember ....



> 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou
> sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to
> teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat
> things sacrificed unto idols.
> ...



 pretty tough call for a god of love and the message of forgiveness 
especially for the innocent kids
.........



> 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him
> will I give power over the nations: 2:27 And he shall rule them with a
> rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to
> shivers: even as I received of my Father.
> ...



Now I know where George Bush gets his mad ideas. 
Fortunately the "reality" of the US electoral laws is about to give him the flick


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

Quick question is he in opposition to God or opposition to religion?


----------



## chops_a_must (10 November 2007)

Ageo said:


> If someone has hatred in their mind and the only thing their seeking is blood then no matter what the excuse/reason is they will always be evil.



Except, evil is a religious concept.


----------



## mark70920 (10 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Quick question is he in opposition to God or opposition to religion?





He just thinks its all silly superstiton , made up by very naive people thousands of years ago. If you look at it from a scientific view point there is zero evidence of a divine being. 
There is  a lot of unanswered questions but we keep finding answers all time as our knowledge increases and all these answers tell us the religious texts of all the major faiths are wrong.


----------



## Julia (10 November 2007)

My thanks to Driver and Kennas, both of whom have said what I would have wanted to say, and probably better.

Yesterday I was talking with a highly qualified psychologist who works for a community organisation and she was trying to persuade me of the benefits of believing in a "personal guardian angel"!!!!!  She is one of the bunches of people who believe that God will save those who find him, but the rest of us will become Satan's.  No kidding.


----------



## Mofra (10 November 2007)

Julia said:


> She is one of the bunches of people who believe that God will save those who find him, but the rest of us will become Satan's.  No kidding.



Pity those born in different countries, who don't follow _her_ god.
By her logic, they are all damned to hell for simply being born in the wrong location.


----------



## jtb (10 November 2007)

I read 'Climbing Mount Improbable' (also by Dawkins) many years ago, while on a personal quest to prove their can be no god and the best thing about it was it turned my theories on their head and convinced me otherwise.

My rational mind has since been unable to comprehend evolution in the absence of external guidance as the mathematical probabilities are ridiculously remote.

It was one of his descriptions regarding beetles taking flight that brought to light for me the eons that would be required for mud to become a bird.
_Not withstanding the enormous fossil record that would be available of the 99.9% of failed examples between that tadpole and the first flying creature?_

If the planet is 4 billion years old and we look at the period of time the planet wasn't a boiling inferno nor a block of ice- we have had an awful lot of luck in profitable mutation in a very short period of time.

I remember reading somewhere that the odds of a *single* functioning organism arising by chance from the ooze was of the same order as winning first division lotto every week for 100,000 years.

Why would humans evolve a brain that consumes 50% of the bodies bloodflow and of which only 10% is utilised?????????

Nature abhors mutation and it is quickly killed off.

I'm afraid I've come around to the 'there can be no pleasure in the absence of pain' school of thinking and as such while we are most definitely animals there is something else going on


----------



## motorway (10 November 2007)

> I remember reading somewhere that the odds of a single functioning organism arising by chance from the ooze was of the same order as winning first division lotto every week for 100,000 years.




Putting the God question aside...

Regarding evolution....

Functioning organisms do not arise by chance...Which would be  Random Selection..

But by Natural Selection..


Big Difference

motorway


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

jtb said:


> Why would humans evolve a brain that consumes 50% of the bodies bloodflow and of which only 10% is utilised???



I agree with you that we are animals jtb, but on the other point (above) - we also have the stump of a tail at the end of our spine  - 

(btw the aim of this chatroom and these sorts of threads is to use some of the unused 90% of that brain lol)

I think you are saying there was a guiding hand through the forest of evolution yes?

Not sure how to challenge your alleged statistical chance of life there   - lemme put it this was - I've gotta feeling it's wrong lol. 
Who knows? "star stuff" might have triggered things(?) 

If Man arrived at "17 seconds to midnight" (if a 12 hour clock is used to represent 4 billion years of the earth) 

then we have 11hours 59mins 43 secs for the foundations to form.  !!!



> as Carl Sagan says ... how slowly life evolves -
> molecules of early oceans to the first bacteria....
> By the time one-celled animials had evolved, history of life on earth was half over.



check out the 1m10s mark ...
 Carl Sagan - Origins

Changing direction somewhat ("Dawkins" covers a lot lol) 
Then there's the "evolution of morality" 
Here Dawkins claims that he has been misunderstood ( possibly intentionally so)  
- that his reference to "the selfish gene" became an excuse to act as selfishly as one liked - and he was even blamed for the election of Maggie Thatcher. !

 Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (1)


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2007)

I think generally speaking, Dawkins is doing well to open minds with his perception on life.There is real evidence of other animals that existed long before human beings and real evidence of the desire for each living organism to continue living.



> A new analysis of two human skulls previously found in Africa shows they date from nearly 200,000 years ago, making them the oldest known examples of our species.
> The finding suggests our ancestors spent a long, long time wallowing in an uncultured era with no music, art or jewelry.
> The fossils were found near Kibish, Ethiopia in 1967. Scientists had previously thought they were no more than 160,000 old. The new analysis of rocks in which the skulls were embedded shows them both to date back 195,000 years, give or take 5,000.




Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating, Feeding and procreating etcetera.

You get the drift.The forces of what we call `nature` are greater than small mind will ever be. (especially my pea   )


----------



## Driver (10 November 2007)

I think raising this awareness (a la Dawkins) is very important, because the forces of religion are so organized & strong - one of his points is how children get labelled & shaped so early on by religion.

Whilst evolution seems to make sense, it is amazing how people can believe in Intelligent Design. Websites like www.answersingenesis.org, http://www.creationism.org, the Museum for Intelligent Design, Bible boot camps...

It is funny, because most of the surgeons I know are relatively god-less (in the atheist sense) - and it's not because we have our own god complexes  but the more I see & do and medicine & surgery - it certainly can't be ascribed to an "intelligent" designer, a blind watch maker maybe...


I think the other great lure of religion, is the sense of individual importance - i.e. most religious people believe they are special or here for a purpose. It's amusing when you question them on that "purpose"... I liken it to them being in a movie, and that for their "purpose" they invariably see themselves as one of the leading characters - but!!! if they had a purpose, it might just be one of those other thousand background people. Some nameless delivery guy, or miscellaneous hench-person, or cop. Imagine if your "great" purpose in life was nothing more than to cross the road at one to alter traffic for one critical moment or some other mundane task and the rest of your life amounted to nothing. Not quite so romantic and alluring any more is it?

Related to this lure, is the abrogation of personal responsibility. I really can't stand it when people blame god or the devil for actions of humans. Life is a lot more difficult when each of us have to take 100% responsibility for our actions, especially our mistakes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think generally speaking, Dawkins is doing well to open minds with his perception on life.There is real evidence of other animals that existed long before human beings and real evidence of the desire for each living organism to continue living.
> 
> [200,000 year old skeleton]
> 
> ...



1. I agree - Dawkins is a great trigger for some rational thought here
3. you sure do a lot of feeding and procreating 
2. 200K year old - here's a table I found on "geological time" - with origins of man back 1.8 million or so.  I'm not an expert ( although I long ago studied Paleontology - and equally long ago forgot most of it ) but presumably someone is happy to "extrapolate things back a bit" with confidence :2 twocents 

The first men were made in Pleistocene it seems    - well it's as credible as being made of clay ( in the case of Adam) and a rib ( in the case of Eve) :2 twocents 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale


----------



## So_Cynical (10 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Quick question is he in opposition to God or opposition to religion?



Yes on both counts.

20/20 a request...next weekend can your subject be something non religious...how about something sexist.


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

Timmy said:


> "No suicide bombers, no 9/11, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/ Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ-killers," no northern Ireland "troubles," no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people ... no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheading of blasphemers ... "
> .




I don't know if you can play the "devils advocate" and actually support religion but I'll give it a go....

1. a lot of these problems whilst they may have religion as a rallying point there are a lot of other mitigating factors...and can be explained as much by tribalism as by religion....In that its the protection and procreation of the tribe that are the causal attributes? So if we didn't have religion there would still be enough causes for war (explained by tribalism)

2. Religions often offer a lot of support to the community. Father O'Riley and the Youth Off The Streets program being one of my favorites

3. A way of personal salvation? Drug addicts, Inmates...I know a couple of guys that have found Religion whilst inside and now theyr'e changed people and great role models


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2007)

Thanks for the link.

When the bibleological scriptures were created and assembled there was nothing like this around : 


> Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials, based on a comparison between the observed abundance of particular naturally occurring radioactive isotopes and their known decay rates.[1] It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself. Among the best-known techniques are potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating.




and modern technology is blowing holes in faith belief systems like never before.Self control of mind should be the new religion that the whole human race embraces.We may be seeing the transition phase from a controlled passive religion base to a freer radical mind set as the organism discovers new possibilities and adapts to them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> Yes on both counts.
> 
> 20/20 a request...next weekend can your subject be something non religious...how about something sexist.



heck cyn - I've already posted Johnny Howard's pinup girl  
but I'll give your suggestion some thought .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Thatcher

here are some quotes , some of which are possibly a fraction sexist (male or female as applic) :-

Whoever called it necking was a poor judge of the anatomy - Groucho Marx

Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion - Spike Milligan

When I'm good I'm very good, but when I'm bad I'm better - Mae West 

If I asked for a cup of coffee, someone would search for a double meaning - Mae West 

Men's pupil's dilate more at the sight of a female pin-up than vice versa  - John Fisher 

The difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually costs a lot less - Brendan Francis


----------



## Driver (10 November 2007)

kgee - comments about your points:
1) If you believed in a god - and to me, whilst religion & god are not the same, I can't see religion existing without god & is the central core of religion. And god is an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent character - then you'd want to obey his, right? Now, I can't in my (pathetic human) mind see how any god would want harm done to others. If anything god should be a complete unifying force - against the very "valid" other reasons you give for wars to start - but if anything religion/god very very rarely seems to help. Part of this is because some of the deeper messages are twisted by those in power to suit they're ends/needs and control the populace...

2) "Religious" people do a lot of good. So do non-religious people. Religious people also do a lot of bad... This kinda argument leads to the view that atheists are amoral. I don't see that religion automatically equates to morality (it should, I think), and I think you can have a very good sense of morals without resorting to god & religion.

3) Hmm... without meaning to be nasty, if you look towards an external source to make you complete - I'd worry that you may not get the same permanence of resolution/salvation. I've come across a couple of 'born agains' and they've struck me a bit as being a bit on the loony fringe? Maybe it was a kind word or someone that offered them hope of a different life - I think this could be done without resorting to religion & god. I'd also wonder what happened if a series of bad things happened - i.e. what happened to my personal saviour / why is god doing this to me... which could lead to a relapse of behaviour - rather than if there was a basic inner understanding of the reasons for why their behaviour/actions were not ideal in the first place... imho, of course


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

kgee said:


> 1. a lot of these problems whilst they may have religion as a rallying point there are a lot of other mitigating factors...and can be explained as much by tribalism as by religion....In that its the protection and procreation of the tribe that are the causal attributes? So if we didn't have religion there would still be enough causes for war (explained by tribalism)
> 
> 2. Religions often offer a lot of support to the community. Father O'Riley and the Youth Off The Streets program being one of my favorites
> 
> 3. A way of personal salvation? Drug addicts, Inmates...I know a couple of guys that have found Religion whilst inside and now theyr'e changed people and great role models




kgee  - 
1. Rafa has challenged me on this question many times - i.e. "religion causes wars" .  I think we agreed that "religion causes (some) wars".  

2and3. yep - 

"If is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable" - John Stuart Mills 1806 - 1873. 

and I would happily use "God" myself when I need to give a child hope etc.  (just posted this song on "Tunes" thread for example).  

Equally I am more likely to respect a Salvation Army officer who is not going to lecture me on the subject, than some visiting American missionary with a barrow to push, and a monthly tally of converts to meet 

 Mark Wills - Don't Laugh At Me


----------



## weird (10 November 2007)

Darwin evolution ...


----------



## jtb (10 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I agree with you that we are animals jtb, but on the other point (above) - we also have the stump of a tail at the end of our spine  -
> 
> (btw the aim of this chatroom and these sorts of threads is to use some of the unused 90% of that brain lol)
> 
> ...




Hey 2020,

Yes I agree with the star stuff wholeheartedly, but you nailed it with regard to the guiding hand thing.

Lets just say I've had a couple of 'experiences' that altered my perception.

Out of curiosity have you ever read anything about Edgar Cayce?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

omg - weird - that is hilarious lol!!!
(that's "oh my goodness" btw )


----------



## tech/a (10 November 2007)

Without the gulf of Mexico being the epicenter for a very large meteor and the dawn of the ice age---extinction of dinosaurs--man would STILL not be here.

To believe that A god created humans in his image without evolution playing any part is fanciful. In-fact I find it insulting to rational intelligence.

The weak need religion and gods,to instill meaning and hope.
The strong need religion and god to instill fear and power.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2007)

Driver said:


> kgee - comments about your points:
> - rather than if there was a basic inner understanding of the reasons for why their behaviour/actions were not ideal in the first place... imho, of course




Hi driver ... i`m not kgee (i`m open and honest actually lol) but the part most of us don`t admit is above.Not only won`t admit but don`t know how to `handle` it. Don`t you think religion offers a salvation to those that can`t `handle` their own mind?Religion is part of evolution too, as we move toward a better understanding of things (for want of a better word)


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

edgar cayce

jt- no I haven't previously read of him - but I have read Adam Smith on "Powers of the Mind" - and that mind of ours is one phenomenally powerful beast   (assuming I'm not off on a tangent compared to where you are heading)


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

Just in the interest of been fair and balanced
 Maybe a more relevant question would be
" How would the world be now if religion had never been invented?"
it's a hypothetical but would the world be really such a different place as it is today if we had never had religion?
my guess is no... or if it was differrent it would be a lot less interesting...maybe a less soul???


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> The weak need religion and gods,to instill meaning and hope.
> The strong need religion and god to instill fear and power.




Generally speaking tech/a this is what happens.Giving/helping unselfishly is rare.You know what i mean, not expecting anything in return.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

well kgee, lol - I know how Dawkins would answer that .  
me? - I'd want the option of replacing religion with a moral code (compare the greek philosophers)  that is higher than a selfish desire to end up floating around in heaven with a harp and a pair of wings

and/or driven by a fear that one might end up stoking fires for eternity.


----------



## jtb (10 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> edgar cayce
> 
> jt- no I haven't previously read of him - but I have read Adam Smith on "Powers of the Mind" - and that mind of ours is one phenomenally powerful beast   (assuming I'm not off on a tangent compared to where you are heading)




He was a big deal in the early 1900's in the US, uneducated man and the only book he ever read was apparently the King James bible.

Used to go to sleep ('The sleeping prophet') and questions would be put to him.
Many highly complex, medical (people on deaths door on the other side of the country etc), stuff he had never been exposed too in his waking state- quite amazing imo
Theres an institute devoted to the study of his 'readings'

Something to the group-mind concept perhaps.


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

Oh yeah and what about religously inspired art?
Was it the calvinists that talked of the "beauty of holiness" (or the catholics), no matter some of the art is fantastic...zen gardens, cathedrals, mosques
(sorry if I go off subject but my speakers aren't working so I can't get the utube)


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Oh yeah and what about religously inspired art?
> Was it the calvinists that talked of the "beauty of holiness" (or the catholics), no matter some of the art is fantastic...zen gardens, cathedrals, mosques
> (sorry if I go off subject but my speakers aren't working so I can't get the utube)



yeah, religion has built some great cathedrals - but at what price...
I mean much of the gold in the Vatican was taken by Columbus from the Incas, and is seriously covered in their blood 

but sure, it has been a method to get a community thinking "in the same direction" and there have followed some great architectural (and scuptural etc) achievenemnts. 

I guess you could say that the pyramids are based on religion, yes?.

And men used to spend their entire life applying gold leaf to just one wall of the old Siamese temples for example.

So yes- religion has been "a rallying cry".   Still, I seriously wish it were possible to have an easy alternative.



jtb said:


> He was a big deal in the early 1900's in the US, uneducated man and the only book he ever read was apparently the King James bible.
> 
> Used to go to sleep ('The sleeping prophet') and questions would be put to him.
> Many highly complex, medical (people on deaths door on the other side of the country etc), stuff he had never been exposed too in his waking state- quite amazing imo
> ...



PS jt - I'll check out Mr Cayce some more  - but Adam Smith covered similar phenomena - people suddenly speaking greek whilst under LSD (and being monitored)  - speculation that they were Plato reincarnated etc - only to find that they had accidentally heard the sprukers at the Saturaday morning fruit market and were actually saying " couple of days , beeudiful" in fluent greek etc .


----------



## Julia (10 November 2007)

It's commonly accepted that the more educated people are the less likely they are to believe in religion/God.

It's probably reasonable to assume that most of the posters here have given the matter some intelligent thought and backed this up by reading and discussion with other similarly intelligent/educated people.

I hold no truck with religion whatsoever, but I wonder if we are not being just a bit unfair in condemning those who do find some comfort in religion?

I can think of quite a few not very bright, poorly educated people who have gone through some immense difficulties in their lives (often through no fault of their own) but have found some means of literal survival by joining a church group.  Sure, they will say they have found the Lord, but I believe that is quite incidental to the fact that what they have actually found is somewhere that they are accepted and nurtured, allowing them to heal from some of the hurt they have sustained.    To this end, I am much in favour of organisations like e.g. the Salvos for picking up life's rejects and offering them a way back to a valid existence.

Perhaps a group of atheists could similarly go round rescuing people in trouble and this would work just as well.  Don't see why not.  But I just haven't seen this happening in any sustained way

So I guess I'm not completely comfortable with rubbishing religion entirely, much as I despise the capacity of some of its leaders to manipulate and destroy.


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> So yes- religion has been "a rallying cry".   Still, I seriously wish it were possible to have an easy alternative.




I certainly agree in that I wish there were better alternatives!
But isn't that the "nature of the beast" can we really say religion is so terrible when there is some probability that the world would be riddled with the same amount of depravations without the advent of religion?


----------



## weird (10 November 2007)

Perhaps we should all follow the moral code of footballers and their supporters (rather than those nasty violent religious types) ...


----------



## kgee (10 November 2007)

Julia said:


> It's commonly accepted that the more educated people are the less likely they are to believe in religion/God.
> 
> .




Both Newton and Einstein believed in a God.
And if I recall properly when Newton was at Cambridge they estimate (by the amount of his writings and research papers that he produced) he devoted only a quater of his time in the devotion of Physics the other 3/4's was devoted to the search for God.
Although to be fair ,in my mind all scientists are a little mad


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 November 2007)

weird - again,,,, quite often soccer clubs are religion based (croat vs serb etc)  
not always I concede.  (the Brits not always welcome on the continent etc) . 

I used to (play and) umpire hockey in HK - lol - if an Indian team (generally Hindus) played a Pakistani one (generally Moslems), they would only both be happy if there was a "european" umpire


----------



## weird (10 November 2007)

This is a well known experiment, which shows how humans can behave in given roles and when in a groups . 

http://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm

http://www.lucifereffect.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo


----------



## jtb (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS jt - I'll check out Mr Cayce some more  - but Adam Smith covered similar phenomena - people suddenly speaking greek whilst under LSD (and being monitored)  - speculation that they were Plato reincarnated etc - only to find that they had accidentally heard the sprukers at the Saturaday morning fruit market and were actually saying " couple of days , beeudiful" in fluent greek etc .




Love it:

Not going to touch the organised religion thing with a barge pole though


----------



## weird (11 November 2007)

I finally watched the Richard Dawkin's video in the first post ... lol ... Richard's depth and understanding on the subject reminds me of Clerks 2, Star Wars (science) vs Lord of the Rings (religion). Stoners ... science on, dudes.

Warning, MA 15+ rating on the following clip ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. I agree - Dawkins is a great trigger for some rational thought here
> 3. you sure do a lot of feeding and procreating




You won`t read this till later today but believe it or not my wish is for people to have a more individual and in control  `perception` of life. (me too).With media, television and radio being so influential nowadays, it is easy to fall into the trance of the collective blahhh.(couldn`t think of the right word there).Breaking free or alternative (conscious) thinking and lifestyle may open doors that people never dreamed of.

p.s.  from someone who is still dealing with `conditioning`.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2007)

and another thing ... on another forum these are the prefered requirements before participating ...


> *First our Vision for this forum*: to create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by Georges Gurdjieff.




This issue of understanding is based on Objectivity. A few points about Objectivity:



> For this group, linear thinking is subjective and only nonlinear thinking can be objective.
> 
> Objective is "how the universe sees itself". or we see ourselves
> 
> ...






> "We cannot reach the objective except through the medium of the subjective. This is the underlying reason for esoteric studies: they allow the exterior man to give objective validity to his subjective mentality. He can achieve this by a technique analogous to one we apply to precision instruments: before putting them to work, we determine the reading error of each.that`s right folks, we decide if our `exterior` man is in error




Indeed Gurdjieff had great vision ; 



> Mission: The Evolution of Humanity. This, too, is best described by Gurdjieff:
> 
> "Contemporary culture requires automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines.



ain`t that the truth, this bloke could see it happening back then.I suppose i`m a computer automaton (at least consciously) (i think) .

p.s. I think Gurdjieff was awake.Maybe the wise person script should get precedent over other `less constructive` lessons at school.Maybe it is in government interests not to wake the individual up, let alone plant those wakening thoughts.


----------



## Sean K (11 November 2007)

Back to the original post at Dawkin's beautiful dream of a religionless world; while I would like to see it happen, I am not sure if we humans are evolved enough to make this 'dream world' any better than the current mess. Religion has always served as a set of laws by which to control the population and provide the easy answers. While the world has established social customary laws in replace of religion in secular societies, a great number of the planet is still operating under laws based on religious dogma, and many others on hardly any progressive laws which scarcely provide social justice, equality, equity, democracy, and fair for all. If we removed religion from its controlling function right now, the world could fall into anarchy. I doubt the human being will ever be able to live in a world of no religion. It certainly would be a dream to have a truly secular world where people can abide by a universal set of laws that create the greatest good for the greatest number, however, the human animal is a naturally selfish beast who protects it's space with avengence. S/he is intent on it's own survival, and will lie, cheat and steal to protect itself. The power of religion is at least providing some very strong motivation for people to live in accordance with their culture. My utopic Shangri-La of a society all striving for eudaimonia, or Dawkin's religionless world, is an impossible dream I'm afraid.


----------



## motorway (11 November 2007)

A religious attitude is most likely part and parcel of being human
And is a natural consequence of evolution...

It was from religion that mathematics Science Philosophy medicine etc etc all sprung from...

In building the Pyramids, Cathedrals etc.. ways and means and our very minds had to be developed..

Understanding nature .. Sun worship.. lead to the the calendar etc

ethics and morality

all spring form the fact that We have a self awareness.. that is able to reflect and see intention in ourselves and others... A natural step is then to see intention in everything else ( spirits , souls... Blood pours out and evaporates
death ...soul stuff... breath expires breathing stops last out breath.. spirit etc .. wind is a spirit etc )

Self esteem ...Is the all... Others are watching us....everything is watching us

intent awareness self esteem.... forces and powers ..gods and demons.. and the continual attempt to find God.....

Emotions focus and attach... and become the power to create culture technology and science ( How much energy and resources in building things like pyramids etc ? )

self awareness ( limited We are our own blind spots ).. need for self esteem.. 
the existence of others , rational thought and ( to rational thought ) irrational emotion......... A Human is ( by evolution or God's grace ) a religious being..

And We have our gods... ( The things that draw the most emotional energy to them... what do We build our pyramids to .... what would We fight for and over )...

Symbolic Thinking... We see ourselves in everthing and everyone We encounter...

Our fears hopes bias etc.... religion is a given ...  powerful and as such can be  destructive  ( nazism ? maoism ? etc... ) 


motorway


----------



## kgee (11 November 2007)

kennas said:


> If we removed religion from its controlling function right now, the world could fall into anarchy.
> 
> , the human animal is a naturally selfish beast who protects it's space with avengence. S/he is intent on it's own survival, and will lie, cheat and steal to protect itself. The power of religion is at least providing some very strong motivation for people to live in accordance with their culture




So religion is the glue thats preventing the world from tearing apart???

I would like to propose that this is totally wrong
I believe ingrained in our human nature is the desire for co-operation we may seem to forget it sometimes but we all generally fall back on it. Co-operation is the backbone of our evolution (survival)...
this may seem a little naieve as history tells us the world has been shaped by war and if you watch the news the only stories we get are of war's and other depravations...but there is no way we would have got this far without this underlying desire for co-operation.

I watched a show the other day about how hard it is to kill a man.... the premise was that in WW2 they estimate that only 15% of front line soldiers actually did any killing ( and the majority of these men could be labelled as psychopaths) 80% of the deaths during the war they suggest were done from a distance by artillery or airstikes. In todays modern soldier they suggest that around 90% of frontline soldiers are shooting to kill. This has been accomplished by training methods in which they are desensitised to killing. Unfortunately it seems a greater proportion of these men are suffering
Post combat distress (?)


----------



## motorway (11 November 2007)

> Co-operation is the backbone of our evolution (survival)...




Survival of the fittest.... means those who cooperate the best gain advantage and are fitter..

At the individual level selfish wins in the short term
At the group level groups with cooperation win against those who don't cooperate.

At WAR... To sides charge each other's line !

An individual would be wise to hold back and not be in the first line
If he is one of a few .. he gains from his selfish behavior..
But if all of one group is selfish , all hold back , all try to be in the last line ?

Then they are ineffective. They get slaughtered by the other side.
where individuals do; do  there bit ,hold there lines and take the battle forward...

A group of selfish people will all lose and get annihilated.
The group cooperating under the banner of something bigger than the individual.. Win and win as individuals as well.

This is the religious function..

evolution is full of examples of corporation
cooperation needs something bigger than the individual to be at work

it needs a glue 

At the Human level at least 
This needs the energy of emotion

Where is your passion ?
What arouses anger ?
Here  the gods and demons 
are hiding

motorway


----------



## kgee (11 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> .With media, television and radio being so influential nowadays, it is easy to fall into the trance of the collective blahhh.(couldn`t think of the right word there).
> 
> p.s.  from someone who is still dealing with `conditioning`.





Although not mentioned I believe Advertising as being a greater evil than Religion ( and its probably more pervasive than religion)
Off subject but advertising is in some ways  like religion in that it sells "illusionary" rewards if you will buy into their product.
but their ideals promote greed neediness and a sense of inadequacies if you cannot purchase their product - pure evil


----------



## kgee (11 November 2007)

motorway said:


> Survival of the fittest.... means those who cooperate the best gain advantage and are fitter..
> 
> 
> cooperation needs something bigger than the individual to be at work
> ...




The "glue" is survival of both the individual the family and the tribe. Co-operation you might believe is an adopted method for survival in that its somehow an invention but I would like to believe it is the underlying natural order of life. Without it we,d be F####D ....
( apologies sometimes those swear words are the only ones that explain the way I think....not that my thinking is F####d....surely?)


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

weird said:


> I finally watched the Richard Dawkin's video in the first post ... lol ... Richard's depth and understanding on the subject reminds me of Clerks 2, Star Wars (science) vs Lord of the Rings (religion). Stoners ... science on, dudes.
> 
> Warning, MA 15+ rating on the following clip ...



weird, - but can you fault him?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken 
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" .. Kipling's If


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

but (peace offering) 
I sure as hell enjoyed your other post lol
It sure sounds funny when expressed in the language of South Park lol. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyav...estockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8806


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Changing direction somewhat ("Dawkins" covers a lot lol)
> Then there's the "evolution of morality"
> Here Dawkins claims that he has been misunderstood ( possibly intentionally so)
> - that his reference to "the selfish gene" became an excuse to act as selfishly as one liked - and he was even blamed for the election of Maggie Thatcher.!
> ...




Maybe we could swing away from the God bit - 
THAT's the thing about Dawkins - he is incredibly multifaceted. (and multitalented) 

In the Selfish Gene, (from his zoologist background) he discusses ..

selfishness vs altruism...
a bee sacrifices itself to protect the colony 

reciprocal altruism ? - how did animals get to this arrangement

the selfish genes on both sides must get their reward

strategy - the evolutionary prewired program written by natural selection
to achieve some desired goal 

some soccer match from 1957, both teams stop trying because that was the  best strategy. (the rare case of "win - win")

PS - he also says that the "right" (capitalists) took his words and distorted them - they could blame their "selfish gene" for the most ruthless behaviour.   Then of course, as I say above, the "left" responded by accusing him of sanctioning greed in society - and blaming him for the election of Maggie Thatcher lol.

PS I would like to post a heap of youtubes here if that's ok - they all make better watching than the average TV show )


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

continuiing  (and this one is brilliant imo) 
the game is called "the prisoner's dilemna" 

 Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (2)

cooperation  vs defect 

taking a "friend" for a ride. 

PS has anyone played RISK? - treaties honoured, treaties ignored - etc .


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

these "games" or observed behaviours - variations of "prisoner's dilemna" (SIMILAR TO GLOBAL WARMING) are called :-

b) "The tragedy of the commons"   
selfish behaviour when common land is involved.  
each indidual is better off being selfish

c) "cheats and suckers"
!! - No one wins if they act selfishly
cheats always refuse to remove ticks from suckers. 
cheats would drive the suckers extinct.
but they will be driven extinct by the ticks as well !!

d) "cheats, suckers and grudgers"
the grudgers win 
a grudger is a sucker with a memory , a permanent retaliator once cheated on 
grudgers win in the end !! 


e) *COOPERATION*- something better than grudgers - This is what man should be able to do - *cooperate for the good of the planet*

 Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (3)

 Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (4)

Axelrod conducted experiments on computer.. invited programmers to submit "behaviour programs" 

"nice" behaviour =  grudgers, tit-for-tat, suckers, trustworthy, 
"nasty" behaviour = cheats, untrustworthy, variations thereof etc

WINNER?
tit for tat (= TFT = never the first to defect  = "nice")
not envious 
is forgiving (forgives as swiftly as it retaliates)
does well only when its opponent is doing well too

TFT  was 
a) simplest
b) best / winner

Note :too lenient (eg tit for 2 tats) was too generous and too easily exploited.

as for the nastys ? - crime doesn't pay - the nasty programs all end up at the bottom. 

EXAMPLE :- vampire bats ( blood suckers can become blood donors) - sharing blood with each other BUT ONLY with ones they have built up a TFT relationship with.


----------



## Rafa (11 November 2007)

2020, instead of worshiping God, you just worship Dawkins...
Dawkins, and you, are deluded if you think having no God, means all those wars would not have happened!

Like Kennas, and co, I have already explained my position in this in many of previous posts in other similar topics, so i don't plan to elaborate any more.

Proving God doesn't exist is one of the easiest things to do... doesn't make you intellegent... or wise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

"Nice guys finish first" continues... (the fifth of 5 youtube chapters)

TFT - tit for tat is important social behaviour ... ( eh Gorbachev and Reagan)
= the value of initial niceness and ongoing forgiveness

of course there's a great deal of cooperation within our society eg Oxford
and we do it naturally of our own free will - without having to be forced into it

but is our cooperation to do with our ability to think deeply philosophically and rationally 

or have our brains evolved as advanced social organs designed to police tit-for-tat reciprocity

to calculate past favours, balance debts - an organ of social calculation
designed to make us feel angry when we've been cheated, 
and guilty when we know we are the cheat. 

"Nice guys finish last?   or Nice guys finish first?

 Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (5 - of 5)


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> 2020, instead of worshiping God, you just worship Dawkins...
> Dawkins, and you, are deluded if you think having no God, means all those wars would not have happened!
> 
> Like Kennas, and co, I have already explained my position in this in many of previous posts in other similar topics, so i don't plan to elaborate any more.
> ...




lol - howdy Rafa - In fact I preempted you would spring out sometime ...
here's what I posted back at post #32....

btw sure I like what Dawkins says - he's rational, and knows more than I will ever know - 
 btw also the set of 5 youtubes about the evolution of morality is worth the watch - 
could go part way to explaining the problem we were all having in deciding whether man is basically "nice" or "nasty"

and is man capable of putting his greed behind him in the interests of the planet..(??) - not an easy question  - 

IN FACT it suggests that more cooperation (and less selfishness ) is the only way to go - or the planet (and global warming) will have the last say 



2020hindsight said:


> kgee  -
> 1. Rafa has challenged me on this question many times - i.e. "religion causes wars" .  I think we agreed that "religion causes (some) wars".
> 
> 2and3. yep -
> ...


----------



## Rafa (11 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I hold no truck with religion whatsoever, but I wonder if we are not being just a bit unfair in condemning those who do find some comfort in religion?
> 
> .
> .
> ...




Agree 100%...


----------



## Rafa (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - howdy Rafa - In fact I preempted you would spring out sometime ...




Yup, and I intend to spring back in soon... cause I don't have much to say really on his topic

What matters is what value do you place on another person's human life and do you believe in helping others and treating others like you would like to be treated.... If you are an atheist or religious, to me doesn't matter...

what peeves me off is the 21st century evangelism (corporate evangelism), of the religious and that atheist kind... where the words mean more than the deeds... and people should follow their words... and everyone else who doesn't believe the words is a complete idiot!

i mean, lets face it...  dawkins is and corporate evangelist atheist... trying desperately to start a new religion... he is the teacher and he has disciples... (and 2020, you may be one of those)

Is he genuinely interested in helping others, or just writing a new scripture that repudiates other religions? Just what exactly has his movement done for the good of the poor and destitute of this world?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

Raf
let's move on.... 
(we agree that a few cases of war are religion based - Pakistan v India,  Palestine vs Israel, AQ of course,;  others were more nation based - WW1 etc).  

check out those youtubes on the evolution of morality (neither god nor religion is mentioned lol) - 
- an interesting study of human nature - to trust or not to trust - to be selfish or not 

and the good news is that the good guy wins   (or more accurately the bad guy loses).


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> continuiing  (and this one is brilliant imo)
> the game is called "the prisoner's dilemna"
> 
> cooperation  vs defect
> ...




Did anyone notice the noise from drawing a letter on the paper.I`m sure that decisions were made based on what the other person heard.(the two girls)


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Did anyone notice the noise from drawing a letter on the paper.I`m sure that decisions were made based on what the other person heard.(the two girls)



lol I thought of that too - 
I thought - gee you could do a D with one stroke - and fool em lol
but then they were instructed to write their answer.... "NOW" (= concurrently) 

thanks for actually watching it wys lol - 
until someone watches it, it will be stupid commenting yes?
what did you think?

My guess is that the UN (and international diplomacy) operates pretty much on this principle (Tit for Tat etc)

But for Global Warming, and the next Kyoto deal, we have to step up a notch in the matter of mutual trust for mutual gain ..... and needless to say, the Yanks (and the current Aus govt) won't want to give up one carbon molecule of their current lifestyle.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2007)

Oh yes i understand now that they drew at the same time.In the end they agreed on trying to second guess the other based on previous decisions.

Which one are you ; the cheat, sucker or grudger?
Be honest now, lol.
I get picked a lot so i might be seen as a sucker, i don`t hold grudges (sort it out and move on) and don`t cheat.(generally honest)


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

I tend to trust ... 
along the lines of "better to have been deceived than never to have trusted"
but lol
can't afford to extend that to actually loaning anyone any money etc 

If that trust is proven unwise, guess I become a grudger (as most of us would I guess - i.e. thereafter we remember that person as a bad debt - although I suspect "grudgers" as defined here don't literally bear a grudge as such).    

BUT I believe he's saying we have to move on - to TFT (tit for tat) at least  *some sort of intelligent cooperative plan *!!  

(do I hear a faint echo of that word Kyoto?, )

then of course there's that famous Texas quote ... 



> fool me once shame on you
> fool me errr  -
> fool me you can't get fooled again





- well you could have fooled me lol

 Bush "Fool Me Once..."

PS tit for tat means never being the first to "defect from the agreement "  - never attack unless you are attacked etc.

PS "Life is mostly froth and bubble two things stand like stone
 kindness in another's trouble , give the dog a bone "


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 November 2007)

http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/d-f/fool.shtml


> "Fool me once
> Shame on you
> Fool me twice
> Shame on me."
> ...






> http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/FoolMeOnce.htm
> So when trying to decide now whether to believe what Bush says about Saddam Hussein, remember the old adage: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
> 
> *And in fact George Bush has tried to fool us more than a dozen times *— not only about Iraq, but about his claims to be for limited government, or his claims that judges and politicians should stick to the Constitution.
> ...




ok - as Bush continues to try to fool people, then slowly the "grudger" in them remembers him as untrustworthy - and refuses to believe him.


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

motorway said:


> A religious attitude is most likely part and parcel of being human
> And is a natural consequence of evolution...
> 
> It was from religion that mathematics Science Philosophy medicine etc etc all sprung from...
> ...



MW, all these things might have come about without religion, and not all of them are grand ideas or a good use of resources.

Some of your points I've read a few times, but I'm struggling....


The Pyramids look great, but how long did they take to build, at what cost, and to what purpose? To house a dead body. They are a nice pile of big rocks however.

Sun worship didn't lead to the calander. Most ancient calanders were time cycles of the sun beginning at mythological starting points. The Sun's obviously and important source of the sun tan, but worship?  

Ethics and morality in religion?  Like sacrificing virgins? The list goes on...

A source of self esteem? Because people are watching us? This is due to God?

Hmmmm, I shan't go on.


Religion has brought about some great stuff, on the surface of it.

Others to add to your list, apart from Dawkin's:

Renaissance art. 
Stain glass windows.
Monty Python and the Meaning of Life.
Some great forms of torture developed during the Inquisition.
The destruction of Indigenous cultures.
The 7 day week, with a day off becuase God rested then.
Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. (needed the Ark)
Burning of witches at the stake, or by drowning. (if she dies she's not a witch?)
Jesus turned water into wine, gotta LOVE that!
He also fed 5000 people with 7 loaves of a bread and a few fish. Tick!
The International Red Cross symbol. (reverse of the Swiss flag, bassed on the cross)
Fijian church choirs are brilliant!!
The fish symbol on bumper stickers.
Vatican City and the Swiss Guards. (love the art and the outfits!)
WWI/II cemetaries in France just wouldn't be the same without all those crosses, and stars, and moons.
Speaking of crosses and stars and moons, many national flags just wouldn't be the same...
Church Bingo was a hit in the 70s, even kids could join in!
The Brothers....


Go God and Religion!! Love ya!


----------



## jonojpsg (12 November 2007)

He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!  lol

Not that this encapsulates my personal view at all, it was just a line that stuck in my head as being very amusing at the time


----------



## kgee (12 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> of course there's a great deal of cooperation within our society eg Oxford
> and we do it naturally of our own free will - without having to be forced into it
> 
> but is our cooperation to do with our ability to think deeply philosophically and rationally
> ...





Unable to watch the video I still believe we work within a co operative framework.
The participants would be co-operating within the framework of the experiment...if a participant  had got a gun and shot everyone within the room....now that would be another story...so in answer to your question of are people basicaly nice or nasty...I still have to sway towards nice (knocking on wood)


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

kgee said:


> I still have to sway towards nice (knocking on wood)



I agree kgee, but it's only because it generally ultimately makes our own life better. There are exceptions of course.

I think just swaying towards the 'nice' though will never fix the 'bad'. Let's critically look at the bad and accept it so we can move on. Otherwise, we are going to continue to live in the 'dream world' of religious belief forever.


----------



## kgee (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> I agree kgee, but it's only because it generally ultimately makes our own life better. There are exceptions of course.
> 
> I think just swaying towards the 'nice' though will never fix the 'bad'. Let's critically look at the bad and accept it so we can move on. Otherwise, we are going to continue to live in the 'dream world' of religious belief forever.




Could I ammend that and say it makes everyones lives better?

I still have problems with accepting that religous belief is a bad thing.

I keep remembering back to a psychology/organizational behaviour class I took years ago ( I took it because it was a gauranteed pass you basically just had to turn up)
Anyway one of the things they suggested is that "leaders" by their own nature are just the wrong people to be leading...I can't remember all their reasons but it was somthing to do with them been driven for power and fame, and that these characteristics really made them unsuitable for leadership...conversely the people with the best attributes for leadership usually didn't have these characteristicsbut because they don't have these drives never become leaders. ( I might look it up because its an interesting idea)
My point is maybe its the leaders of these Religions that are to blame rather than the Religion itself?


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

kgee said:


> My point is maybe its the leaders of these Religions that are to blame rather than the Religion itself?



Interesting point. There are examples of cults developing without the oringinal leader, Christianity being a prime example, but it would have needed someone charismatic to keep the ball running. Peter did a pretty good job, and then Constantine helped a tad. Not sure if Buddhism would have worked without Siddharta, but maybe perhaps some key deciples pushed the barrow a bit. I'm not sure if Islam would have got off the ground without Khadijah, his first wife, who along with an uncle, convinced him that voices in his head were from Gabriel....

Perhaps all cults need a good idea and a good representative...


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Could I ammend that and say it makes everyones lives better?
> 
> I still have problems with accepting that religous belief is a bad thing.



Yep, but I'm not sure if any religion has made 'everyones' life better.

Religion is fantastic for a few and saved many people's lives. I think my rebuttle to this is, why religion? Why not come up with another concept of the best way to live that is not based on myth, power, greed, death, damnation, fire and brimstone, etc etc. There might be a better way. Let's not accept old myth fantacy, that is quite obviously seriously flawed, as the foundation of ethics and morality.


----------



## kgee (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> Yep, but I'm not sure if any religion has made 'everyones' life better.
> 
> Religion is fantastic for a few and saved many people's lives. I think my rebuttle to this is, why religion? Why not come up with another concept of the best way to live that is not based on myth, power, greed, death, damnation, fire and brimstone, etc etc. There might be a better way. Let's not accept old myth fantacy, that is quite obviously seriously flawed, as the foundation of ethics and morality.




 I'm unsure wether believing people are basically nice is selfishly motivated.....you either believe it or you don't ...and its incidental to the way it makes you feel?

 I also hope there is a better way than religion ( as it now stands and as a concept for the way to live your life) Yet believe religion could well be a  stepping stone to somthing better surely we could take somthing positive away from it.


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

To add to the great things that religion has done:



> *Claims mother died during Maori exorcism*
> November 12, 2007 - 10:20AM
> 
> Claims a young New Zealand mother-of-two died as relatives tried to remove a Maori curse from her are being investigated by police.
> ...




I'm not sure if Monty Python is compensation...


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> Yep, but I'm not sure if any religion has made 'everyones' life better.
> 
> Religion is fantastic for a few and saved many people's lives. I think my rebuttle to this is, why religion? Why not come up with another concept of the best way to live that is not based on myth, power, greed, death, damnation, fire and brimstone, etc etc. There might be a better way. Let's not accept old myth fantacy, that is quite obviously seriously flawed, as the foundation of ethics and morality.




How are you defining "better"? "Better" compared to what? In a strictly materialist universe "better", "ethics" and "morality" can only be grounded in trying to balance optimal happiness for the individual with evolutionary success for the species - and this is not rock, but quicksand. And thus it can be easily argued that it is better for the evolutionary success of the group to eradicate some minorities or individuals from the genetic pool. This is the stumbling stone for materialist ethics - there is no evolutionary reason to help the poor, genetically defective or disenfranchised. The materialists who abhor the logical conclusion and implications try and fudge it over with appeals to religious concepts of good and better and moral all cloaked in materialist verbage in an attempt to hide the fact that without a transcendant ground on which to base morals, then good/evil can only ever be subjective and held hostage by those in power who legislate the "good" and punish the "evil".

So if you want to be a materialist stop trying to co-opt religious/transcendant concepts. Instead form your own vocabulary and be honest with the implications of your worldview.


----------



## kgee (12 November 2007)

More great things religion has done

Hispanic church offers alternative to street gangs in California
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072519&ct=4568235


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> How are you defining "better"? "Better" compared to what? In a strictly materialist universe "better", "ethics" and "morality" can only be grounded in trying to balance optimal happiness for the individual with evolutionary success for the species - and this is not rock, but quicksand. And thus it can be easily argued that it is better for the evolutionary success of the group to eradicate some minorities or individuals from the genetic pool. This is the stumbling stone for materialist ethics - there is no evolutionary reason to help the poor, genetically defective or disenfranchised. The materialists who abhor the logical conclusion and implications try and fudge it over with appeals to religious concepts of good and better and moral all cloaked in materialist verbage in an attempt to hide the fact that without a transcendant ground on which to base morals, then good/evil can only ever be subjective and held hostage by those in power who legislate the "good" and punish the "evil".
> 
> So if you want to be a materialist stop trying to co-opt religious/transcendant concepts. Instead form your own vocabulary and be honest with the implications of your worldview.



'Better' on a universal non materialistic scale, for a start. 
Ethics and morality that are better for the greatest number for the greatest good.
Yes, we are diluting the gene pool.
I'll happily take rational objective analysis over transcendant dogma to base morals.
I'm a materialist living in a materialist world. Rejecting that is irrational, but recognising it is a start.
Co-opting transcendant concepts? Like what?
My own vocab? shagagafatsteigngt! Get that?

I'm confused


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> 'Better' on a universal non materialistic scale, for a start.



Which is it? Materialist or non-materialist?



> Ethics and morality that are better for the greatest number for the greatest good.



Define good.



> Yes, we are diluting the gene pool.



Thanks for being honest. So would you support purifying the gene pool by removing "inferior" genetics? If so, who gets to decide what is "inferior" and on what basis?



> I'll happily take rational objective analysis over transcendant dogma to base morals.



There is no such thing as rational objective analysis of morals. Any starting point is subjective based on an individual's perception of what is good/desirable for the species/individual.



> I'm a materialist living in a materialist world. Rejecting that is irrational, but recognising it is a start.



I would recommend some more thinking on the subject of 'warrant' before throwing around "irrational".



> Co-opting transcendant concepts? Like what?



Better/morality/right/wrong.



> My own vocab? shagagafatsteigngt! Get that?



Well, it makes as much sense as hearing materialists talk about good/better/morals without accepting that a materialist view of those concepts are necessarily subjective.


----------



## motorway (12 November 2007)

Because something is seen not to be optimal

It does not follow that things would be better without it

We live in a  complex world with many unknowns

Maybe religion evolved because it offers unknown ( at this stage ) advantages. That we can not do with out. Or do without at out at peril

To say religion causes this or this  . So we are better without it...
Is a poor intellectual argument...



Our genes are very old... maybe they need religion...religion is very old and of all times and all places ... Often what is myth is only seen in hindsight.. The myths we are submerged in are invisible.. It is just "how the world is"..

What is needed is more consciousness,,, That realizes the existence of uncertainties and unknowns... ( By definition irrational..)

But to say something is dispensable...When it has been part of the human condition from day one.. is fraught... A Human world without..might be uninhabitable ..a real religion should protect against cults,, esp cults of individuals ( Hitler Mao Stalin... Nth Korea etc )

motorway


----------



## robert toms (12 November 2007)

Was it Dostoevskty who said that without God man would kill each other down to the last individual.
I do not take this literally,but to mean the moral code or knowledge of right from wrong that we get from religion...not necessarily the threat of eternal retribution.
A friend of mine recently used the argument ,for instance ,that the Palestinian /Israeli conflict was the result of religion...I meekly suggested it was over land...at least it stopped a dead-end conversation.
I believe that the inherent or latent greed in nearly all of us is a stronger force than the influence of God.This needs to be tempered by whatever means,religious or other.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2007)

after this we can have a Philosophy thread 

and then one where people can "go on the warpath" lol

Here's an urgent one for you blokes to sort out .
re the depth of the gene pool ....
Dawkins is right when he says that selfish behaviour *of men *will land the entire planet and all other species in trouble. 

the depth of the gene pool *for almost all other species * is rapidly getting shallower.  


As for "nice", "nasty" or simply "opportunistic" behaviour....
Recently there was a show on TV - experiments where chimps could cooperate (to get a banana) or not.  in fact the first chimp was in control.  He could either open a cage to permit his friend to help - or not - as it suited him ( depending on the problem to be solved) 

FOR THE 2 CHIMPS used .. ( and their prison environment etc) ..

When they needed to cooperate ( eg 2 ropes, one to each end of a board with bananas on it ) - he would let his "friend" in to help - and they would then cooperate... and share.

However - When the first one could get the bananas himself ( eg the rope tied to the middle of the board) then he didnt bother to seek assistance - and didn't share. 

But man is still leading on the selfish stakes....



> ARE HUMANS BEASTS ? - (any offence to the other beasts, although probable , is unintended)
> 
> I take it that we all agree, all animals have traits
> but just to various degrees – which ? - varsity or fate?
> ...


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

This is going off topic, but anyway.



MS+Tradesim said:


> Which is it? Materialist or non-materialist?




I'm a materialist so I fit in, trying not to be where I can.  It would be better if we weren't but humans always will be. It's part of the self esteem - self actualisation paradigm. Hardly anyone can escape it.  



> Define good.



There's books written on this, and my summary is that it's what is the greatest good for the greatest number, which I stated above. It's subjective on an individual scale, but when you put that on a social/global scale you get the picture. Just need to have the intelliect to imagine it. I recommend you read AC Graying, 'What is Good?' for a start. Of course, it's a Western view, so you may have to read a bit more. 



> Thanks for being honest. So would you support purifying the gene pool by removing "inferior" genetics? If so, who gets to decide what is "inferior" and on what basis?



Too big a subject to cover here, but we won't change too much due to religious morals. I don't think the Nazi's have the right idea either. 



> There is no such thing as rational objective analysis of morals. Any starting point is subjective based on an individual's perception of what is good/desirable for the species/individual.



This is an entire field in philosophy. Again, greatest good for greatest number. Maybe one day we can DNA test for 'morals'. 



> I would recommend some more thinking on the subject of 'warrant' before throwing around "irrational".



What's warrant? Like 'Warrant Officer', or something? Found this on warrant which is interesting. So, you're being critial because I've used the word irrational? It's subjective, but not like what my favourite icecream is. I think you're missing that. 



> Well, it makes as much sense as hearing materialists talk about good/better/morals without accepting that a materialist view of those concepts are necessarily subjective.



So, you musn't be able to have any opinion at all.....


I'm a materialist to fit into society, but I believe I'm objective enough to make comment on what's moral etc. You don't know me well enough I think. Maybe we should catch up for a glass of iced tea?


I'm not sure if you're defending religion as 'good' here, or just attacking me?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

*rant on*Philosophy is related as Dawkins attempts to answer philosophical questions with science, and as both methodology and interpretation of scientific theory and application is _a priori_ philosophical then the divergence in discussion is relevant.

Nevertherless my area of interest is epistemology, not biology, so back to the topic of Dawkins and I, for one, will probably not intervene. Still, it would be nice to see materialists do more thinking about prior issues such as philosophy and epistemology *before* spouting off so-called scientific objections to religion (of whatever form) which often reduce to rather ill-thought through philosophical objections. Philosophy is a pre-cursor and foundation for science, not an irrelevant pre-scientific field. *rant off*

Out.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> So, you musn't be able to have any opinion at all.....



Not at all. I simply recognise that my opinion is subjective. I do not attempt to ascribe rational/irrational to others opinons merely because I lack some insight to understand *why* someone believes what they do. In other words I do not know if another is warranted in their belief (of whatever) or not irrespective of my own view of that belief. To claim objectivity is to ultimately claim omniscience. It cannot be otherwise. If one is not omniscient then it is always possible that a defeator for a belief lies in knowledge as of yet unknown. That does not mean I do not form beliefs or hold opinions. It simply means it is better to hold a well-thought-through paradigm and remain intellectually humble (a quality Dawkins lacks).



> You don't know me well enough I think. Maybe we should catch up for a glass of iced tea?



Maybe.



> I'm not sure if you're defending religion as 'good' here, or just attacking me?



I am sorry if you feel attacked. That is not my intention so I apologise for that. My intention is to point out that there is no such thing as true objectivity and forward movement is easier where people accept their subjectivity and remain open to the possibility that the *other* side is right and they are wrong. That works both ways. I accept a God. But I also remain open to the very real possibility that I am wrong, because I am not omniscient and I have been wrong before. 

Dawkins is a zealot and is every bit as rabid an evangelist for his view as those he disparages. EDIT: There is the possibility he is right but he's no more justified in his approach then religionists (be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu. whatever) were in evangelising at the tip of the sword.


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Not at all. I simply recognise that my opinion is subjective.



Some are more objective than others, which I think you miss.  



> Dawkins is a zealot and is every bit as rabid an evangelist for his view as those he disparages.



One the scale of things, I count Dawkins to be more objective and rational than most religious people. While his is passionate, he can be argued with.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> Some are more objective than others, which I think you miss.




No, I do not miss that and as you don't know _me_ it would be unwise to claim knowledge as to what I may or may not know or miss. An internet forum will never cover all nuances of a discussion and is largely sound-bites.



> One the scale of things, I count Dawkins to be more objective and rational than most religious people. While his is passionate, he can be argued with.




How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like? Agreement and likemindedness are not evidence of rationality or objectivity. I ask not because I am stating you are wrong but because bias and prejudice against "them" (the other side) is a very blinding quality. Odd how intellectual pride and rudeness can be excused as "passionate" in Dawkins but I wonder what comment you would attribute to a religionist with the same qualities. Would you call them blind? A bigot?


----------



## Trader Paul (12 November 2007)

Hi folks,

Let's employ the KISS (Keep It Simple Sunshine) principle in this thread,
just for a short while ..... 

..... there's one issue, that's a common denominator, between ALL humans 
and that is facing our own mortality. No matter how influential, how rich, 
how intelligent, how materialistic we may be, EVERYBODY will go out of
this world, just as we came in ... with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in a material
sense ... and that applies to Dawkins, as well as you and me, too ... !~!

With that in mind, our own journey through life culminates in a HUGE
question mark, unless we have some belief in God (you choose which one),
which may give us some eschatalogical insight, into what lies beyond
death for every and each one of us.

If our lifetime means nothing more, than a brief sojourn on earth, by
a sophisticated, but sinful animal, then Dawkins spiel may satisfy his
supporters and you, too.

However, pastoral carers and counsellors will testify, that people facing
their own mortality, will often abandon past habits and come to realize
the value of having a supportive belief system in place ..... this is 
especially so, as death becomes imminent .....

..... to bring peace in their own minds, on this earth, their reasoning
at this point may be ... to ensure everlasting life, beyond death ..... 

From a Christian standpoint ... confessing a genuine belief in Christ
and His forgiveness of our worldly sins, seems like a very cheap 
insurance policy *to ensure everlasting life beyond death* and 
*PEACE of MIND, whilst still here on earth.* 

Without any belief system in place, Dawkins and many like him,
will face death in a very confused state of mind and asking:

What was this life all about and what's next for me ... ???

..... and these are questions, that we ALL must face, eventually ... !~!

May God's Grace and blessings rain down upon you, always ..... 

 happy days

    paul

P.S. ..... are you ready to face your own mortality ... ???



=====


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> No, I do not miss that and as you don't know _me_ it would be unwise to claim knowledge as to what I may or may not know or miss. An internet forum will never cover all nuances of a discussion and is largely sound-bites.



 Yep, you're right, but my point is that you claim 'objectivity' to be a single standard. I say some can be more objective than others. That was my point.  



> Would you call them blind? A bigot



I am saying that religious people, who have faith/belief in a set of principles, or morals, based on myth, legend, superstition, and fairy tales, to be foolish. At least. I am not talking just about whatever religion you follow, but ALL superstitious belief in extraterestials and the like. 

In the least, religion to me is a diversion from reality. Wasted time, effort and resources. Whether it's healthy or not is up to the individual, but to me it is not, for the reasons mentioned.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

kennas said:


> Whether it's healthy or not is up to the individual, but to me it is not, for the reasons mentioned.




I will leave it there then. Hope your day is fantastic and your trading profitable.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?




well I just wish someone would post what they believe to be a particular scientific flaw in one of his statements.  (and he has made millions of them out there in youtube land)   

Unless someone speaks to the detail, you could substitute either "Hitler" or "Mother Theresa" for Dawkins in most of the above generalised criticisms - it would be as meaningful


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well I just wish someone would post what they believe to be a particular scientific flaw in one of his statements.  (and he has made millions of them out there in youtube land)
> 
> Unless someone speaks to the detail, you could substitute either "Hitler" or "Mother Theresa" for Dawkins in most of the above generalised criticisms - it would be as meaningful




I'm not trained in biology so can't comment on his science. His philophical musings however, leave much to be desired. Rather than requesting others criticise his ideas in detail, why not put on an objector's hat for awhile and really start to rigorously analyse his worldview claims yourself to see if you can disprove them (Assuming you haven't already). I would say that if you are fair-minded and reasonable you will quickly see issues with much of his rantings about faith and religion. However, that also discloses my prejudice that a fair and reasonable person could agree with (much of) Dawkins' science without affirming his meta-narrative. The key is in distinguishing logic from science. Science is dependent on logic, not vice-versa.

Nuff said. I have trading to do.


----------



## JellySausage (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> How do you know that your perception of him being "more objective and rational than most religious people" is not biased by the fact he makes statements that you agree with and like?




I would venture that the reason Dawkins is perceived as "objective and rational" is because his arguments are backed up by science.

Science lends credence to any argument as it's based on repeatable tests and solid evidence, unfortunately, there is no evidence for god.

The problem with anyone taking a positive religious position is that there is as much evidence for god as there is evidence for Thor and Zeus.  
Why do you discard them I wonder? 

To sum it up with my favourite quote:  _"Yesterday's gods are today's myths"._


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

JellySausage said:


> there is no evidence for god.




This is widely claimed. However, it is clear that it has no substantial meaning. What constitutes evidence for one person is discounted by the next. A fascinating discussion on internet infidels revealed that even in the event a person observed a phenomenon that they had previously stated could count as evidence that it might be simply the case that an alien civilization with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic had played on a trick on the person.

The claim "there is no evidence for God" is so subjective as to be meaningless and extreme skepticism cannot be defeated - it is circular and self-reinforcing.

And that really is my last post in this thread.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The claim "there is no evidence for God" is so subjective as to be meaningless.



why?
"there is no evidence for god" means that "there is no (tangible) evidence for god" surely. 

now if you'd said :-
"the claim that splitting hairs doesn't advance an argument has merit" 

then I'd agree with you.  

or maybe I'll just sue my old high school english teacher - for the fact that I can't understand you tradesim - always knew she was hopeless. 


btw - I said before that I read what he says, listen to what he says , and I've yet to find anything outlandish or unreasonable - it just "sits with my philosophy" that's all. 



> What constitutes evidence for one person is discounted by the next. (??)
> 
> A fascinating discussion on internet infidels (??)
> 
> revealed that even in the event a person observed a phenomenon that they had previously stated could count as evidence that it might be simply the case that an alien civilization with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic had played on a trick on the person.






> 1. I'm not trained in biology so can't comment on his science. -
> 
> 
> 2. ... Rather than requesting others criticise his ideas in detail, why not put on an objector's hat for awhile and really start to rigorously analyse his worldview claims yourself to see if you can disprove them (Assuming you haven't already).
> ...




1. ok I accept your admission on this score - hardly helps you in your right to criticise him surely 

2. I already have - and I have no problems here. 

3. Lemme get this straight - you cant fault him (specifically) - but I should quickly be able to find faults ??

4. meta narrative - whatever


----------



## MS+Tradesim (12 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> why?
> "there is no evidence for god" means that "there is no (tangible) evidence for god" surely.
> 
> now if you'd said :-
> ...




Find two materialists who agree on what constitutes tangible evidence for "the existence of a god" and then ask them how they would respond if actually confronted with that evidence. In practice people disagree on just what constitutes tangible evidence for the existence of a god. One person means "if I pray and my amputated leg grows back I will believe there is a god". The next person will settle for nothing less than the eradication of war overnight. Someone else would require flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist". In each case what one person will accept as evidence will be discounted by the next skeptical person who requires a different standard of evidence.

To make the claim "there is no evidence for a god" really means something like "I have found no evidence to satisfy me" which is a very different thing to whether or not there actually is tangible evidence pointing to the existence of any god. On the internet infidels forum there was some fascinating discussion about this point which actually demonstrated that people mean very different things when they say "there is no evidence for a god". Most people came to the conclusion that even faced with evidence they had previously stated would be acceptable to them, they would still disbelieve because it would not actually prove a god existed but only that something weird had occurred. This is why the statement "there is no evidence for God" is really meaningless.



> 1. ok I accept your admission on this score - hardly helps you in your right to criticise him surely
> 
> 2. I already have - and I have no problems here.
> 
> ...




On 1 and 3 you seem to be saying that because I'm not qualified to comment on his science that I'm not qualified to comment on his philosophy. I can fault him very specifically on the way he employs his beliefs (as opposed to his science) to discount other worldviews. That is very different to being unable to comment on the actual science he studies. 

About 4....is it okay if Dawkins uses big words but I can't?

EDIT: And why the hell am I responding again?


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2007)

Invisible forces are ever present and to caveman Kevin would be mysterious and unexplainable.Gravity, magnetism, electromagnetism, x-rays, radiation and static electricity are now understood and can be understood if you don`t understood..The mysteries of this planet and beyond are being revealed in relation to humans growing intelligence (more intelligence, less wisdom lol).

So, it is with the revealing of these mysteries,  caveman Kevin has realised that all is explainable and slowly but surely the imagination of past humans is being extinguished and a more `here and now` factual understanding of life is evolving.

Group comfort, hope and  repentance are necessary for stability and order among humans and this is the vital role religion plays.Though the way religious systems are structured you either believe in the scriptures or you are out.


----------



## Julia (12 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I
> Group comfort, hope and  repentance are necessary for stability and order among humans and this is the vital role religion plays.



I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part.  And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope,  I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.

I also reject the notion that to have a good moral compass we need to accept religion or belief in a God.  We have gone over this in other threads.
Plenty of "religious" people have demonstrated completely amoral/immoral behaviour (sexually predatory priests etc.) and plenty of non-religious people have made great contributions to their fellow human beings.

If churches were really to display genuine records of morality, then I'd find it much easier to take them seriously.  
NB  As always the Salvos are an exception to the above criticism.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Find two materialists who agree on what constitutes tangible evidence for "the existence of a god" and then ask them how they would respond if actually confronted with that evidence.
> 
> In practice people disagree on just what constitutes tangible evidence for the existence of a god. One person means "if I pray and my amputated leg grows back I will believe there is a god". The next person will settle for nothing less than the eradication of war overnight. Someone else would require flaming letters in the sky saying "I exist". In each case what one person will accept as evidence will be discounted by the next skeptical person who requires a different standard of evidence.
> 
> ...



why are you responding - ?
well maybe you still have to respond ...

with one single problem with one single comment he makes either scientific or philosophical ..

(I'm not saying there might not be a hint of conjecture there - *just that I haven't detected it yet.!  *

any number of philosophers will tell you its all about faith. - there is no proof etc.   I just don't understand why you would fight city hall on this.

anyway here's my (pantheistic) idea of god tradesim..  
perhaps it qualifies as "meta-narration" - I'm not sure

blame Julia for talking about possums on another thread 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I SAW GOD ONE DAY 

I saw god one dawn as the first sunbeams smiled
he was crossing the sky like a golden haired child
some gull heading seaward , some “call of life” heard
and he looked for all worlds like a parenting bird

I saw god one morn, he was leading a band
as they juggled some leaf to a blade of warm sand
not a word did he preach, neither brimstone nor rant
but he looked I beseech you – the tiniest ant.

I saw god one noon , a magnificent creature
as he arched for a breach – as the ultimate teacher
which? feminine? nature? or hairy old male?
no my friend, god was (that day) a frolicking whale

I saw god one afternoon high in a tree 
with his beady black pupils reflecting on me
then he sprang to a branch where a blossom looked on
and he looked for all worlds like a wild possum’s son

I saw god one eve-ning as twilight turned grey 
just a spider and web that was blocking my way
they were radiant spiralling splendid and splayed
and I bowed my head there and together we prayed

I saw god one night in a magic black sky
with a zillion small lights where eternities pry
and a cascade of light years like cheese in a cage 
and I know I’m a speck and my sparkplug must age

and I give my respect - and I smile at this page.


----------



## imaginator (12 November 2007)

People,
watch the Zeitgeist documentary for the truth about religion! All religions go back to pagan mysticism, including christianity!

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

(be a bit patient with the long introduction music, but the information in the documentary is worth it! Will be the most enlightening knowledge you ever learn in your life!)


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I'll go for the group comfort and hope bit, but wonder about the "repentance" part.  And, sorry, but - although I readily accept that religion may provide some individuals with a sense of comfort or hope,  I just can't see that religion has successfully provided society in general with much in the way of either hope or comfort.




Firstly repentance ... if someone has wronged and are conscious to right their wrongs, then a medium needs to be present for the transition/change to take place.Either through a friend or self improvement group along with  self analysis can the wrong doer (not j walkers lol) make a movement toward a better way.Belief in something `bigger` than yourself does wonders for small mind.Turning to passive religion is the last hope for some before doing something real stupid or worse, insanity.



> I just can't see




Correct


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> and I know I’m a speck and my sparkplug must age
> and I give my respect - and I smile at this page.




That is  a superb poem 2020.Cuts to the chase.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> poem Cuts to the chase.



speaking of chasing - you outta see my dog when she sees a possum - 

hopefully it's not a distraction - I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature (i.e. better than other religions that is) - and *Dawkins, believe it or not, has strong ideas there as well (as he does on most important moral questions *).  

We can speculate about HYPOTHETICAL decrease in some human gene pool - but .... as the so-called and self-styled Lords of Creation ... shouldn't we be concerned about reality as well?   

what about the very real and immediately current and urgent problem of what is happening now today with the rest of nature's species?.    I mean an optimist would conclude that we might end up with about 10% of current species anyway.  But then there's the 'frailty' we are gonna engender in them, while we selfishly smash down their habitats.  Many TV docos and presumably youtubes out there.   this question is here - now- today!

sorry to preach m8 - i realise in your case it's preaching to the converted 



> PS thought for the day ( just flashed through my grey matter)
> 
> ask not "what would Jesus have done?"
> ask instead ..... "what would Steve Irwin have done"


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> sorry to preach m8 - i realise in your case it's preaching to the converted




*LOL* I have at an estimate about 40 to 50 years before I get converted to 















compost .


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

m8 - in 50 years, they'll have discovered how to make you compost-proof for at least another 100 lol. 

Then again , maybe compost would have more fun by then lol


----------



## kgee (13 November 2007)

Off the subject again

But why do religions have an afterlife as a central tenement (?) to their faith?
I believe in a God of sorts ( it might be a higher type of mathmatics or physics for all I know) but I'm a lot more skeptical about an afterlife.?

And on the reducing gene pool... why aren't we making artificial reefs in all our oceans...it seems a better idea than burying all our Junk?

Is it to late to make up a poll to see who thinks religion is a bad thing?


----------



## Sean K (13 November 2007)

kgee said:


> Off the subject again
> 
> But why do religions have an afterlife as a central tenement (?) to their faith?



If you are good (ie, do as we say) you go to Heaven, if you are bad, you go to Hell. Manipulation and control. People are generally afraid of dying, so what better way of influencing them by making up a story about St Peter at the Pearly Gates, or an oasis filled with 200 virgins. Even Hinduism/Buddhism use reincarnation as a tool of manipulation. If you develop good Karma you come back as a superiour whatever. So, be good now, or you will be punished in the afterlife. Animism is quite interesting in their beliefs but mostly link back to the same thing. Be good now, or you will be punished. 

Control, through a complete lack of rational reasoning.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2007)

Off the track a bit but, know of your chatterbox.Remove all distractions and (know it).Since the chatterbox or self talk can`t be sensed (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) then it can only be known by the individual.These eternal tapes are playing from birth to death and even the yogis have to eliminate all human interference to come close to a perception of self control .

Karma would be the most missused word to describe events.Karma is a human word which has human conditions, generally revenge (or the grudger as 2020 pointed out).


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

wys - not sure of the link between karma and revenge - but I like the "listen to the tapes" - around here there are usually 5 going at one time  

But speaking of Buddhism ( since you mention it lol)



> 2020:-I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature (i.e. better than other religions that is) - and Dawkins, believe it or not, has strong ideas there as well (as he does on most important moral questions




What I meant to say was  that  - I would like to think that pantheism (and such beliefs) could coexist with nature AND HUMAN NATURE  - AND NOT BRING OUT ANY WARLIKE STUFF (i.e. better than other religions that is).

And equally I would have to say that some people go about their daily tasks , go missing on Sunday for an hour or so to attend church, and are not the slightest bit interested in preaching.  Absolutely no problem of course.   

Just when the church(es) meddle in 
a) politics  
b) sex education, banning condoms in particular, triggering aids etc (DIRECT responsibility)
they should be told to .. stay out of it ... imo.

No need to extend the pure speculation imore than necessary.   *And of course on absolutely no grounds should they criticize another church from their own pulpit - in fact under no grounds should they criticize anybody surely *.   They must accept that the other church has every right to exist.  Maybe then they'd avoid the criticism about starting fights and wars and stuff.

PS Personally I would have no problem with such a church - chugging along barely heard - (ideal) Buddhism the classic example - Probably *(possibly?) *Dawkins would still find (intellectual) fault with Buddhism, but no way would I . 

*(I'll have to check out that last statement , as I run the risk of misquoting him - and he has already been misquoted sufficiently on this thread )*


----------



## Rafa (13 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> *And of course on absolutely no grounds should they criticize another church from their own pulpit - in fact under no grounds should they criticize anybody surely *.   They must accept that the other church has every right to exist.  Maybe then they'd avoid the criticism about starting fights and wars and stuff.




Maybe the church of Dawkins could begin to practise that very thing... 

What amazes me 2020 is the very thing that you and I dislike about some churches... i.e. I am right and everyone else is wrong... is what Dawkins himself is doing!

I mean... after all Dawkins is just a 21st century philosopher using at very best 10% of his brain power... His logic makes sense to our 21st century brains.

If I permit me to indulge in some future gazing for a second or two:
What are the odds that in a few hundred years, the church of Dawkins followers won't be hoodwinked into starting a war with the 'believers'? Don't laugh, I want you to seriously consider this?

Is it possible? Is it fair to blame Dawkins for that...?

My answer would be Yes, it is possible, and NO, it would not be Dawkin's fault... Tho his writings, which are of a similar tone to most evangelical writers... i.e. I speak the truth, and anyone of can't see it, is obviously a grade A clown... could, very easily, in the hands of a overzealous disciples with a fired up following... lead to war.

Anyway... end of my musings...


In the end, what I would like to know 2020, is 

1)what does Dawkins say about rampant consumerism and materialism cause we all know (i presume we all know)... that this has the potential to destroy not humans, but the planet we live on... 

2)And what does he say one rampant capitalism and greed... one of the major root causes of many of the wars he speaks of?

Most of the great religions devote a significant portion of their teaching to the above two topics... tho alas, not many of the followers actually follow them....


----------



## Julia (13 November 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Firstly repentance ... if someone has wronged and are conscious to right their wrongs, then a medium needs to be present for the transition/change to take place.Either through a friend or self improvement group along with  self analysis can the wrong doer (not j walkers lol) make a movement toward a better way.Belief in something `bigger` than yourself does wonders for small mind.Turning to passive religion is the last hope for some before doing something real stupid or worse, insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct



The last bit first:  you write "correct" in response to part of one of my sentences - "I just can't see".  It would be good if you could explain what you mean.  Are you suggesting that because I don't agree with you I am failing to see God - or something?????

Re repentance:  totally disagree that to realise one has done something wrong or wronged someone, some other medium e.g. a church/religion, is necessary before an appropriate apology can be made.  Why?
Seeing we are - on another thread - into running over dogs and/or possums, if I run over your dog/possum and then realise that I have done something which will hurt you (not to mention the poor deceased animal), then I hardly need to ask God or a church if I should express my sorrow and regret for so doing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

Rafa
I'll reply to your post "later"
but in the meantime, here's a discussion he has with the local bishop - he has no problems with reasonable people.  And he argues forcefully with the unreasonable ones -  but does not use force.  
His main concern I believe is with the bible belt in USA, where free-thinking agnostics, atheists etc are ostracized ...  almost meet "underground" for fear of losing jobs etc.   But I'll try to find some youtubes to that effect ( unless someone beats me to it). 

Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford (2 of 4)


----------



## Rafa (13 November 2007)

No worries... i never suggested he used force, mainly musing on what might happen in the future...

As for that bible belt... that scares the life out of me too... 

Whenever one group believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, its a recipe for persecution and ostracization... but forget about athiests in the bible belt, all religions were persecuted under communist eastern europe, catholics have been persecuted by protestants, Shias by sunni's, christians in most gulf muslim countries, etc, etc all on the basis of belief... there has also been plenty of persecution and ostracization on more 'real' things like race, color, language, sexuality, weight, wealth, etc... 

that's simply human nature... 

PS: Good line from the Bishop to Dawking: I think maybe you spend too long in fundametal circles... I think 2020, if you look beyond the fundametalists dogma's and consider the messages that most global religions in the 21st century preach there ain't too much difference... (tolerance, fogiveness, etc) certainly not enough to warrant the abolition of all religions!


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> ... there has also been plenty of persecution and ostracization on more 'real' things like race, color, language, sex, weight, wealth, etc...



all good points

and as you say - just because there has been persecution because of sex, - doesn't warrant the abolition of sex!  

maybe just the abolition of noisy sex lol - well - noisy sex by missionaries lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

this is the sort of dishonest nonsense that Dawkins has had to put up with from creationists - AND (see last youtube) deceptive dishonest Aussies no less !!



> a desperate endeavour to cover his cowardly tracks



 Richard Dawkins stumped   by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)

The following is the claim ( by creationists - it is deceptive, dishonest and a cheap shot) 


> *Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome" -* quite a reasonable question that one would expect Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science - so adamant in his belief in evolution - could and would provide an answer for.
> 
> He then responds but DOES NOT answer the question that was asked of him. Why? *Because he has no idea when it comes to processes that add information to the genome - the very premise of what he proclaims*!! His writings claiming that he was not stumped are *a desperate endeavour to cover his cowardly tracks *(and on a further note, his writings don't cover any of these "information adding" processes either).
> 
> ...




damned if I know what this JJjayco is trying to prove here  - he admits there are such possibilities for mutations etc - (even says that creation and evolution are equally probable or words to that effect ??) yet finds fault with Dawkins ( *who incidentally was granting an informal interview under false pretenses in his own home *-  - see last youtube ) 

 11 second Pause Dawkins 'stumped' hoax videos exposed again!

 Re: Richard Dawkins Stumped (Actual Footage! NOT A HOAX!)

 Dawkins Stumped? Let me answer!

  Re: Dawkins Stumped? Let me answer!


----------



## Sean K (14 November 2007)

Just this minute watched an article on CNN where the people of Georgia are on the steps of parliament praying for rain. Hundreds of people there, asking for God to provide rain. All of them praying with all their might, for rain. If they pray hard and long enough, surely, rain will come. God will privide for those that pray long and hard enough, and who are faithful, and therefore, will be blessed....

Let's not consider anything else for the provision of H2O, let's just pray!


----------



## Rafa (14 November 2007)

kennas... strange comment from you....
prayers do actually work, if you believe.

it may be to do with god, it maybe to do with harnessing the remaining 90% of the human brain... but coming together and praying as a group does powerfull things.

the problem now a days, its just so hard to let go... of anything


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

Hiawatha say
"timing has lot to do with outcome of raindance"


----------



## Rafa (14 November 2007)

hehe, nice one 2020....

what really got me was when Johnny Howard, whose actions are anything but Christian, tried to get everyone to pray for rain in Oz!

to clarify what i meant to say above kennas... praying in a group may or may not cause rain, but it will certainly give you the strength to cope with the lack of it.

i keep going back to the point that as far as logic / science goes, thats barely 10% of our brain capacity...

people have been assuming that the more that expands, the more logical and scientifically advanced we might get... but, it may also mean we progress in other ways. Could prayer actually touch on those other areas in our brains that science and logic cannot?


----------



## spooly74 (14 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> hehe, nice one 2020....
> 
> i keep going back to the point that as far as logic / science goes, thats barely 10% of our brain capacity...
> 
> people have been assuming that the more that expands, the more logical and scientifically advanced we might get... but, it may also mean we progress in other ways. Could prayer actually touch on those other areas in our brains that science and logic cannot?




Hi Rafa, the notion that humans only use 10% of our brain is a myth.

For simple tasks such as eating, walking, or reading, we may only use a small part of our brain. Over the course of the day  however, just about all the brain is used at one time or another.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

Rafa and Spooly
I'd agree with both of you
prayer = just a form of meditation as far as I'm concerned,
and I'd also bet that both/either uses parts of our brain we are not otherwise aware of...
gets the brain to relax and we end up with a heap of positive (drug free ) endorphins instead of a heap of stress  (imo) 

I guess my point is that some people meditate with ...
* the word "one" repeated (plus concentrate on breathing)
* ditto (plus heartbeat as well)
* the word "ummmm"  repeated plus ditto
* some yoga position and mantra 
* some maharishi-given personalised mantra repeated (if you can afford it)
* "lord god hear my prayer" etc
* "the lord is my shepherd"
* (heck counting sheep for that matter ) 
* "peace to all" ditto etc 

 if you get my drift.  (i.e. the god-connection is optional imo)

And I fully admit some people are stronger in themselves for them being religious.  (eg I have quoted the difficulty in brain washing the Moslems in the Korean war many times).  

Just that I also agree with Dawkins that, (paraphrasing I hope correctly) if religion gets 'fanatical' - (yet to be defined - I'd probably say "whenever one person thinks he can lecture another that something totally unproven exists, or wants political clout or similar to go with such completely unfounded conjecture")  you suddenly have a major problem.   (imo)


----------



## Sean K (20 November 2007)

Is this Saudi culture or Islam which is the issue?

Another situation perhaps to paste on Dawkins religion is evil list.

Quite incredible this happens in the 21st century.



> *Saudi lawyer in rape victim plea*
> 
> Story Highlights
> 
> ...




Effectively, this women has got 200 lashes and six months in jail, for 'being alone with a male who is not a relative'.

The woman, who is married, and an unrelated man were abducted and raped by a group of seven men more than a year ago. The male victim was also given an increased sentence of 200 lashes and six months in prison.

The man and woman were attacked after they met so she could retrieve an old photograph of herself from him, according to al-Lahim. 

 



Not sure what happened to the blokes.


----------



## Julia (20 November 2007)

Yes, Kennas, and on another thread we are all really busy complaining about what is wrong with our democratic system!


----------



## Rafa (20 November 2007)




----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

kennas said:


> Is this Saudi culture or Islam which is the issue?
> 
> Another situation perhaps to paste on Dawkins religion is evil list.
> 
> ...



hi kennas
When you say "Is this Saudi culture or Islam which is the issue?",  I'd say that the culture and the religion are one and the same.    Likewise US bible belt.   

Do they feed on each other?
does extremism beget extremism?

plenty of Dawkins youtubes on this - must try to post an appropriate one (later) - unless someone beats me too it. 

PS why a woman would voluntarily join (extreme) Islam I'm damned if I know.    Can't help it if you're born into it of course, (but that goes for most of us ending up in the religion we end up in)


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hi kennas
> When you say "Is this Saudi culture or Islam which is the issue?",  I'd say that the culture and the religion are one and the same.    Likewise US bible belt.
> 
> Do they feed on each other?
> does extremism beget extremism?



It's say it's 500AD culture, set in stone by Islam (The Koran)

They need another Profit to write an updated version, how Christianity has moved on, although not far enough yet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

where Prophets have moved? gone west with the Profits m8, lol


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> where Prophets have moved? gone west with the Profits m8, lol



 LOL. I haven't even been drinking.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

lol...
"And the wise Prophets came from the east 
and they said
the profits are moving westward"  

PS Must be fascinating living in Peru there kennas - wouldn't it have been great to have been a fly on the wall when the Spanish Conquistadors met the Incas


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 November 2007)

Yet more delightfully reasonable discussion with Richard Dawkins 

 James Randi and Richard Dawkins in 2005


> Randi and Dawkins discuss the perinormal and paranormal. This is only a brief clip of the conversation from the Amazing Meeting (January 2005) put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation.




"atheists for Jesus"

"theories on homeopathy" - is there a robust phenomenon there ?? (other than elusive / evasive - does it depend on the weather, or whether there are any skeptics present etc"

"perinormal" - close to normal??
http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free_board/index.cgi?noframes;read=145652


> "There are simple experiments you can do, with results that are not understood by current science. "
> 
> I understand that in his lecture at the last JREF convention, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins expressed concern that Randi might have to pony up the million because of that very thing. That's not a new concern for the challenge, but Dawkins invented a new word for it: perinormal ("in the vicinity of" normal), meaning natural phenomenon that may seem supernatural or paranormal simply because we don't understand them. But we'll have to wait and see if Randi weasels out of paying if something like that comes up


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2007)

Yet more on "prisoner's dilemna"
as so well explained by Dawkins back there (not that many even listen to him  before criticising lol)

.. this also concludes that long-term partnerships between people and/or other creatures only work when there is a level of morality - or (more accurately) at least a level of understanding - ideally something like "tit for tat" 

...PS I'm sure if someone said there were major moral questions deeply hidden in some James Bond movies, then most wouldn't believe that either 

http://sfgirl-thealiennextdoor.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-james-bond-altruist-part-2.html


> In the motion picture Casino Royale (off stage, during Jame's torture scene), Vesper pretty much faced the same "Prisoner's Dilemma" as Tosca did: to save James Bond's life (and possibly hers, at least for the moment), she made a deal with SPECTRE. She, too, attempted deception against SPECTRE (though it was a feckless attempt) and dared hope for happiness (if brief) with James. But all too soon, SPECTRE caught up with her and she knew she had to go through with her bargain, hoping they would spare her but knowing in her heart that she was heading to her death. What of that torture scene in which LeChifre offered Bond a deal to save Vesper (actually to kill her quickly and spare her the agony of torture) if Bond gave him the information he needed?...The concept of a "Prisoner's Dilemma" applies wherever there's a conflict between self-interest and the common good...where collective and individual interests are in conflict. Which way did James Bond go? How did he decide?
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that in single encounters of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", the outcome is usually driven by selfishness and distrust. Players are usually encouraged to defect and deceive out of self-interest; just like Tosca and Vesper tried and failed to do. The outcome is entirely different when the game is played more than once. Game theorists found that frequent repetition of the encounter encouraged cooperation. With "the shadow of the future" held over each player, a new game emerged, "Tit-for-Tat", which relied on the consequence of reciprocity. In the system described by "Tit-for-Tat" the long-term reward of cooperation outweighs the short-term reward of defection. This is what Matt Ridley calls reciprocal altruism and apparently humans are particularly well suited to it, being gregarious and choosing to live in a society where repeated encounters among ourselves promotes cooperation. Reciprocity permeates our language and our lives: "dept, obligation, favour, bargain, contract, exhange, deal..." Simpler life forms also engage in reciprocal altruism, as Lynn Margulis pointed out in her discussions of endosymbiosis and evolution through cooperation.
> ...




imagine playing blood donor seven times a week !   :batman:


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 December 2007)

Jonathan Miller interviews Richard Dawkins

Again, I find this bloke (in fact both these blokes) perfectly reasonable. ...
Great interview this (3 times 9 mins = 27 mins) 
Great summary of the subject. ...
is science a religion ?
is religion a science ? etc

  Atheism Tapes 4 - Richard Dawkins (1 of 3)

 Atheism Tapes 4 - Richard Dawkins (2 of 3)

 Atheism Tapes 4 - Richard Dawkins (3 of 3)


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Rafa
> I'll reply to your post "later"
> but in the meantime, here's a discussion he has with the local bishop - he has no problems with reasonable people.  And he argues forcefully with the unreasonable ones -  but does not use force.
> His main concern I believe is with the bible belt in USA, where free-thinking agnostics, atheists etc are ostracized ...  almost meet "underground" for fear of losing jobs etc.   But I'll try to find some youtubes to that effect ( unless someone beats me to it).
> ...




This is a fairly well discussed youtube ok?
I mean we are talking about seriously intellectual and reasonable people of both a) religious and b) a-religious persuasions 


http://richarddawkins.net/article,9...d,Richard-Dawkins-Foundation-Root-of-All-Evil

Here are some comments on that website:-



> 1. Comment #33251 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm
> This is an amazing discussion. It's a pleasure to watch.





> 2. Comment #33357 by ajpb on April 20, 2007 at 12:08 am
> This is without doubt the best video I have seen on this site yet.





> 3. Comment #33388 by cetACEan on April 20, 2007 at 2:03 am
> Bishop Harries confirmed me when I was 13 years old. Richard Dawkins helped me discover atheism in the Christmas lectures in 1991. I am very glad to see such a frank and polite debate on some of the issues around theology and religion. I think these two men set a good example for the rest of the debate. Recommended watching.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2008)

Further to recent discussion on another thread (of which this is latest at this point of time) :-

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=255334&highlight=honesty#post255334

Moving on ... here is some criticism of Dawkins

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Dawki...7VFUF43OXFJ3/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=055277331X



> David Marshall says:
> As I've explained in previous forums, I'm presently writing a book refuting Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. (I say that not to promote the book, which won't be out for a while, but to come clean on position.) I'm not a scientist, and only a fraction of the errors I found in this book (counting 160 on the first read; leaving the numbers in place below) had to do with science. I plan to excoriate Dawkins more for his absurd errors in other areas of knowledge in my response.
> 
> However, as professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, one would expect Dawkins to get his scientific facts right. He is a talented writer and imaginative writer, and in the past has proven ingenious at describing his views of evolution. It may be that I am mistaken, as an outsider to the field. But it seems to me a lot of his scientific claims here are "hot-house" arguments, claims that flourish only in a protected environment.
> ...




and here are some counter-comments (which I would agree with - at least the ones I half understand lol) ...



> Richard Dawkins is a learned mind of the highest order. *In writing 'The God Delusion', he reduced his massive knowledge down to a lay level to make the concepts understandable to pretty much everyone. It is difficult to reduce high order knowledge to a lay level without introducing some inconsistency*. The majority of your criticisms seem to leverage on that.
> 
> In one case, he used the word 'always'. Perhaps he should have said 'generally' or 'usually'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pat (5 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Further to recent discussion on another thread (of which this is latest at this point of time) :-
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=255334&highlight=honesty#post255334



2020 in the other thread you mentioned Dawkins logic.
I am trying to grasp exactly what it is?

Now I havent read any of his books. All I am familiar with is what is here on ASF.

Is he against the belief in god?

Or religion?

Or both?

I am confused because I haven't seen where he has provided a better altenative.

I guess I don't know what he could be right or wrong about?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

Pat said:


> 2020 in the other thread you mentioned Dawkins logic.
> I am trying to grasp exactly what it is?
> 
> Now I havent read any of his books. All I am familiar with is what is here on ASF.
> ...




Pat
Like many, he started life religious, then became an atheist. 
His alternative ? - no God, but then again, he would not have a problem I'm sure with a generous-spirited Buddhist.

PS He has major concerns with US Bible Belt, - Earth 6000 years old  Creationists etc - and (I think I'm right) has set up an "charity" to educate em on the facts of evolution.   I mean these blokes are in serious denial.  

He is seriously against extremism in all religions - but at the same time tolerant of moderate ones, and argues the point with any and all if he sees them claiming "fact" when it's "faith" etc. 

He is always a gentleman, albeit a determined one.  (lol - no doubt someone will produce a youtube of him chasing his sectretary around the office desk) 

He has many many youtubes out there with his thoughts (and research) on other topics as well - codes for social interaction, tit-for tat, etc - which can be extended to how nations should behave. 

I guess I just started this thread to explore the depth and variety of his broadcasts - 
and to invite people to prove him wrong.

In the process we might all become much better educated (specially me)  

PS   MS&Trades
By that I would expect you to at least cut and paste the claim against him or his reasoning.  Then we can analyse it. 

i.e. Not just post a link to a massive website - with no detail - and say "QED".


----------



## MS+Tradesim (5 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS   MS&Trades
> By that I would expect you to at least cut and paste the claim against him or his reasoning.  Then we can analyse it.
> 
> i.e. Not just post a link to a massive website - with no detail - and say "QED".




Hmm...so it's not possible to analyse something unless it is chopped into soundbites and regurgitated on forums?  There's something wrong with that idea...let me think about it...hmmm


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

speaking of blind watchmakers and QED .. 

(and he CAN claim QED here you'd think) 

 The Blind Watchmaker (clip)


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2008)

Pat said:
			
		

> Is he against the belief in god? Or religion?  Or both?
> I am confused because I haven't seen where he has provided a better altenative.
> I guess I don't know what he could be right or wrong about?




Here is a reasonable interview (in contrast to another interview by OReilly)

 The Hour: Interview with Richard Dawkins (Part 1) 

 The Hour: Interview with Richard Dawkins (Part 2) 

If you have time, these are worth watching (although he doesn't touch on the bridge perfect deals etc 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHg79BUqq-0  Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker 1/5   There are 5 in the set.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2008)

Richard Dawkins on the Orielly Factor 

 Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Dawkins interviews Neil Spence, "an astrologer" - and challenges him to test his theories.  Then goes on to psychics, mediums - communication with the dead etc .  

 Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (2 of 5) 



> I believe astrology misleads the public, denies scientific progress, and belittles our universe.  There's a far richer way to look at the cosmos.  *ASTONOMY is a triumph of the human intellect.  a real science constantly enriched by new evidence*.
> 
> Forget about the astrologer's charts with their constellations and planets moving in and out of this house or that house.  Go into a real observatory and look at the Milky Way or go out into the country on a moonless night - just lie on your back and gaze up at the stars. The heart stopping sight you'd see is a 100 billion stars spinning through an expanding universe at a million miles per day. The light from some of the closest stars started its journey at the time of the dinosaurs.
> 
> ...




He goes on to get an admission of the tricks  "the linguistic tricks", used by psychics... 

Incidentally there are 5 in this set (Enemies of Reason Ep.1) 
and also 5 in a similar set (Enemies of Reason Ep.2) 
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=enemies+of+reason+Ep&search_type=


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Speaking of mediums, 
reminds me of that joke about the medium who is also a midget - who breaks out of jail...

next day the newspaper headlines read ..
SMALL MEDIUM AT LARGE !~!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

Enemies of Reason Ep.1 (5 of 5) 



> 6m0s :- the internet is revolutionising how we use information
> wikipedia presents great opportunity and huge danger
> paranoiac conspiracy theories circulate unchallenged
> like the one that NASA faked the moon landings
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 February 2008)

Herewith a letter (pretty long - only if you're keen I guess) written by Richard Dawkins to his daughter Juliet , then 10 yr old. ... and signed "your loving Daddy".  

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html



> Dear Juliet,
> 
> Now that you are ten, I want to write to you about something that is important to me. Have you ever wondered how we know the things that we know? How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the sun?
> 
> ...






> First, tradition. A few months ago, I went on television to have a discussion with about fifty children. These children were invited because they had been brought up in lots of different religions. Some had been brought up as Christians, others as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs. The man with the microphone went from child to child, asking them what they believed. What they said shows up exactly what I mean by "tradition." Their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence. They just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents which, in turn, were not based upon evidence either. They said things like: "We Hindus believe so and so"; "We Muslims believe such and such"; "We Christians believe something else."
> 
> Of course, since they all believed different things, they couldn't all be right. ....... Tradition means beliefs handed down from grandparent to parent to child, and so on. Or from books handed down through the centuries. Traditional beliefs often start from almost nothing; perhaps somebody just makes them up originally, like the stories about Thor and Zeus.
> ....
> ...






> Authority, as a reason for believing something, means believing in it because you are told to believe it by somebody important. In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is the most important person, and people believe he must be right just because he is the pope. In one branch of the Muslim religion, the important people are the old men with beards called ayatollahs. Lots of Muslims in this country are prepared to commit murder, purely because the ayatollahs in a faraway country tell them to.
> 
> When I say that it was only in 1950 that Roman Catholics were finally told that they had to believe that Mary's body shot off to Heaven, what I mean is that in 1950, the pope told people that they had to believe it. That was it. The pope said it was true, so it had to be true! .






> The third kind of bad reason for believing anything is called "revelation." If you had asked the pope in 1950 how he knew that Mary's body disappeared into Heaven, he would probably have said that it had been "revealed" to him. He shut himself in his room and prayed for guidance. He thought and thought, all by himself, and he became more and more sure inside himself. When religious people just have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling "revelation." It isn't only popes who claim to have revelations. Lots of religious people do. It is one of their main reasons for believing the things that they do believe. But is it a good reason?
> 
> Suppose I told you that your dog was dead. You'd be very upset, and you'd probably say, "Are you sure? How do you know? How did it happen?" Now suppose I answered: "I don't actually know that Pepe is dead. I have no evidence. I just have a funny feeling deep inside me that he is dead." You'd be pretty cross with me for scaring you, because you'd know that an inside "feeling" on its own is not a good reason for believing that a whippet is dead. You need evidence. ...






> I promised that I'd come back to tradition, and look at it in another way.
> ........
> It's a pity, but it can't help being the case, that because children have to be suckers for traditional information, they are likely to believe anything the grown-ups tell them, whether true or false, right or wrong. Lots of what the grown-ups tell them is true and based on evidence, or at least sensible. But if some of it is false, silly, or even wicked, there is nothing to stop the children believing that, too. Now, when the children grow up, what do they do? Well, of course, they tell it to the next generation of children. So, once something gets itself strongly believed - even if it is completely untrue and there never was any reason to believe it in the first place - it can go on forever.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

Here's another of his letters - this time admonishing Prince Charles 

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...s/Work/Articles/2000-05-21charlesletter.shtml



> Don't turn your back on science
> An open letter from biologist Richard Dawkins to Prince Charles
> Article in The Observer Sunday May 21, 2000
> 
> ...






> It may sound paradoxical, but if we want to sustain the planet into the future, the first thing we must do is stop taking advice from nature. Nature is a short-term Darwinian profiteer. Darwin himself said it: 'What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horridly cruel works of nature.'



- well not much in common with Wordsworth that's for sure


----------



## wayneL (14 February 2008)

Emotive, cognitively biased and dissonant, and riddled with pot, kettle, black hypocrisy.

Richo also suffers from a bias blind spot.

Poor effort.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

btw, he was responding to the following lecture by Prince Charles. (Reith lectures 2000)
Some nice turns of phrase, quite poetic in parts, but no match for Dawkin's arguments imo    I discuss GM below - and there it gets tricky I think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture6.stm

I find it interesting that GM crops were mentioned and that Dawkins is quite supportive of GM -  because of the risk of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.   Personally I'm a bit confused on the case for and against GM crops.   I notice the recent trip by Canadian farmers to Aus trying to convince us not to encourage GM crops, saying that neither Monsanto nor their claims were "not to be trusted". . 



			
				dawkins said:
			
		

> Incidentally, one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the possible risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria is something that a Darwinian might have foreseen from the day antibiotics were discovered. Unfortunately the warning voices have been rather quiet, and now they are drowned by the baying cacophony: 'GM GM GM GM GM GM!'




In contrast, at that same set of lectures  :-  Vandana Shiva, campaigner and Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in Delhi  is totally against GM.


> Vandana Shiva: Very, very seriously and I think we now have more than enough evidence that the idea that genetic engineering is an imperative because without it people will starve - it's not at all true. Organic production increases food production many fold. It sustains biodiversity, protects the Earth, and protects all farmers while bringing us good food. And I think it's time that at least 50 percent of the world's money was put into research on organic methods and improvement of indigenous methods rather than this blind investment only in genetic engineering whose hazards are known, whose counter productivity is now established and which increases monopoly controls which we can't afford.






> Prince Charles: Like millions of other people around the world I've been fascinated to hear five eminent speakers share with us their thoughts hopes and fears about sustainable development based on their own experience. All five of those contributions have been immensely thoughtful and challenging. There have been clear differences of opinion and of emphasis between the speakers but there have also been some important common themes, both implicit and explicit. One of those themes has been the suggestion that sustained development is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Two of the speakers used this phrase and I don't believe that the other three would dissent from it, and nor would I.
> 
> Self-interest is a powerful motivating force for all of us, and if we can somehow convince ourselves that sustainable development is in all our interests then we will have taken a valuable first step towards achieving it. But self-interest comes in many competing guises - not all of which I fear are likely to lead in the right direction for very long, nor to embrace the manifold needs of future generations. I am convinced we will need to dig rather deeper to find the inspiration, sense of urgency and moral purpose required to confront the hard choices which face us on the long road to sustainable development. So, although it seems to have become deeply unfashionable to talk about the spiritual dimension of our existence, that is what I propose to do.
> 
> ...




continued


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

continued from previous  (Prince Charles at Reith lectures 2000)  


> As Professor Alan Linton of Bristol University has written- 'evolution is a manmade theory to explain the origin and continuance of life on this planet without reference to a Creator.' It is because of our inability or refusal to accept the existence of a guiding hand that nature has come to be regarded as a system that can be engineered for our own convenience or as a nuisance to be evaded and manipulated, and in which anything that happens can be fixed by technology and human ingenuity. Fritz Schumacher recognised the inherent dangers in this approach when he said that 'there are two sciences - the science of manipulation and the science of understanding.'
> 
> In this technology driven age it is all too easy for us to forget that mankind is a part of nature and not apart from it. And that this is why we should seek to work with the grain of nature in everything we do, for the natural world is, as the economist Herman Daly puts it - 'the envelope that contains, sustains and provisions the economy, not the other way round.' So which argument do you think will win - the living world as one or the world made up of random parts, the product of mere chance, thereby providing the justification for any kind of development? This, to my mind, lies at the heart of what we call sustainable development. We need, therefore, to rediscover a reference for the natural world, irrespective of its usefulness to ourselves - to become more aware in Philip Sherrard's words of 'the relationship of interdependence, interpenetration and reciprocity between God, Man and Creation.'
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> Emotive, cognitively biased and dissonant, and riddled with pot, kettle, black hypocrisy..



Speaking of teapots ...  - this quote from one of his lecture “The Great Convergence”...

.......The comparison of religion to belief in a celestial teapot orbiting the sun.  :-


> Agnostic conciliation …… reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking.   It goes roughly like this.
> a)	You can’t prove a negative (so far so good).
> b)	Science has no way to disprove the existence of existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true).
> c)	Therefore belief (or disbelief) in a supreme being is a matter of pure individual inclination, and they are therefore both equally deserving of respectful attention.
> ...




btw, - different topic to some exetent - he adds the following quotes / clarifications to reference to 'God' by Stephen Hawking and also Albert Einstein.  - also from Dawkins article “The Great Convergence”


> Stephen Hawking’s  “TheMind of God” no more indicates a belief in God than does “God knows!” (as a way of saying that I don’t). I suspect the same of Einstein’s picturesque invoking of the ‘Dear Lord’ to personify the laws of physics.    Indeed Einstein himself was indignant at the suggestion: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.  I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called religion then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it’  From Albert Einstein, ‘The Human Side’, ed H. Dukas and B. Hoffman ( Princeton University Press, 1981). The lie is still being spread about, carried through the meme pool by the desperate desire so many people have to believe it – such was Einstein’s prestige.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 February 2008)

Dawkins:- Speech to science teachers ...
"I offered the analogy which teachers might use to bring home to their pupils the true antiquity of the universe.  If a history were written at a rate of one century per page, how thick would a book of the universe be?  In the view of a Young Earth Creationist, the entire history of the universe, on this scale, would fit comfortably into a slender paperback.  

And the scientific answer to the question? To accommodate all the volumes of history on the same scale, you'd need a bookshelf ten miles long.  That gives the order of magnitude of the yawning gap between true science on the one hand, and the creationist teaching on the other.  

This is not some disagreement of scientific detail. It is the difference between a single paperback and a library of a million books. "


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

The "Dawkin's club" seems to include Carl Sagan, David Attenborough et al - at least as far as evolution goes.  

He (Attenborough) argues for evolution in this youtube. - and He criticises those who jump from a "sense of wonder" about nature to the invention of a merciful God. 

He goes on to say Man has a moral obligation to the world at large. 

 Sir David Attenborough on God


----------



## wayneL (21 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> He goes on to say Man has a moral obligation to the world at large.



If man is an accident of physics and chemistry, he has no moral obligation at all, to anyone or anything.

These "scientists", even the inventor of the word "meme", insist on persisting with the Christeo-Judaic meme to disparage the concept of some ...ummmm (let's just call it  higher consciousness for now).

All that really does is disparage the Abrahamic religions. Fair enough I say if that's all that is intended. However the agenda is more than that, it is to proselytize for their own belief system.

Scientific?

Pffffffft.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

The possible reconstruction of "I love Lucy" 

The "Missing Link" brought back to life (Jurassic Park style) by 2050?

(excerpt from one of Dawkin's papers , "Son of Moore's Law") 
http://books.google.com/books?id=nB...ts=M1EVB-tdCy&sig=nmhNE585RvHjSq6DvQ4CDCVlae4


----------



## spooly74 (24 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> If man is an accident of physics and chemistry, he has no moral obligation at all, to anyone or anything.




I dunno if it`s that simple Wayne. I think life probably was an accident of physics and chemistry, but after billions of years, man is certainly not.
We are all born with a capacity to acquire a certain type of moral system, depending on which culture you`re born into ... it can`t be helped.
People give blood, donate etc ... such altruism happens everyday and it`s not just limited to mankind but also evident in the animal world, and beyond the realm of kin selection.



wayneL said:


> These "scientists", even the inventor of the word "meme", insist on persisting with the Christeo-Judaic meme to disparage the concept of some ...ummmm (let's just call it  higher consciousness for now).
> 
> All that really does is disparage the Abrahamic religions. Fair enough I say if that's all that is intended. However the agenda is more than that, it is to proselytize for their own belief system.
> 
> ...




Agree here, thats exactly whats going on right now and Dawkins is the leader.
But why?
With Intelligent Design clearly having holes in it, why don`t the 'scientists' just go about their business of doing science and in time ID will be binned by an inevitable increase in knowledge.
The truth is that ID is literally an attack on science itself, and after the creationists failed to dismantle the theory of evolution, they are using this new bulls**t to destabilise it.
I`ve read a couple of Dawkins books and loved 'The Ancestors Tale'.
Perhaps scientists should stick to what they do best.


----------



## Sean K (24 February 2008)

spooly74 said:


> I dunno if it`s that simple Wayne. I think life probably was an accident of physics and chemistry, but after billions of years, man is certainly not.
> We are all born with a capacity to acquire a certain type of moral system, depending on which culture you`re born into ... it can`t be helped.
> People give blood, donate etc ... such altruism happens everyday and it`s not just limited to mankind but also evident in the animal world, and beyond the realm of kin selection.



This is only because it's in our self interest to do so. It's a survival mechanism. 

Wherever there is 'ultruism' in the animal kingdom, it can be related back to the same purpose.

'Morals' are a concept describing our requirement to create an environment where we might best have the chance to be happy and thrive, but ultimately, just survive.


----------



## Julia (24 February 2008)

kennas said:


> This is only because it's in our self interest to do so. It's a survival mechanism.
> 
> Wherever there is 'ultruism' in the animal kingdom, it can be related back to the same purpose.
> 
> 'Morals' are a concept describing our requirement to create an environment where we might best have the chance to be happy and thrive, but ultimately, just survive.




Agreed.  I suspect there is also (though we don't like to acknowledge it) a suspicion that we need to be aware of the possibility of karma (I use the term loosely).  i.e. if we are kind to others, donate our blood etc., then if we are in the s**t, someone else will do likewise for us.

Something to do with the general construct of what we understand as a functioning society.


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 February 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=222339&highlight=selfish#post222339



> COOPERATION- something better than grudgers - This is what man should be able to do - cooperate for the good of the planet


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2008)

kennas said:


> This is only because it's in our self interest to do so. It's a survival mechanism.
> 
> Wherever there is 'ultruism' in the animal kingdom, it can be related back to the same purpose.
> 
> 'Morals' are a concept describing our requirement to create an environment where we might best have the chance to be happy and thrive, but ultimately, just survive.




Interestingly though, bees provided a spanner in works. 
Bees sometimes allow themselves to be killed, in order to protect the hive, but since dead bees can`t pass on their genes, where did this instinct for sacrifice come from.

Moral bees with suicidal tendencies


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 March 2008)

I've quoted a few excerpts from this talk - might as well post the lot. 
Turns out it is sometimes entitled "The Great Convergence" and sometimes "Snake Oil and Holy Water".

Explores (among othe things) the wonder of science - and the blurring of the boundary with religion.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins...awkins/Work/Articles/1999-10-04snakeoil.shtml


> Snake Oil and Holy Water
> by Richard Dawkins
> Article in FORBES ASAP  October 4, 1999
> Are science and religion converging? no.
> ...



(continued)


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 March 2008)

continued:-


> Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.
> 
> Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y, and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a teapot, then X, Y, and Z should be spelled out--because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments that should be evaluated. Don't protect them from scrutiny behind a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Atkins' teapot theory, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with respect to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Since camel spotter has introduced prime numbers (on another thread),   I add this quote from Richard Dawkins (paraphrased) ...

What I want to emphasise is the *"Goldbach Conjecture"*

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=509122



> What is a
> a)	Hypothesis
> b)	Theory (conjecture)
> c)	Theory ( Theorem)
> ...




call it one of those riddles that we can't prove, I guess - despite the fact we can't disprove it either 


And this from wiki ... (letters between Euler and Goldbach)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture



> Every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes,
> which is thus also a conjecture of Goldbach, In the letter dated 30 June, 1742, Euler stated:
> 
> “*Dass ... ein jeder numerus par eine summa duorum primorum sey, halte ich fÃ¼r ein ganz gewisses theorema, ungeachtet ich dasselbe necht demonstriren kann*.” ("every even integer is a sum of two primes. I regard this as a completely certain theorem, although I cannot prove it.")[5][6]
> ...


----------

