Are you a Christian?

[cjd]

No, it's not - because he has no competing force to natural selection (or 'selfishness'). You can explain selfishness in the context of personal survival. By definition, there's simply no way you can explain selflessness in those terms.

Sorry I didn't understand this.

I think you're confusing a lot of things here and simply fighting against stuff that you could agree with if you could actually read it without your mind screaming back at you, NO.

It maybe that you see Dawkins as religion's arch-enemy and that because he wrote the God Delusion he must be wrong about his science too.

I knew him as one of the best evolutionary biologists and zoologist of his generation - the Selfish Gene was written in 1979 - long before his atheism became his celebrity. This may be where you are getting confused. He's writing about ANIMALS not people.

The SG is entirely about animals and their evolution - it barely touches on man, although it has to in order to spell out that he does not imply in any way that selfish means human selfishness.

This will be why, when you read the quote mine about adoption, you immediately leapt to the wrong conclusion that he was talking about us and not monkeys.

If you don't want to pick up on anything else about the Selfish Gene, get it out of your head that it means:

1. that people are controlled by their genes. They are not and he is not saying that they are.

2. that gene competition means that we humans must behave in the same way as animals.

We have evolved brains that take us outside the realm of instinct and survival and he goes out of his way to say so.

At this point you can now say God did it. But there are other explanations - none of which are in the Selfish Gene book; because he was writing as a Professor of Zoology at Oxford University at the time. Not as Atheist in Chief, Mordor.

 

[Subbynet]

We have evolved brains that take us outside the realm of instinct and survival and he goes out of his way to say so.

Really tho? I don't think so... I think he was wrong on this point.

 

[cjd]

Really tho? I don't think so... I think he was wrong on this point.

I'll substitute 'outside' for 'beyond' if it helps.

He doesn't say that instinct (whatever that is) is not part of our make up - we are basically animals after all. Some very basic drives are immensely powerful in people - that's why religion gets all upset and obsessed by sex - he just allows that because we evolved a mind with consciousness we are not restricted purely to animal behaviours.

 

[mobyme]

It was a poor illustration which only showed how little you know about the theory of evolution.

And no more name calling please, it will only end in getting the thread shut down.

Oh' the vanity!
I'm going to take an educated guess here and of course I could be completely wrong;please feel free to correct me. I am going to assume that the lecturers who taught me what I do know about evolution were slightly more qualified than you on the subject.

However putting that aside; you too, have totally missed the point of the post.

 

[paultnl]

Oh' the vanity!
I'm going to take an educated guess here and of course I could be completely wrong;please feel free to correct me. I am going to assume that the lecturers who taught me what I do know about evolution were slightly more qualified than you on the subject.

However putting that aside; you too, have totally missed the point of the post.

I know nothing about the quality of your lecturers but the quality of your learning is in question.

 

[Beachcomber]

I know nothing about the quality of your lecturers but the quality of your learning is in question.

That made me chuckle.

 

[mobyme]

I know nothing about the quality of your lecturers but the quality of your learning is in question.

Touché .....

 

[cjd]

No, it's not - because he has no competing force to natural selection (or 'selfishness'). You can explain selfishness in the context of personal survival. By definition, there's simply no way you can explain selflessness in those terms.

.

Right, I've read it again and got all the selfishnesses and selflessnesses sorted out now

It's the same problem. The book is about animals not people so he makes no claims at all about human altruism except to say that it can't easily be explained by the selfish gene theory.

In fact he said quite the opposite - he rejects the idea of group selection which is the easiest explanation for the altruistic behaviour in animals. He's still a vociferous opponent of it, so he's hardly making his life easy.

 

[stugster]

In Africa a variety ...... I am a professor with a Ph.D.

And now I see why you're so happy to believe in a story that makes life easy on yoursel'.

I actually am astounded that you think that one mythical case of monkeys being nuts about nuts means that your case is proven. No wonder you'll happily digest the crud in that book of rubbish.

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of real life examples that show you animals actually are intelligent, are quite happy to go about using rudimentary tools to achieve tasks easier and faster, will learn from their mistakes, or are just generally clever... and yet because your book has you foolishly believing that this isn't meant to be the case, you mindlessly follow its words like a pathetic sheep.

Key words for you today are: stupidity, foolishness and pathetic.

 

[DCE]

Key words for you today are: stupidity, foolishness and pathetic.

Rat Worship?

Every day about 1,000 worshipers and some 70 tourists visit the Karni Mata temple in Deshnoke, India.

Why?

In that temple about 300 rats roam freely as devotees make their offerings to idols.

The rats “are revered and their every need is tended to by doting worshippers,” says New Zealand’s Evening Post.

The temple priests and the rats eat from the same bowls and drink the same water.

One of the priests claims that “these are not rats, these are messengers of the God, a gift of the goddess to us.” According to the Post, the priest stated that when the temple priests die, they obtain salvation by being reborn as rats.

When the rats die, he added, they are reborn as priests.

What do you think our Creator think's about this.

 

[dagr]

Well evolution didn't work on you, did it? It seems your the living proof that no matter how sane the parents they can still have an idiot child.
"We is all black" if you go back far enough, so of course I am descended from black people.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I said; I was trying to put a ridiculous point across and certain anal types decided to take cheap shots by accusing me of racism and you jumped on the bandwagon. Get a mind of your own.

Does this mean you're not going to be my future friend?

(And calling my parents sane is bordering on libel, but I'll let it go this time).

 

[Top Hat]

Rat Worship?

Every day about 1,000 worshipers and some 70 tourists visit the Karni Mata temple in Deshnoke, India.

<Snip>

When the rats die, he added, they are reborn as priests.

What do you think our Creator think's about this.

DCE how can you see that the above is all clearly nonsense

but

still believe the nonsense you believe, it's all cut from the same mould.

 

[DCE]

DCE how can you see that the above is all clearly nonsense but still believe the nonsense you believe, it's all cut from the same mould.

The point being made man's need to worship something or someone, even if it is wrongly directed.

That is why God revealed his name to us in the Bible, which is used over 7,000 times, so we would be able to tell the difference between, false God's and who the true God & Our Creator really is.

(Psalm 83:18) 18*That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

 

[cjd]

Funny how the believers of every religion find the beliefs of others ridiculous but can't see it themselves.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Top Hat]

The point being made man's need to worship something or someone, even if it is wrongly directed.

It is all wrongly directed.

 

[quikshop]

The point being made man's need to worship something or someone, even if it is wrongly directed.

Man not enlightened in 3rd World countries, Man scrabble 'round for meaning to confusing life full of sun and water and stuff, Man believe any ol' crap c'ause Man not educated and don't know noffink.

What's your excuse?

On a lighter note.

 

[stockdam]

Man not enlightened in 3rd World countries, Man scrabble 'round for meaning to confusing life full of sun and water and stuff, Man believe any ol' crap c'ause Man not educated and don't know noffink.

What's your excuse?

Astounding pomposity.....I guess that's all this thread boils down to.

 

[quikshop]

Astounding pomposity.....I guess that's all this thread boils down to.

Big word for man with delusion, can man justify use of big word?

You're awfully ignorant for a man who belongs to a religion that kills and discriminates against those who do not believe. Oh wait, ignorance is a pre-requisite of membership, silly me

 

[stockdam]

Big word for man with delusion, can man justify use of big word?

You're awfully ignorant for a man who belongs to a religion that kills and discriminates against those who do not believe. Oh wait, ignorance is a pre-requisite of membership, silly me

Trolling again? You've now resorted to personal comments as you haven't anything better to say. Your comments are pathetic. In your clamour to ridicule you've lost your manners.

 

[quikshop]

Trolling again? You've now resorted to personal comments as you haven't anything better to say. Your comments are pathetic. In your clamour to ridicule you've lost your manners.

You started it

 

[Cornish Steve]

Right, I've read it again and got all the selfishnesses and selflessnesses sorted out now

It's the same problem. The book is about animals not people so he makes no claims at all about human altruism except to say that it can't easily be explained by the selfish gene theory.

So he makes (and you make) a clear distinction between humans and animals. I would agree, and it's a very important point. Even though, genetically, there may be little to distinguish humans from other animals (and 99% of evolutionary arguments emphasize that we are no different in many respects), there are attributes of mankind that are quite unique. The challenge, of course, is understanding how they came about - because those attributes appear to be orthogonal to, if not in direct opposition to, 'animal' instincts. Genetic or 'group' explanations are, to be frank, no more than conjecture: If we set our minds to it, we can explain anything away. To me, of course (!), they indicate that man is made in the image of God. As for the mechanism involved, I have no clue.

In fact he said quite the opposite - he rejects the idea of group selection which is the easiest explanation for the altruistic behaviour in animals. He's still a vociferous opponent of it, so he's hardly making his life easy.

We all strive to find explanations that match our worldview. Honest endeavour, of course, is laudable - but it is important to distinguish between genuine supportable theory and conjecture that covers the cracks.

 

[quikshop]

So he makes (and you make) a clear distinction between humans and animals. I would agree

The idea that humans are in some way set apart from the rest of nature reveals a desperate insecurity on behalf of humanity. Without the rest of nature we could not survive, sadly the way we are going about our planet that supposition will soon be put to the test.

The arrogance of assuming we have dominion over all other life is also a dangerous state of mind to hold. You only have to look to history to see how pandemics necessarily thin out the human population, and the losing fight against evolving bacteria in their hospital breeding grounds.

 

[cjd]

Nevertheless, there is obviously a very great difference between people and other animals. Sure we're made of the same stuff, are all interrelated and share the same basic drives but there's no denying the fact that we are quite different.

The development of a mind that is conscious of the minds of others - ie that can think empathetically, imagine future outcomes of current actions and understands its own mortality - changes the game.

If we had other examples around us of 'less conscious', less clever animals we could show that consciousness wasn't such a big and unique step in the chain but sadly the only ones we are able to speculate on are our now extinct cousins.

(There's some evidence of consciousness in some other animals such as chimps - but I'm not terribly convinced yet.)

 

[mobyme]

Nevertheless, there is obviously a very great difference between people and other animals. Sure we're made of the same stuff, are all interrelated and share the same basic drives but there's no denying the fact that we are quite different.

The development of a mind that is conscious of the minds of others - ie that can think empathetically, imagine future outcomes of current actions and understands its own mortality - changes the game.

If we had other examples around us of 'less conscious', less clever animals we could show that consciousness wasn't such a big and unique step in the chain but sadly the only ones we are able to speculate on are our now extinct cousins.

(There's some evidence of consciousness in some other animals such as chimps - but I'm not terribly convinced yet.)

Glad you didn't mention dolphins; thick as two short planks them.

 

[cjd]

Glad you didn't mention dolphins; thick as two short planks them.

I'm terribly fond of dolphins and if I was a believer in one of those religions that think that we reincarnate; I'd choose dolphin any day. (They have a fantastic sex life btw.)

But, unlike Douglas Adam's white mice, I'm not aware that they are conscious beings - but I'd love to read of anything that says otherwise.

 

[Cornish Steve]

If we had other examples around us of 'less conscious', less clever animals

Rugby players?

 

[abbycarreon]

Yes. Roman Catholic to be specific.

 

[DCE]

The idea that humans are in some way set apart from the rest of nature reveals a desperate insecurity on behalf of humanity. Without the rest of nature we could not survive, sadly the way we are going about our planet that supposition will soon be put to the test.

The arrogance of assuming we have dominion over all other life is also a dangerous state of mind to hold. You only have to look to history to see how pandemics necessarily thin out the human population, and the losing fight against evolving bacteria in their hospital breeding grounds.

Who put the rest of nature there for our benefit, as you say we could not survive without it, it was all thought out in advance, by someone who knew we would need that arrangement.

Man has succeeded in training all kinds of animals to accomplish certain feats.
These animals include elephants, lions and tigers.

Even today the performances of wild beasts in circuses testify to man’s ability to bring powerful wild beasts under his control.

Not even birds, which are quick and swift-flying and very hard to catch, are exempted from man’s control.

For example, men have long used trained falcons, hawks and even eagles in hunting.

Even sea creatures, though these live in a different element and are far different in makeup, aquatic animals, including crocodiles, whales and porpoises, are among the sea creatures that man has been able to control, even using some to do beneficial work.

Seemingly, with time, patience and perseverance, any creature that is brought in close contact with man can be controlled to carry out certain feats.

Why, even fleas have been trained to pull tiny wagons.

All these animals give way to man’s superior intelligence.

This is in harmony with God’s original declaration that man should have the animal creation in subjection of them.

 

[Beachcomber]

Man has succeeded in training all kinds of animals to accomplish certain feats.
These animals include elephants, lions and tigers.

Even today the performances of wild beasts in circuses testify to man’s ability to bring powerful wild beasts under his control.

Substitute 'Wild Beasts' with 'people' and 'Circuses' with 'the church' and I think you have a point.

 

[stugster]

Rugby players?

I know three rugby players with Honour level degrees and one that's currently working on his masters.

 

[jhenai291]

Does it matter if someone is a Christian or Muslim? I believe God created us equal. It doesn't prefer whether you are circumcised or not, does it?

 

[benjamin_c]

Does it matter if someone is a Christian or Muslim? I believe God created us equal. It doesn't prefer whether you are circumcised or not, does it?

Someone's not read the thread properly.

 

[Beachcomber]

Man not enlightened in 3rd World countries, Man scrabble 'round for meaning to confusing life full of sun and water and stuff, Man believe any ol' crap c'ause Man not educated and don't know noffink.

Astounding pomposity.....I guess that's all this thread boils down to.

Oh I don't know - could have a point:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101023/tod-11-hurt-in-plunge-fleeing-from-devil-870a197.html

 

[DCE]

Oh I don't know - could have a point:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101023/tod-11-hurt-in-plunge-fleeing-from-devil-870a197.html

(1 Peter 5:8) 8*Keep YOUR senses, be watchful. YOUR adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour [someone.*.*.

Beachcomer are you keeping your senses.

 

[Subbynet]

(1 Peter 5:8) 8*Keep YOUR senses, be watchful. YOUR adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour [someone.*.*.

Beachcomer are you keeping your senses.

DCE how do you justify the said existence of the "devil" in a world created by God?

 

[stockdam]

DCE how do you justify the said existence of the "devil" in a world created by God?

Alvin Plantinga's free will defense.
Without free will we would simply respond to external events robot fashion.

 

[Beachcomber]

(1 Peter 5:8) 8*Keep YOUR senses, be watchful. YOUR adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour [someone.*.*.

Beachcomer are you keeping your senses.

I am, don't think they were.

 

[MASSEY]

I am, don't think they were.

You can say that again, just shows what religion does to people, sends them loopy. the devil lol

 

[MASSEY]

(1 Peter 5:8) 8*Keep YOUR senses, be watchful. YOUR adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour [someone.*.*.

Beachcomer are you keeping your senses.

So you are basically saying, "yes, it very well could have been the devil"

Lmao

 

[cjd]

Alvin Plantinga's free will defense.
Without free will we would simply respond to external events robot fashion.

Are you seriously saying that your god couldn't have created a world where there was no evil but people didn't behave like robots? I mean, really?

There simply is no answer to the logic of:

Premise: God created the world
Premise: There is evil in the world
Therefore God is Evil