How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[sweynforkbeard]

Let's cut to the chase here Skash. Titmus or Underwood? - no fence sitting now.

I prefer all-rounders.

Ah, ecumenical cricketers.

 

[tonea2003]

I prefer all-rounders.

Ah, ecumenical cricketers.

c'mon sweyn you can hardly be talking about the merits of the said mr titmus
when you start by quoting him playing in tests that didn't exist!!

although i like the cut of underwoods jib,
to be immortalised in song it has to be freddie

Oh I was walking round my local store
Searching for the ten pence off Lenor
When suddenly I bumped into this guy
On seeing who it was I gave a cry
“Fuckin’ ‘Ell, It’s Fred Titmus!”

Oh Jane was pushing baby round the park
When all at once she saw her husband Mark
Well he was with a man down by the stream
So Jane and baby both began to scream
“Fuckin’ ‘Ell, It’s Fred Titmus!”

Oh as the train pulled into platform three
I looked around for my best girl to see
As she disembarked but I didn’t seem to care
‘Cos someone passed that made me stop and stare

Oh Dracula comes from Transylvania
Stevie nicks books about kleptomania
Johnny looked out of his bedroom window
And shouted to his mum “Fred Titmus!”

 

[johnny crossan]

and is Mumps the end of the line for the Ultras?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmFHwrNxbE[/youtube]

A happy ending - Darwin & God both saved in the John Rylands.

I'm disappointed but not surprised no-one has defended memes yet. Still, I wait with my ratiocinative powers (very limited though they be) at the ready to support the nodding Irishman against bodyline attack. In the meantime here is a tasty morsel from another of Darwin's God Killers.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]


What is his evidence is for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

 

[sweynforkbeard]

and is Mumps the end of the line for the Ultras?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmFHwrNxbE[/youtube]

A happy ending - Darwin & God both saved in the John Rylands.

I'm disappointed but not surprised no-one has defended memes yet. Still, I wait with my ratiocinative powers (very limited though they be) at the ready to support the nodding Irishman against bodyline attack. In the meantime here is a tasty morsel from another of Darwin's God Killers.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]


What is his evidence is for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

Strange how many of them set about it with enough gusto to produce offspring in double figures. The dirty imperialists.<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:15 pm --<br /><br />

Ah, ecumenical cricketers.

c'mon sweyn you can hardly be talking about the merits of the said mr titmus
when you start by quoting him playing in tests that didn't exist!!

although i like the cut of underwoods jib,
to be immortalised in song it has to be freddie

Oh I was walking round my local store
Searching for the ten pence off Lenor
When suddenly I bumped into this guy
On seeing who it was I gave a cry
“Fuckin’ ‘Ell, It’s Fred Titmus!”

Oh Jane was pushing baby round the park
When all at once she saw her husband Mark
Well he was with a man down by the stream
So Jane and baby both began to scream
“Fuckin’ ‘Ell, It’s Fred Titmus!”

Oh as the train pulled into platform three
I looked around for my best girl to see
As she disembarked but I didn’t seem to care
‘Cos someone passed that made me stop and stare

Oh Dracula comes from Transylvania
Stevie nicks books about kleptomania
Johnny looked out of his bedroom window
And shouted to his mum “Fred Titmus!”

A band of fine repute. About the Test - I think a few of my Wisdens may be forgeries.

 

[ElanJo]

You did say it for me because you brought up the fact that Dawkins is fighting against religion/superstion - on the grounds of harm. Dawkins nor Hitchens has said that a mere belief in a creator (that being a belief without doctrine or scripture) is harmful. It's not religion or superstition.
Let's put it this way. If everyone who adhered to a religion today was suddenly a deist neither Dawkins or Hitchens would be fighting against this belief on the grounds of harm. They may, and probably almost certainly would, question the grounds of such a position but that's different.

As for the secularism thing. You made it sound like Dawkins' political fight against religion was a bad thing or something you didn't agree with. If that isn't the case then fine, my mistake. I got a little thrown off by that response - it didn't seem relevant to the part of your post that I highlighted.

As for your libertarian point, I'm also libertarian. I want rid of religion (both because it's harmful and untrue) and at the same time I believe people should be able to believe what they want. Let's take evolution for a minute. People are free to deny evolution but that doesn't stop me from telling them that they are wrong. I'm not intruding on their freedom by doing this. The same holds true for fighting against religion.

Why every individual?
You can be at 'war' against religion for more than one reason and for each religion for seperate reasons. You can be at 'war' with the Abrahamic religions because A. they are harmful and B. because they are untrue. You can be at 'war' with a religion that, at present, is not harmful for the sole reason that it's untrue.

I think it worth pointing out that illogical belief systems can have harmful effects on a great many people (if not all) in a "state democracy". An obvious example here would be that we get money (ie. a portion of our life) stolen off us to pay for religious schools.

As I've said before, with the celestial teapot atheism reference, Dawkins does believe God is harmful, itself, because it leads to 'worship'.

Other quotes, such as this one, show his maintenance of a link between the two:

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis - is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far. Various questions now follow. Even if we accept that God doesn't exist, doesn't religion still have a lot going for it?

055277331X, p. 189.

My point is and has been all along that he refuses to separate God from religion, and I've yet to see any quote from you to the contrary. The mere fact that he devotes two-hundred pages to disproving God demonstrates the connection.

I am not suggesting for a minute that Dawkins is not within his rights to say what he wants about religion. That's not the point I'm making. His point that religion shouldn't be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism is one I vehemently agree with. The libertarian point I'm making is that you shouldn't make someone else's business your own unless they are causing harm. For this reason, I don't care even slightly whether religion dies or flourishes as long as it doesn't cause harm. Dawkins in his 'war' against superstition would I think:

I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

055277331X, p. 57.

I would agree on your last point that is harm. I have already expressed that sentiment earlier.

Early in his book he defines the concept of God that the book is aimed at. He makes a distinction between such concepts as deism and pantheism and the personal god (who is active in human affairs and who demands worship etc) that is prevalent today.

Of course in one sense it is impossible to seperate "God" from religion because religion is dependant upon a God. The dependency isn't necessarily mutual since you can believe in a non descript god or creator without subscribing to any doctrine. But Dawkins tells the reader that he's taking on the God/s of religion. That's what "The God Hypothesis", mentioned in your first quote, is all about.

With regards to your second quote, "attackng" doesn't tell us much. You can attack a God on the grounds of its validity or you can attack it on ethical grounds (its immoral nature and the harm it causes)

I haven't seen a quote from Dawkins - on the subject of God, religion and harm - say something to the effect of 'the belief in a deistic creator god causes harm to children because of X, Y and Z...' There's no hell, there's no diminishing of a persons self respect (through original sin) etc. etc. for such a belief to cause harm to a child.

In the end I'm not trying to tell you that Dawkins is right on everything. There are things that I disagree with him on. I just think that the part I highlighted in your earlier post was an unfair representation.

 

[johnny crossan]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

Short is good and also sufficient

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

 

[mackenzie]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

Short is good and also sufficient

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

Exactly.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[Skashion]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

I think his main argument against God is the 'ultimate 747', not evolution. Where the ultimate 747 argument collapses for me, is with the multiverse extension. He devotes two hundred pages to disproving God but less than one paragraph explaining why a multiverse is more simple than one-God-one-universe. I'll quote it, so perhaps someone who understands Dawkins' logic better than I can make sense of it because to me it just sounds like bollocks:

The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be very improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence.

ibid, p. 176.

Can someone have a go at explaining why a multiverse must necessarily be more simple than God? It seems to be as if Dawkins is making quite a big assumption about a multiverse we don't yet know to exist and assigning it arbitrary likelyhood. I think it quite important that he explain this more fully when his entire forty page argument hangs in its balance.

 

[ElanJo]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

Short is good and also sufficient

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

Exactly.

Thanks for posting that.

Since when exactly did Dawkins say that evolution proves that (a) God does not exist?<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:22 pm --<br /><br />

and is Mumps the end of the line for the Ultras?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmFHwrNxbE[/youtube]

A happy ending - Darwin & God both saved in the John Rylands.

I'm disappointed but not surprised no-one has defended memes yet. Still, I wait with my ratiocinative powers (very limited though they be) at the ready to support the nodding Irishman against bodyline attack. In the meantime here is a tasty morsel from another of Darwin's God Killers.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]


What is his evidence is for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

What the hell are you talking about?

You're just making shit up.

 

[johnny crossan]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

Short is good and also sufficient

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8wQYDJuUys[/youtube]

Since when exactly did Dawkins say that evolution proves that (a) God does not exist?

-- Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:22 pm --

I'm disappointed but not surprised no-one has defended memes yet. Still, I wait with my ratiocinative powers (very limited though they be) at the ready to support the nodding Irishman against bodyline attack. In the meantime here is a tasty morsel from another of Darwin's God Killers.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5EoKH6I2E[/youtube]


What is his evidence for unguided evolution you may ask? Danny boy's answer is clear - it can't be guided because there is no God. I must admit that all this savagery and blind chance is disconcerting but as the Victorians used to say about sexual intercourse: "if God decided that we should reproduce in such a disgusting way, then it is for us to accept this fact and put it in context."

What the hell are you talking about?

You're just making shit up.

come on EJ - you're better than that