How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[lloydie]

What sort of sensibilities should an atheist have, mammutly?

Just wondering.

 

[mammutly]

Elanjo

Thankyou for your considered reply. Like you, I have heard all the common arguments o both sides and I think we've pretty well exercised those.

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

If the senses are well attuned to the world. If instinct is sharp and adaptive. What does it matter what we think? From an evolutionary perspective beliefs are irrelevant and may even be counter productive. So why are they, and why have they always been, almost universal in humans?

 

[lloydie]

I'm not qualified, not a mathematician, not a biologist, not any kind of scientist in fact.
Not even studied Readers Digest.

I'm just fixated on stopping you becoming the Robespierre of Bluemoon.

You don't need to be a qualified biologist to understand evolution (and how the arguments from the evolution deniers are flawed).

Of course you don't have to worry about me burning the religious at the stake. I don't believe in violence. I try to take a rigorous approach to freedom and ethics.

I'd be more fixated on stopping your fellow believers from carrying out "god's work" if I were you. At least here your refusal to use reasoned argumentation wouldn't hinder your efforts.

Torquemada vs Robespierre......should be fun, my money's on Robespierre, by a technical knockout.

 

[mammutly]

What sort of sensibilities should an atheist have, mammutly?

Just wondering.

Well, I'm not religous, though I do believe in God ( after a fashion) and I am not about to call anyone deluded, stupid or worse for their beliefs or lack of them (certain extremes aside). It's up to them.

I suppose in answer to your question, I'd say reasonable sensibilities, with reasonable being pretty broad.

The poster I replied to earlier obviously had strong feelings about what I wrote and to my mind was being unreasonable and over sensitive, even apart from seemingly not having understood anything of what was being discussed.

Hence I said that s/he had fragile sensibilities.

 

[BobbyLazarus]

Elanjo, just give it up. Accept that the Age of Reason is long dead and the Scientific Method hanging on by its few remaining teeth. The rise of psuedo babble dressed in the clothes of science is nothing new. Creationism arises from the same place as "My neighbour is a witch and caused my crops to fail." What's more likely. The evolution and propagation of an organism uniquely suited to destroying my equally unlikely corn, or has the warty old crone got it in for me? Get with the program, pop a couple of crystals in your pants and vibrate with the cosmos. They may not burn you if you keep quiet.

 

[lloydie]

What sort of sensibilities should an atheist have, mammutly?

Just wondering.

Well, I'm not religous, though I do believe in God ( after a fashion) and I am not about to call anyone deluded, stupid or worse for their beliefs or lack of them (certain extremes aside). It's up to them.

I suppose in answer to your question, I'd say reasonable sensibilities, with reasonable being pretty broad.

The poster I replied to earlier obviously had strong feelings about what I wrote and to my mind was being unreasonable and over sensitive, even apart from seemingly not having understood anything of what was being discussed.

Hence I said that s/he had fragile sensibilities.

But you said "for an atheist", so clearly you have an opinion on the nature of sensibilities that atheists hold or should hold.
I was just wondering what these might be.

 

[Skashion]

I don't find atheists to be that reasonable actually, not the vocal ones anyway. It's probably a case of the silent majority.

 

[SWP's back]

I am very sure that is true eagle. I do not feel the need to judge my IQ against others, nor my university.

You see, delusions and a need to find a crutch to help one through life are not limited to the stupid I am afraid. Some of my most well educated, intelligent friends have the common sense of a hedgehog. Unfortunately, many people can't deal with the insecurities of the unknown or are too arrogant to admit or believe that this is all there is.

I am not saying I do not believe believe in a "god" (and why should I?) because I am more intelligent than you. I am saying those that need to believe have something lacking in their lives.

I think life is wonderous as it is, without the need to "gild the lilly".

It is maybe you that is lacking something. However I respect your choice to have your own beliefs whatever they maybe, provided you don't deride the beliefs of others.

Fair enough but you must understand a few things:

i) I usually stay out of these discussions but reacted to Mammulty's assertion that God created the universe and claim that anyone believing otherwise was arrogant and non-thinking!

ii) You say not to deride the belief of others. That is what Mammulty was doing and I reacted. I will also say that you will no doubt have gone to a faith school and not been subject to a teaching of atheism. Unfortunately for me, my village primary school was C of E so I had it rammed down my throat for 7 years which has left me somewhat bitter for the experience. I also have lost a good school friend to an extremist suicide bomb as the bomber believed he was doing the work of his god.

As I say, these experiences have left me fairly "anti-religion" and I know I am biased hence me normally staying out of these debates.

I shall retire to the "Its Quiet" thread. Enjoy your god(s).

-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:53 pm --

That is right. The greatest scientists around have lost their ability to think. As opposed to 6 year olds that are taught about creation in Genesis and go on believing that without question. For they are obviously the greater thinkers.

I feel sorry for you and for your need to have a "sky fairy" to make life seem worthwhile.

-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:13 pm --




ps - How arrogant is it to suppose to tell anyone else what you believe your "god" did, or did not do?

You could not make it up.

EDIT: Actually, you could and they did (about 2000 years ago).

-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:38 pm --




No that IS worrying.

I hope to "god" I am never ill when you are around..

DO you find praying for your patients helps?

You know, for an atheist. you have very tender sensibilities.

On this subject, yes.

-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:00 pm --

What sort of sensibilities should an atheist have, mammutly?

Just wondering.

Well, I'm not religous, though I do believe in God ( after a fashion) and I am not about to call anyone deluded, stupid or worse for their beliefs or lack of them (certain extremes aside). It's up to them.

I suppose in answer to your question, I'd say reasonable sensibilities, with reasonable being pretty broad.

The poster I replied to earlier obviously had strong feelings about what I wrote and to my mind was being unreasonable and over sensitive, even apart from seemingly not having understood anything of what was being discussed.

Hence I said that s/he had fragile sensibilities.

Whatever you think of my beliefs, do not try and claim I am thick.

Many on here can tell you I am anything but, lad.<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:06 pm --<br /><br />

I don't find atheists to be that reasonable actually, not the vocal ones anyway. It's probably a case of the silent majority.

Shocker

 

[ElanJo]

Elanjo

Thankyou for your considered reply. Like you, I have heard all the common arguments o both sides and I think we've pretty well exercised those.

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

If the senses are well attuned to the world. If instinct is sharp and adaptive. What does it matter what we think? From an evolutionary perspective beliefs are irrelevant and may even be counter productive. So why are they, and why have they always been, almost universal in humans?

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

Care to give some examples?

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

I'd say that cognition and senses, in the context of my comments, are interchangable. For instance cognition is how we process information and the senses are how we absorb the information. If an eye absorbs the light reflecting off an incoming predator without obstruction or error then that's one thing but if the brain processes that information incorrectly it kind of defeats the prupose of the eye.
If your thinking in different terms then please give an explanation. I'm not a fan of trust in this regard.

If the senses are well attuned to the world. If instinct is sharp and adaptive. What does it matter what we think? From an evolutionary perspective beliefs are irrelevant and may even be counter productive. So why are they, and why have they always been, almost universal in humans?

Evolutionary pressures pick against traits. If something doesn't hinder an organism/population to the point of stopping it reproducing it will likely be passed on.
Beliefs (again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this) can be counter productive sure. For instance if a small tribe believed it to be good (for whatever reason) to steal, murder and lie then that tribe would very very likely die out pretty quickly. Beliefs gets into less about mutations as it does, what Dawkins called, "memes"

Why have beliefs (such as religious belief - I don't want to get bogged down in talking about religion but it's what you're hinted at here, right?) been almost universal? Humans are very similar. We're curious. We want answers. If we can't find the answer we tend to make them up the best we can. I think it's easy to see why early humans thought something or someone controlled the weather etc. And like the puddle that finds itself nestled neatly into the ditch on the side of the road, humans believed - with some justification at that time - that the world was made with them in mind. Whilst we now know better about how the world works I don't think believing the above sorts of things would stop people reproducing and passing on or encouraging such beliefs and practices.<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:33 pm --<br /><br />

Elanjo, just give it up. Accept that the Age of Reason is long dead and the Scientific Method hanging on by its few remaining teeth. The rise of psuedo babble dressed in the clothes of science is nothing new. Creationism arises from the same place as "My neighbour is a witch and caused my crops to fail." What's more likely. The evolution and propagation of an organism uniquely suited to destroying my equally unlikely corn, or has the warty old crone got it in for me? Get with the program, pop a couple of crystals in your pants and vibrate with the cosmos. They may not burn you if you keep quiet.

PMSL!

 

[Skashion]

Shocker

How so?