Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Evolution - some questions

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    music producer wrote: »
    A respected fellow atheist accused Dawkins of cowardice in refusing to debate WLC. Unless somebody fabricated the news, that's rather indicting.
    It's already been pointed out that WC can only gain from a debate against a heavyweight like Dawkins, and Dawkins can only lose by pretending to take WC seriously.

    I wouldn't debate a flat-earther -- would you?


  • Options
    #123
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    music producer wrote: »
    I should have quoted the previous poster, to whom my question was addressed, but I appreciate your response nonetheless.

    It likely would not have prevented me from replying if you had. I think it is generally known around here that if you want to post on a thread anyone can reply. If you mean your post to be read and/or replied to by a single person, you are better off using the perfectly functional Private Message system that the creators of the site software kindly provided.
    music producer wrote: »
    Donald Miller is clearly more reasoned, fair, and at least from what I've read of him more articulate than Dawkins. Of course he doesn't fall in the intelligent design camp, and neither is he an atheist

    All very interesting and I will be sure to check him out. However given the topic was whether there are any Creationists out there deserving of our respect I am unsure why you mention him at all. The point being that you were wondering if there are any creationists we respect and thus far none come to mind.

    This is not our fault however, they do it to themselves. Creationists do not provide any evidence for their own positions. They merely attack evolution instead. They appear to have it in their heads, despite being told otherwise countless times, that attacking someone elses position.... even if successful.... does not automatically make your own claims true, truer or even remotely credible.

    Just as soon as they start trying to defend their own position, rather than attacking that of others in order to make their own right by default, we can probably begin to afford them the respect you rightly point out we do not hold for them.

    And of course they should do it honestly. They harm their own cause by coming out with canards like "Dogs do not give birth to non dogs" or splicing together You Tube videos to make it look like Dawkins could not answer a question (there are a few on you tube where they take video of Dawkins humming and hawwing over something, and edit in questions they think Dawkins can not answer to make it look like he was asked that question and he was stumped).

    When they are so wantonly and blatantly dishonest... I am unsure on what level at all you expect us to afford them even a modicum of respect. That is not our doing. They do it to themselves.

    If that is how they want to be treated, I am more than happy to give them what they want.


  • Options
    #124
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Zillah wrote: »
    Dades wrote: »
    I gave up arguing with creationists a long time ago - it's like playing tennis against a wall.
    It doesn't care about the direction of the return, just as long as it fires something back at you?
    No matter how good a shot you make, it won't get through. It's all you can expect from a brick wall.


  • Options
    #125
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    music producer wrote: »
    Donald Miller is clearly more reasoned, fair, and at least from what I've read of him more articulate than Dawkins.

    I watched one long talk on you tube. I'd challenge the assertion he is "more articulate" than Dawkins. He is a clear a speaker as any I have heard but maybe with a lesser range of language to draw upon than does Dawkins. Otherwise I am not sure what you are drawing on to call one more articulate than the other.

    An easy error to make is if someone is talking at a level one does not understand, it will always seem to one that the talker is being inarticulate. However it would be a mistake to think dumbing down your speech as being synonymous with being more articulate. Maybe this is the root of your comparison, I am not sure.

    He is clearly Christian, denomination unclear. I have no doubt he is Christian at this point any more than I do about most people who claim to be (I generally doubt many of them for other reasons).

    He admits openly that arguments on the subject of religion are arguments "we can't win" and suggests that "our children" have to be protected from that. That is scary, the idea that if arguments are not going the way you want one should therefore shield children from hearing them. Yet he says this matter of fact as if it is simply accepted as the right thing to do.

    He also talks about taking non Christians to church and how you start listening to the service through their ears and start hearing it in ways you never did before... and he admits that the talk people talk in those services really are like a "cult".

    He also shows what many people here already knew about religion. It is often rooted not in the existence of god, but in a method of control over other people. He then goes on to talk about how mostly the Church and Religion are just a business and some of the lines quoted are simply "Business phrases".

    He rightly points out that the "formula" that most advertising agencies use when making ads is a two step process. Step 1 is to convince the "mark" that they are not happy. Step 2 is to convince the "mark" they will be happy if they buy into your product. This is a process I have long pointed out with religion. Who needs to provide evidence when you can follow a similar 2 step process? So they do so, and never bother with evidence.

    Business, money, advertising and control. That is what many religions are and I guess it is refreshing to find someone who is clearly a Theist up on stage pointing that out. As Sam Harris points out, it is moderate Theists like Miller we need to appeal to most in the battle against religion and I can recognize some use in having a Donald Miller out there.

    In fact what Donald Miller says about how "goofy" people can get when trying to sell the idea of Jesus to other people is something users on this forum like Jakkass/Philologos could do with hearing as he appears to be describing them exactly in how he goes about presenting it. People who do more harm than good to their own cause by how they go about championing it.

    They do not listen to me when I say it, maybe they would listen to him as a fellow "Christian".

    Like Kenneth Miller though, I repeat what I said above. If all religious people were more like either of the Millers, we likely would not have as many Atheist forums and organisations. THAT is why we have no respect for creationists, nor have you yet afforded us a reason why we should reserve any respect for them.


  • Options
    #126
    music producer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    He also shows what many people here already knew about religion. It is often rooted not in the existence of god, but in a method of control over other people. He then goes on to talk about how mostly the Church and Religion are just a business and some of the lines quoted are simply "Business phrases".

    Preach it. We might disagree on the particulars, but I couldn't agree more on the general point.

    Looked up the atheist who accused Dawkins of cowardice in not debating WLC - Dr. Daniel Came. But you all knew that.

    As to Dawkin's opposition to Pope Benedict XVI and his attempt to prosecute the Pope for allegedly covering up sexual abuse of children, we can only wish this could be successfully accomplished.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    music producer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    robindch wrote: »
    It's already been pointed out that WC can only gain from a debate against a heavyweight like Dawkins, and Dawkins can only lose by pretending to take WC seriously.

    I wouldn't debate a flat-earther -- would you?

    So what is Daniel Cane's angle in taking Dawkins to task for this "glaring omission" on his resume? He apparently disagrees with you, and in no uncertain terms.


  • Options
    #128
    DuPLeX
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 250 ✭✭DuPLeX


    Hang on ! what did the primordial soup evolve from ? and why do people actually believe that Mr Dawkins has anymore idea than the next man what happened millions of years ago ?


  • Options
    #129
    zico10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭zico10


    DuPLeX wrote: »
    Hang on ! what did the primordial soup evolve from ? and why do people actually believe that Mr Dawkins has anymore idea than the next man what happened millions of years ago ?

    As far as I understand things, the primordial soup was not alive, so therefore didn't evolve.

    As to why people might believe 'Mr Dawkins has anymore idea than the next man what happened millions of years ago?', I guess it's because he's devoted a huge number of years to studying the sciences. Some, myself included, consider him to be very articulate. This makes his arguments persuasive.
    I'm not sure who you mean to be the 'next man', but if it's someone whose theory on the origin of life is based on what's contained in a millennia old religious text and who debates evolutionists on what they can't prove, then you might see why most atheists would listen to the scientist.


  • Options
    #130
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    music producer wrote: »
    So what is Daniel Cane's angle in taking Dawkins to task for this "glaring omission" on his resume? He apparently disagrees with you, and in no uncertain terms.
    Can't say I'm worried that I disagree with Cane. How come you're concerned about this? Atheism isn't a religion, you know, and lots of atheists have completely different opinions on lots of different things and we're not in the least bit worried about it :) Looking at the following article:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

    It seems that Dawkins' position is what I said it was:
    Dawkins wrote:
    I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion
    Seems quite reasonable to me since WC certainly is a windblown, self-seeking demagogue -- perhaps Cane is too naive to see this?

    So why doesn't Cane offer to debate WC? After all, he's the unknown atheist and stands to gain, while WC can only lose. Perhaps he has offered and WC has refused, no doubt because he's too scared to debate Cane!


  • Options
    #131
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    DuPLeX wrote: »
    and why do people actually believe that Mr Dawkins has anymore idea than the next man what happened millions of years ago ?
    Because Dawkins has devoted his life to the study of biology and evolution and is familiar with the vast amount of information that's available on the topic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    music producer wrote: »
    Looked up the atheist who accused Dawkins of cowardice in not debating WLC - Dr. Daniel Came. But you all knew that.

    No thanks. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target. Ever. So if someone called him cowardly then that person demeans only himself. The fact he is an atheist does not lend any more weight, or credence, to his words in my eyes.

    Dawkins can not debate everyone. The man has a life,a job, a career, a family and more. If he debated 100 more people and said no to person 101 then person 101 would call him a coward. If he gave in then person 102 can call him a coward.

    There is no onus on anyone to debate anyone, and I have read, considered and agreed with Dawkins reasons for rejecting Craig. And I have no particular love, hate, interest or non interest in Dawkins in the context of religion so it is not bias that makes me side with him on this matter before anyone tries to play that card.


  • Options
    #133
    music producer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    robindch wrote: »
    ....Seems quite reasonable to me since WC certainly is a windblown, self-seeking demagogue --

    As is Dawkins.


  • Options
    #134
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    music producer wrote: »
    As is Dawkins.
    How so?


  • Options
    #135
    music producer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    How so?

    Actually, were I to speak negatively about Dawkins, I would couch it differently. My reply was a knee-jerk response to what sounded something like "your mom wears army boots." Everybody can and does accuse the opposing presenter of all kinds of negative qualities, because they (the accuser) are viewing it through their own lens.


  • Options
    #136
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    music producer wrote: »
    Yes, what could be more illogical than not marching blindly in lockstep with a man (Dawkins) whose book title represents a glaring logical fallacy...

    There's no logical fallacy if you'd cared to peer beyond the cover & look at
    the actual words contained within the selfish gene.

    Had you done so I think you'd understand what is meant by this glaring
    logical fallacy    .
    music producer wrote: »
    Point well taken. But clearly many automatically read into the title what ostensibly Dawkins did not intend.

    Have you ever seen a book in the bookshop called the Vagina Monologues?
    If you ever do, for the life of god, keep your children's eyes & ears shut.
    music producer wrote: »
    Dawkins title implies for some who [didn't] read it purpose, motivation, or some sort of conscious or chosen direction in evolutionary development. We all know this is impossible, as does Dawkins.

    fyp
    music producer wrote: »
    A respected fellow atheist accused Dawkins of cowardice in refusing to debate WLC. Unless somebody fabricated the news, that's rather indicting.

    I wonder how respected fellow atheists commending him would bear on your
    judgement.
    music producer wrote: »
    Looked up the atheist who accused Dawkins of cowardice in not debating WLC - Dr. Daniel Came. But you all knew that.

    I really don't understand comments like this as anything but baised spite
    frankly, I mean if I were to give you lectures of Dawkins discussing with
    fellow "respected atheists" on the topic of debating professional debaters
    & the futility of such would it sway your opinion the opposite way? I
    don't think I'm the only one who has seen lectures of Dawkins specifically
    talking about this question more than once & with "respected atheists".
    Somehow I have more certainty than the arrogant Dawkins that me
    mentioning a "respected atheist" who would agree with the futility in
    debating professional debaters wouldn't matter in the slightest to you
    in terms of quelling this 'indictment' because
    music producer wrote: »
    I have found Dawkins to be at times a bit disingenuous/condescending in his caricature of opposing viewpoints, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me.

    this is just a question of you having it in for Dawkins based on what
    music producer wrote: »
    seems
    to be the case.
    music producer wrote: »
    Actually, were I to speak negatively about Dawkins, I would couch it differently.

    As fun as deciphering these waifer-thinly-couched attacks at Dawkins is,
    why don't you just be honest & explain in detail what the actual problem
    here is because I really think what "seems" to be bugging you has no
    grounding in reality, judging by the above comments anyway.


  • Options
    #137
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    music producer wrote: »
    Actually, were I to speak negatively about Dawkins, I would couch it differently. My reply was a knee-jerk response to what sounded something like "your mom wears army boots." Everybody can and does accuse the opposing presenter of all kinds of negative qualities, because they (the accuser) are viewing it through their own lens.

    Actually most of the things Craig is accused of are actually sound accusations. For example I have watched many of his debates and he always opens them the same way and proceeds in the same way. The Craig "debating" tactics are as follows:

    1) Claim that his oppponent has to do the things Craig lists in order to "win" the debate. The things he lists essentially amount to "proving a negative".
    2) After doing this quick fire out a hand full of straw man claims about atheism knowing full well the atheist will waste time correcting the deliberate strawmen.
    3) After atheist wastes time on strawmen and time comes back to Craig, Craig now claims atheist did not do any of the things Craig listed in step 1.
    4) Proceed to pretend the opponent said a lot of things they never actually said.
    5) Atheist wastes time correcting the lies Craig just told about what the person just said.
    6) Time comes back to Craig who repeats steps 3, 4 and 5 until debate is over.
    7) End debate by saying that the atheist never did any of the things Craig pretended they had to do in step 1.

    I have yet to see a Craig debate that does not fit more or less perfectly with that and if I were to be asked to debate him I too would say "No thanks, bring me someone honest who will not ask people to prove negatives and will actually reply to things I said instead of things I never said".

    Sam Harris experienced, and got frustrated with, Step 4 in his debate with Craig which led him at once point to have to say "Well perhaps you've noticed Dr. Craig has a charming habit of summarizing his opponent's points in a way in which they were not actually given, so I will leave it to you to sort it out on You tube...... Needless to say I didn't call those esteemed colleagues of his psychopaths as I made clear."


  • Options
    #138
    music producer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭music producer


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    fyp

    Thanks, wasn't familiar with the acronymn fyp. You're never too old to learn...

    As to your insertion of "didn't", that is a nice addition if we're referring to reading the book. My statement, however, referred to those merely reading the title.


  • Options
    #139
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    music producer wrote: »
    Thanks, wasn't familiar with the acronymn fyp. You're never too old to learn...

    As to your insertion of "didn't", that is a nice addition if we're referring to reading the book. My statement, however, referred to those merely reading the title.

    If you think about what I said from a few different perspectives I'm sure
    only one of them will make sense & not also strike up some ridiculous
    contradiction on my part. Give me the benefit of the doubt & assume I
    was making a valid point that included your comment about the title as
    well as something about the entire book, if you need a hint, include the
    vagina monologue's comment.

    Think of this little exercise as analogous to equalizing a horrible mix (I
    assume that's the kind of music production you do :P), there will come
    a moment when everything is clear ;)


  • Options
    #140
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    music producer wrote: »
    As is Dawkins.
    Are you familiar with the scientific contributions he's made to the sum total of human knowledge?


  • Options
    #141
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Clearly your sin consumes you and blinds you dead one. I can only help you if you are prepared to seek truth and forgiveness.
    Ah, sins my friend, what makes a person to be victim of sins, that is "desires",
    Now what makes desires to do sin --- that is sickness in desires ---- How do desires get sickness -- that is attachment to the world --- you are only attached to the world when you ignore God--- i don't have sickness in my desires because i don't follow desires --- When you follow desires then you can't seek truth -- To seek truth you must scarify your healthy desires -- Now tell, how will you help me to seek the truth when you reject very truth of your existence --- You reject truth when you say
    1. non- intelligence can create intelligence
    2. disorder can create order
    i challenge you to show me a single evidence throughout the whole history scientific research where a non intelligent factor has/had created intelligent factor

    this is the end --- my true friend
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I can only help you if you are prepared to seek truth and forgiveness.
    help to seek the truth!!!!, you must be kidding!!! You don't know the truth of your existence --- you can't map the world of your heart, how can you tell me map of outside world --- You don't know who you are, what you are doing here, what is purpose of your existence --- you only know you are product of chances, we all are b$ with having fate decided by chance, frist seek the truth then you will be able to tell the truth, The children are insane!!!
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I can only help you if you are prepared to seek truth and forgiveness.
    you are prisoner in the prison of desires, first you have to free yourself of that prison -- when you will free then we can discuss, you are in prison, you don't know the outside world and you are willing to help me -- See, first you have to free yourself from cage


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If you don't follow your desires, you should have no trouble with women walking around wearing whatever the hell they like.


  • Options
    #143
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Sarky wrote: »
    If you don't follow your desires, you should have no trouble with women walking around wearing whatever the hell they like.
    professor, you can't change nature, can you:confused:, so don't act like kids -- Let me explain you in detail-- Sexual desire is aroused in human at the age of puberty. right --- You with your experiment can't stop that desires-- Pre-marital sex is an irresponsible sexual behavior to feed/cloth your desires --- I don't follow such behaviors / desires--- now what makes someone to follow such behavior --- that is presentation of women in the world --- majority of women are viewed as sex symbols in media / world -- why because media earns money by displaying women in such way and by attracting customers ---- So, dress is very important to create pious women in pious -- i ain't looking at one woman or two, i am seeing woman as general, where your kind is attacking on my natural desires to make your points. Professor, don't be selfish, you will lose pupil --- material desires have no permanent existence, materialistic evolution having no permanent cause --- Isn't it your belief which makes you to do so?


  • Options
    #144
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    dead one wrote: »
    professor, you can't change nature, can you:confused:

    God did a bad job of creating that nature thing.

    Oh wait, he just likes playing around.


  • Options
    #145
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    amacachi wrote: »
    God did a bad job of creating that nature thing.

    Oh wait, he just likes playing around.
    dont blame God, blame yourself --- God did a great job of creating that nature thing whereas you did a bad job of destroying that nature thing


  • Options
    #146
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    dead one wrote: »
    dont blame God, blame yourself --- God did a great job of creating that nature thing whereas you did a bad job of destroying that nature thing

    What? You just said I can't change nature.


  • Options
    #147
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    dead one wrote: »
    dont blame God, blame yourself --- God did a great job of creating that nature thing whereas you did a bad job of destroying that nature thing
    If human nature is bad,and you can't change nature, and your god created nature, then he didn't do a very good job did he? So why not blame him?


  • Options
    #148
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    dead one wrote: »
    professor, you can't change nature, can you:confused:, so don't act like kids -- Let me explain you in detail-- Sexual desire is aroused in human at the age of puberty. right --- You with your experiment can't stop that desires-- Pre-marital sex is an irresponsible sexual behavior to feed/cloth your desires --- I don't follow such behaviors / desires--- now what makes someone to follow such behavior --- that is presentation of women in the world --- majority of women are viewed as sex symbols in media / world -- why because media earns money by displaying women in such way and by attracting customers ---- So, dress is very important to create pious women in pious -- i ain't looking at one woman or two, i am seeing woman as general, where your kind is attacking on my natural desires to make your points. Professor, don't be selfish, you will lose pupil --- material desires have no permanent existence, materialistic evolution having no permanent cause --- Isn't it your belief which makes you to do so?

    Stop calling me a professor. It's childish. You're not 12 years old. At least, I assume you're not. Considering some of the childish, selfish, ignorant things you post, I must admit I'm not sure sometimes. Should I call you the next prophet after Mohammed?

    Well, the mere existence of eunuchs kinda sinks your argument about changing nature. If your desires are ever getting too much for you, I suppose you could always try having your testicles removed. Never mind the number of bacteria I've cause to develop radiation or antibiotic resistance during my time as a microbiology student.

    Pre-marital sex, like absolutely anything, is only irresponsible if you engage in it irresponsibly. You're lying about not having desires. I know you have them, you wouldn't be complaining about scantily clad women if you didn't. And you're going to feel really guilty about them, too, because you've always been told they're evil. The only way that I'll be wrong on that is if you're not human, or you're already a eunuch.

    You get these desires, and instead of accepting that you thought those thoughts yourself, you look for someone to blame for your own hormones, when the simple truth is your desires are yours alone. They're your responsibility. If you can't control them, it's your fault. Not some women leaving her face uncovered. Not some fashion model in a magazine. Not even a prostitute. Just you. They're YOUR desires. If you can't control them, YOU are the weak one. Let's not even get into the fact that women like having sex too. Yes, that's right. Women have desires too. Perhaps you'll be even more shocked to know that women can control their desires too. That makes them stronger than the kind of man you seem to think you are.

    Now, I'm assuming you're telling the truth and you haven't acted on those desires. Well done. Do you want a medal? You've successfully managed what almost everyone else in the world does on a daily basis. I haven't murdered anyone in nearly 30 years, where's my parade?

    I think you're very immature, with a very screwed up view of the world, and of people. You should grow up.


  • Options
    #149
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    liamw wrote: »
    I disagree - 'The Selfish Gene' was the first book I read on evolution and I understood it fine. I didn't know much about evolution and natural selection before reading it. 'The Extended Phenotype' is the second book I read and I would not recommend that as an initial book ;)

    Dawkins has a precursor to 'The Selfish Gene', 'The Greatest Show On Earth' - although I haven't read it I'd probably recommend to read that first.

    I would recommend 'The Blind Watcmaker' by Dawkins as it was intended for the general public. Very readable.


  • Options
    #150
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    dead one wrote: »
    dont blame God, blame yourself --- God did a great job of creating that nature thing whereas you did a bad job of destroying that nature thing
    If God did such a great job, it wouldn't be possible for me to destroy my own nature.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    OP, read Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.


Advertisement