Dawkins controversial again.

smacl

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.

Yes indeed, it is analogous to a greedy algorithm which always favours a locally optimal solution without considering the long term goal. If the goal is survivability, survivability for the individual can come into conflict with survivability of the species. For example, there are studies that show cystic fibrosis may help prevent TB. Thus it seems plausible that by eliminating certain genetics traits that are massively undesirable at a personal level in most modern Western contexts, we could be leaving ourselves more exposed as a species to something such as a pandemic.

swampgas

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed, it is analogous to a greedy algorithm which always favours a locally optimal solution without considering the long term goal. If the goal is survivability, survivability for the individual can come into conflict with survivability of the species. For example, there are studies that show cystic fibrosis may help prevent TB. Thus it seems plausible that by eliminating certain genetics traits that are massively undesirable at a personal level in most modern Western contexts, we could be leaving ourselves more exposed as a species to something such as a pandemic.

Interesting point, it's a bit like sickle cell being an adaptation that offers resistance to malaria. However from an evolutionary point of view, there isn't much pressure on us right now. Considering that there are over 6 billion humans, a massive epidemic that wiped out 90% of humanity wouldn't really make much difference in the long run - there would be enough survivors to carry on and re-populate. Although civilisation as we know though would be destroyed for quite a long time, I would think.

magicbastarder

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

pH

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

Seems like another "journalist" primed by myers, benson et al to destroy Dawkins.

Remember folks these people think they should be running woldatheism, after Dawkins they have their pitchforks primed for Harris, Shermer and Grothe. When they're dealt with they will work their way through the women who have offended them and aren't the right sort of atheist - such as Paula Kirby, Harriet Hall and Hirsi Ali.

This whole "schism" has put a serious dent in my faith in humanity - seriously the "atheist community" has to have a single "correct" view on abortion, rape, race etc and anyone who doesn't align with party thinking is hounded by dozens of blogs and lazy journalists in an attempt to remove them from the movement? So the movement can be pure of thought and of a single mind maybe? That's what people want from an atheist community is it?

Czarcasm

Dawkins doesn't need anyone "out to destroy him", he's doing a bang up job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all by himself.

He shouldn't need defending either, and he hardly has any right to complain when he has long espoused the opinion that no idea should be immune from examination and criticism. As atheism becomes more popular, people are going to examine the idea more closely, and it's as open to criticism as any other idea.

By Dawkins own standards, he has always encouraged people to think for themselves, and when they do, and when Richard's own ideas are examined more closely, he seems to throw his toys out of the pram instead of having the courage to debate, discuss and defend his passive aggressive wittering on twitter.

If this nonsensical media circus is all it takes to "put a dent in your faith in humanity", I think it's fairly easy to say you can't have had much faith in humanity in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

I became an atheist on my own, but it was Richard Dawkins who strengthened and confirmed my decision.

This Adam Lee person apparently imagines that people decide not to believe in any gods. How would that work?

Today, I have decided that I don't believe in the law of gravity.

magicbastarder

i don't see any issue in calling it a decision.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see any issue in calling it a decision.

So you'd be able to decide not to be an atheist, to believe in a god, as an act of will? Not me. I believe what I believe based on my experiences. I have no choice in the matter.

New experiences can change my beliefs, and I might decide to learn more about an issue in the hopes of changing my beliefs (giving someone I dilsike aonther chance, say), but I can't decide that I believe something which I do not believe.

magicbastarder

call it an unconscious decision so.

anyway, some more reaction to dawkins mansplaining to women about rape:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2014/09/i-was-raped-when-i-was-drunk-i-was-14-do-you-believe-me-richard-dawkins

magicbastarder

and dawkins's reaction:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/512987453352067073

Czarcasm

magicbastarder wrote: »

and dawkins's reaction:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/512987453352067073

It's always everyone else's fault... :pac:

Nodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

a guardian columnist has taken a swipe at him:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

A+ again.

*shudder

nagirrac

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This Adam Lee person apparently imagines that people decide not to believe in any gods. How would that work?

By considering the various God concepts proposed by man and rejecting them, which effectively is what people raised in a religious environment do when they reject their religion. Dawkins himself was raised as a Christian, and obviously decided to reject it.

On a superficial level the God Delusion does a good job debunking religious beliefs and human concepts of God, until you realize that religious experience is something Dawkins does not participate in, so his views are analogous to someone who hates football lecturing those who enjoy watching it.

I agree with your comment on experience. Religion is something to be experienced, otherwise it is a meaningless abstraction.

Zubeneschamali

nagirrac wrote: »

By considering the various God concepts proposed by man and rejecting them, which effectively is what people raised in a religious environment do when they reject their religion.

Well, sure, that's how I ended up an atheist. But it wasn't a decision. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I honestly don't understand how it can be said that anyone has a choice about what to believe.

It's like choosing what you see when you look at your breakfast: I've decided to see eggs Benedict! Nope, it's still porridge.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure, that's how I ended up an atheist. But it wasn't a decision. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I honestly don't understand how it can be said that anyone has a choice about what to believe.

Isn't the whole argument for Atheism that people can choose to believe in what they believe, and if they can choose to believe, then they can also choose whether or not to continue with that belief when they are presented with evidence which causes them to question their beliefs?

It's like choosing what you see when you look at your breakfast: I've decided to see eggs Benedict! Nope, it's still porridge.

It's only porridge because someone else told you that's what they call it, and you chose to believe them. Individual perception can be a curious concept. If you grew up all your life knowing that gloopy goo in a bowl was called eggs benedict, and someone told you it was porridge and presented you with the properties of porridge, you'd still be somewhat resistant to the idea, because it contradicts your beliefs!

Imagine if I told you that gloopy goo was corn flakes, and everyone calls it corn flakes, and you'd only ever known it as porridge...

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

Isn't the whole argument for Atheism that people can choose to believe in what they believe, and if they can choose to believe, then they can also choose whether or not to continue with that belief when they are presented with evidence which causes them to question their beliefs?

No. The whole argument for atheism is that the evidence and arguments, properly presented and considered, show that gods do not, in fact, exist.

Having looked at the evidence and considered the arguments, I have absolutely no choice in what I believe. I could no more decide to believe in God by an effort of will than I could decide to believe in Superman.

Czarcasm

Aaargh! I'm gonna have to give you this one Z, I had a lengthy reply written out, and the damn placement of the "Clear Text" link just above the text box on the touch site denied me my right of reply! :pac:

It's a sign I tells ya, a sign! Curses!

Valmont

Dawkins now just telling random strangers why he hates them

Czarcasm

Valmont wrote: »

Dawkins now just telling random strangers why he hates them

From the same site (ironically enough) -


Internet argument won by making things up

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

On a superficial level the God Delusion does a good job debunking religious beliefs and human concepts of God, until you realize that religious experience is something Dawkins does not participate in, so his views are analogous to someone who hates football lecturing those who enjoy watching it.

Terrible analogy there. The difference being we have strong reason to think football and footballers exist. Which instantly makes your analogy to god belief a fail.

A better analogy would be to people who enjoy watching the Indian Rope Trick. A trick many claim to have seen and enjoyed, but for which we have ZERO reason to think was ever performed.