Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[djadonis206]

I love great discussions and debates - reminds me of a scene from Go God Go

Last season on "South Park" the pair pilloried atheist Richard Dawkins. Specifically, they portrayed him as a dogmatic extremist and depicted the gray-haired biologist in flagrant delicto with a sexually ambiguous school teacher.

"He's the smartest dumbest person in the world," said Stone, who found Dawkins' brand of atheism as intolerant as religious extremism. "So we had him fall in love with Mr. Garrison."

[Buca di Faggoncini, evening. Mr. Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison are having dinner there.]

Mrs. Garrison: So I told my gynecologist, "you put so many things in my vagina, maybe I should charge you!" [they both laugh at the story.]

Mr. Dawkins: Oh, Ms. Garrison, you are the most outspoken woman I have ever met! It's almost like you're one of the guys.

Mrs. Garrison: Hehyeah, almost.

Mr. Dawkins: You have so much spunk, so much life... If only you were an atheist.

Mrs. Garrison: Well... Well, you know, I'm... I'm open to stuff.

Mr. Dawkins: Why is someone as outspoken as you given themselves over to the whole God thing?

Mrs. Garrison: Oh I'm not... I'm not totally into the whole God thing. I just... I just think, you know, you can't disprove God.

Mr. Dawkins: Well what if I told you there was a flying spaghetti monster: Would you believe it simply because it can't be disproven?

Mrs. Garrison: [Thinks a moment] You're riiight. It's so simple! God is a spaghetti monster. Oh thank you, jeez! My eyes are opened! [stands up] Hey everyone, I'm an atheist!

Mr. Dawkins: Really?? Oh that's wonderful!

Mrs. Garrison: No, I totally get it now! Evolution explains everything! There is no great mystery to life, just evolution and God's a spaghetti monster! Thank you, Richard!

Mr. Dawkins: You're so welcome!

Mrs. Garrison: Would you like tuh... [preens again] head over to my place for dessert?

[Mrs. Garrison's bedroom, night. Mr. Dawkins is giving it to Mrs. Garrison doggy style, hard. Both moan and make other sexual noises.]

Mrs. Garrison: Oh yeah! Yeah, I'm a monkey! Give this monkey what she wants!

Mr. Dawkins: Oh Ms. Garrison!

Mrs. Garrison: Yeah, pound my monkey hole, Richard! Yeah, I'm a monkey all right!

[BoimB son of BoB]

it's a very powerfull sprout of evolution. thisn is the amazing thing about the human intellect: to pass information too subsequent generations not encoded in dna etc. it makes ous very powerfull beings! think about it, our accumulation of technologie is a result of that 'feature' we have so well worked out.

I take if you are aware of genetic memory? 30 years (or something) ago you would've scoffed at that idea the way you did at the 'connected' idea, that is why it is dangerous to close you mind off, especially as a scientist

actually i'm not at all. but now you mention it i have hard something about it a long time ago. are we talking histon proteins here?

i get your point though being open minded etc. i certainly strongly agree... but there are some limits as to how far i will go.

[BoimB son of BoB]

Yeah, I can see that argument. But it doesn't really explain those cases where absolutely nothing is in it for me or my tribe, but I do it anyway. Or are you saying those impulses are just kind of a wasted, spill-over effect from the evolved "cooperation" impulse?

I would wonder what such acts are, I cannot think of many that are not selfish in nature. You know, someone gives to a charity or helps an old lady across the road not for monetary gain but you could argue that you did it because you wanted to feel like you helped, that you're kind ("ive done my one good deed of the day, now i feel better"). Self gratification lies at the bottom of most human acts as far as I can see.

Well, I'm thinking of something like diving into a rushing river to save a stranger's child. Admittedly sort of an extreme example, but that kind of stuff happens a lot. I see what you're saying about acts of that sort being potentially selfish--it's going to allow me to feel terrific about myself--but in evolutionary terms that seems like a pretty terrible bargain: taking a very real risk of losing my life vs the opportunity to boost my self-esteem. It seems like the evolutionarily streamlined choice would be to preserve my life, not my ego.

is it in the light of survinving and passing through you DNA? you struggle to survive to pass on your DNA. we will give our lives for our children.

just a hint.

[BoimB son of BoB]

now a good question would be.

what's the purpose of it all? to be honest i do not know.

what's in it for a crocodile, an ant, a microbe???

is it leading to something?

these are questions only humans can ask. think about it.

does this mean a god is involved? no. but it's a nice 'invention' to come to terms with it all. give it all a purpose.

but is there really.

you can think about it, you can give it a purpose, a reason. must that be a god. well you can hope/think so. but is it true? my answer is no it isn't.

i don't need the 'comforting' thoughts of being 'part' of something 'greater'...to feel at ease or be happy.

i think the thing is alreadyinetersting enough as it is.

but it seems that many are disapointed by that thought, wanting/searching/hoping to be part of something 'greater'. pfff.. always unsatisfied people

[andydes]

Well, I'm thinking of something like diving into a rushing river to save a stranger's child. Admittedly sort of an extreme example, but that kind of stuff happens a lot. I see what you're saying about acts of that sort being potentially selfish--it's going to allow me to feel terrific about myself--but in evolutionary terms that seems like a pretty terrible bargain: taking a very real risk of losing my life vs the opportunity to boost my self-esteem. It seems like the evolutionarily streamlined choice would be to preserve my life, not my ego.

I think it is still based on the pack mentality. Obviously this has been fine turned by thousands of years of culture (including religious moral values, I guess) to something more than pure survival insticts, but I believe it started as an instict to protect the tribe. Over the years, as cooperation prooved to be more benifitial with more people involved, family groups became tribes, tribes became nations, nations became aliances and just maybe, one day... well wishful thinking, maybe.

Let's face it, you're more likely to try to save a family member or friend than a stranger (if you had to choose). And I've heard many people say they wouldn't give money to charities working abroad only to local causes. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly it shows more allegance to the tribe than just to people in general.

[pilcrow]

I would wonder what such acts are, I cannot think of many that are not selfish in nature. You know, someone gives to a charity or helps an old lady across the road not for monetary gain but you could argue that you did it because you wanted to feel like you helped, that you're kind ("ive done my one good deed of the day, now i feel better"). Self gratification lies at the bottom of most human acts as far as I can see.

Well, I'm thinking of something like diving into a rushing river to save a stranger's child. Admittedly sort of an extreme example, but that kind of stuff happens a lot. I see what you're saying about acts of that sort being potentially selfish--it's going to allow me to feel terrific about myself--but in evolutionary terms that seems like a pretty terrible bargain: taking a very real risk of losing my life vs the opportunity to boost my self-esteem. It seems like the evolutionarily streamlined choice would be to preserve my life, not my ego.

is it in the light of survinving and passing through you DNA? you struggle to survive to pass on your DNA. we will give our lives for our children.

just a hint.

I'm talking about saving a stranger's baby, not my own. Where's the evolutionary advantage to that, from the perspective of my DNA?

[pilcrow]

Well, I'm thinking of something like diving into a rushing river to save a stranger's child. Admittedly sort of an extreme example, but that kind of stuff happens a lot. I see what you're saying about acts of that sort being potentially selfish--it's going to allow me to feel terrific about myself--but in evolutionary terms that seems like a pretty terrible bargain: taking a very real risk of losing my life vs the opportunity to boost my self-esteem. It seems like the evolutionarily streamlined choice would be to preserve my life, not my ego.

I think it is still based on the pack mentality. Obviously this has been fine turned by thousands of years of culture (including religious moral values, I guess) to something more than pure survival insticts, but I believe it started as an instict to protect the tribe. Over the years, as cooperation prooved to be more benifitial with more people involved, family groups became tribes, tribes became nations, nations became aliances and just maybe, one day... well wishful thinking, maybe.

Let's face it, you're more likely to try to save a family member or friend than a stranger (if you had to choose). And I've heard many people say they wouldn't give money to charities working abroad only to local causes. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly it shows more allegance to the tribe than just to people in general.

Oh for sure. Absolutely right--charity begins at home, and all that. But the fact that such altruistic acts such as I've described really do happen with some frequency is cause for pondering, I think.

[BoimB son of BoB]

I'm talking about saving a stranger's baby, not my own. Where's the evolutionary advantage to that, from the perspective of my DNA?

i said it's just a hint. at least you can see how such a reaction can evolve.

you know. people want children, if they can't get their own they even adopt children!!! where's he advantage in that! you can say it's wasting your energy. and in a cold/rational/non-human way that's actually, true!

but you can see where the need to [/i]WANT a baby comes from.

i hope that makes things more clear?

[djadonis206]

now a good question would be.

what's the purpose of it all? to be honest i do not know.

what's in it for a crocodile, an ant, a microbe???

is it leading to something?

these are questions only humans can ask. think about it.

does this mean a god is involved? no. but it's a nice 'invention' to come to terms with it all. give it all a purpose.

but is there really.

you can think about it, you can give it a purpose, a reason. must that be a god. well you can hope/think so. but is it true? my answer is no it isn't.

i don't need the 'comforting' thoughts of being 'part' of something 'greater'...to feel at ease or be happy.

i think the thing is alreadyinetersting enough as it is.

but it seems that many are disapointed by that thought, wanting/searching/hoping to be part of something 'greater'. pfff.. always unsatisfied people

for the sake of discussion not argument

Look at any natural disaster to realize man is noting compared to the power and force of mother nature - man and mother nature must work together in order to exist - man can only react to mother nature, we can only predict her next move but how many times are we right (or wrong)

with that said there are greater forces at work, forces we can't see, know or understand

you're free to believe what you want, to believe man is the be all and end all to existence is bit like saying man IS GOD

[elemental]

No worries,
The subject we're dealing with here doesnt really fall into that category.

i understand were you are headed. but what subject are we dealing with exactly , and in what category would you put it. and why would you think there is a category like that. how sure are you the subject you're dealing with is your mind inventing this stuff up.

what's the most probable answer out there? : you believing in fairytale (excusé le mot) like forces that are connected to all things etc etc ... or you just inventing this stuff to describe your wishfull thinking abou tthe world. come on now. break out of it. the world won't be less prety. on the contrary...

OK ....... I'm not talking fairytales here... science is as much a fairytale as the ancient stories of creation .. just because its accepted now does not mean it is the be all and end all. I'm not dissing science either.

The world we live in is a fucked up place right now. Maybe I'm making it up to soothe my soul. But the stuff I'm talking about aint anything new bro. These ideas have been around since ancient times. Its just what makes sense to me. And it helps me see through the shit people have to go through, helps me understand my life a bit better... Its not all about being pretty, life on earth is about both joy and suffering ... you have to be open to and deal with both.

[BoimB son of BoB]

now a good question would be.

what's the purpose of it all? to be honest i do not know.

what's in it for a crocodile, an ant, a microbe???

is it leading to something?

these are questions only humans can ask. think about it.

does this mean a god is involved? no. but it's a nice 'invention' to come to terms with it all. give it all a purpose.

but is there really.

you can think about it, you can give it a purpose, a reason. must that be a god. well you can hope/think so. but is it true? my answer is no it isn't.

i don't need the 'comforting' thoughts of being 'part' of something 'greater'...to feel at ease or be happy.

i think the thing is alreadyinetersting enough as it is.

but it seems that many are disapointed by that thought, wanting/searching/hoping to be part of something 'greater'. pfff.. always unsatisfied people

for the sake of discussion not argument

Look at any natural disaster to realize man is noting compared to the power and force of mother nature - man and mother nature must work together in order to exist - man can only react to mother nature, we can only predict her next move but how many times are we right (or wrong)

with that said there are greater forces at work, forces we can't see, know or understand

you're free to believe what you want, to believe man is the be all and end all to existence is bit like saying man IS GOD

just to be clear, i do not think man is the be all and end all to existence. i'm the first to minimalize human 'supremacy'. let's be honest and acknowledge that most religion put the human in the centre of it all. ow i know i'm a puny ant when mother nature hits me, alright

[BoimB son of BoB]

OK ....... I'm not talking fairytales here... science is as much a fairytale as the ancient stories of creation .. just because its accepted now does not mean it is the be all and end all. I'm not dissing science either.

The world we live in is a fucked up place right now. Maybe I'm making it up to soothe my soul. But the stuff I'm talking about aint anything new bro. These ideas have been around since ancient times. Its just what makes sense to me. And it helps me see through the shit people have to go through, helps me understand my life a bit better... Its not all about being pretty, life on earth is about both joy and suffering ... you have to be open to and deal with both.

i may have gone a bit to far attacking you.

i can not agree with the first paragraph as you will probably understand. forthe simple fact that science is build up from ground up with support and facts. and ok, making hypothesis is also part of science and a lot of break through science do need the same creativity. ancients storys of creation are just story's whether you like that or not. there is no more body to it than the story itself, while science will throw at you the pure fact of it or at least very strong evidence. so you can not treat them equal.

the fact that these stories are going alongfor a very long time now does't make them true. there can be a lot of wisdom in them, sure! don't forget that passing through information from generation hrough generation by culture is as old as the origin of the story itself. the information passed through mussent be TRUE to actually survive. if you know what i mean.

i grew up catholic. it gave me a lotof good advice and moral background, i'm not denying all that.

[djadonis206]

[Otter Bay. evening. The otters are arming each other]

The Wise One: [walks in with a cane] Silence, otters!

Otter 1: It's the Wise One

Otter 2: The Wise One speaks.

The Wise One: This is not the path we should be taking. Will more bloodshed end anything?

Blavius: [floats up to him on a hovering throne] Wise One, our answer to the Great Question is the only one based on good science.

The Wise One: Science, reason, is that really all there is?

Blavius: They are not a logical race, Wise One! They go around chopping down trees for tables, when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on. How logical is that?!

Otter Leader: Yes! [walks up to a painting of Dawkins and Garrison] The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason! How reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?

The Wise One: Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing in God makes God exist.

Otter Soldier: Kill the Wise One!

Otter 3: Kill the Wise One! [the other otters crowd him in and start attacking]

The Wise One: Whoa, wait wait! [perishes amid the pummeling]

[BoimB son of BoB]

[Otter Bay. evening. The otters are arming each other]

The Wise One: [walks in with a cane] Silence, otters!

Otter 1: It's the Wise One

Otter 2: The Wise One speaks.

The Wise One: This is not the path we should be taking. Will more bloodshed end anything?

Blavius: [floats up to him on a hovering throne] Wise One, our answer to the Great Question is the only one based on good science.

The Wise One: Science, reason, is that really all there is?

Blavius: They are not a logical race, Wise One! They go around chopping down trees for tables, when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on. How logical is that?!

Otter Leader: Yes! [walks up to a painting of Dawkins and Garrison] The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason! How reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?

The Wise One: Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing in God makes God exist.

Otter Soldier: Kill the Wise One!

Otter 3: Kill the Wise One! [the other otters crowd him in and start attacking]

The Wise One: Whoa, wait wait! [perishes amid the pummeling]

adonis you are awsome!! were do you get that stuff??

[djadonis206]

a very unhealthy relationship with TiVo and South Park...