Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

pilcrow · Post by **pilcrow** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:52 pm

BoimB son of BoB wrote:
pilcrow wrote:
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?

Are you saying that our biological, evolutionary need to reproduce our own DNA in offspring is so strong that sometimes it's expressed as an overzealous urge to save unrelated babies or adopt children?--that we've just evolved to have an inclination to save babies, willy-nilly? If so, then I'd point to the fact that people often jump into life-threatening situations to save elderly strangers too. Plus, I'm not sure how that postulated baby-saving inclination dovetails with the popularity of the pro-abortion stance. But that's a can of worms I'm already sorry I opened and that I will not pursue in this forum.

mauve · Post by **mauve** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:51 pm

50/50

mauve · Post by **mauve** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:52 pm

I prefer only one of those 50's

BoimB son of BoB · Post by **BoimB son of BoB** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:23 pm

mauve wrote:I prefer only one of those 50's

BoimB son of BoB · Post by **BoimB son of BoB** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:25 pm

pilcrow wrote:If so, then I'd point to the fact that people often jump into life-threatening situations to save elderly strangers too. Plus, I'm not sure how that postulated baby-saving inclination dovetails with the popularity of the pro-abortion stance. But that's a can of worms I'm already sorry I opened and that I will not pursue in this forum.

hey man you win this one.

BoimB son of BoB · Post by **BoimB son of BoB** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:36 pm

pilcrow wrote: Are you saying that our biological, evolutionary need to reproduce our own DNA in offspring is so strong that sometimes it's expressed as an overzealous urge to save unrelated babies or adopt children?

actually yes.

but i'm no expert at matter (certainly not at the baby saving phenomen..

), far from it. but although not as pretty, it's differnt viewpoint worth considering.

it takes courage to dare and think like this. you can see why this way of thinking isn't the most popular one.

Novel · Post by **Novel** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:17 pm

There's really no way to prove or disprove 'God'. Nobody knows the 'Truth'.

It's life, you live it.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:22 pm

Novel wrote:There's really no way to prove or disprove 'God'. Nobody knows the 'Truth'.

It's life, you live it.

yes Novel, the most important & truthful post of the whole thread

shtreimel · Post by **shtreimel** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:15 am

Meef Chaloin wrote:
shtreimel wrote:2) Flew planes in the world trade center
There were certainly a few happy Israelis that day
http://911research.com/sept11/israelispys.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Meef...if you're going to use conspiracy websites to spread ol' anti-semitic tales, you could at least include these:
http://www.rense.com/general18/werethe911hijackers.htm
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arabs.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm

Now that's they way you do it!

shlomo · Post by **shlomo** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:59 am

Novel wrote: It's life, you live it.

But HOW you do that makes the difference.

BoimB son of BoB wrote:i think the thing is alreadyinetersting enough as it is.

as it is > thatagatha or suchness, the most accurate description of reality in Buddhism

BoimB son of BoB · Post by **BoimB son of BoB** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:28 am

Meef Chaloin wrote:
Novel wrote:There's really no way to prove or disprove 'God'.

that maybe so, but there is no way of disproving te existance of the spaghettimonster either (citing dawkins here) or fairys etc...

yet nobody seriously believes in there existance... maybe some of the treehuggers do, i don't know.

the chance of there actually being a spaghettimonster are extremely slim, same with the biblical god etc.

so basicly that claim of yours does not imply the two possibilities to be considered as 50/50 percent chance of being true or not.

i'm finished with this topic. i have work to do.

all they say is: i believe. well good for you. may the force be with you then

personally i have better books to read than fairytale bibles. they bore me.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:22 am

Science (apart from mathematics) can't "proove" anything. What it can do is propose theories whose predictive power can be tested by experiment. When the current best theory fails to agree with observed reality then it is ammended or if necessary replaced by a better theory. In this way scientists believe that they can get closer and closer to the truth.

Has has been shown by Godal, Turing and others, there are many things that are true but which can never be proved to be true and many questions which can never be decided - even in principal.

The difference between science and region (IMHO) is that scientists for the most part are open minded and humble enough to admit that they don't know all the answers, but they believe (and it is just a belief) that the scientific method is the best way we have of eventually discovering all that can be known. Religions on the other hand arrogantly believe that they already know the answers to the most fundamental questions and that they have a right to impose their view of the world on everyone else.

Personally I am an atheist - I don't believe in things for which I see no evidence - but if it did turn out to be true that there is a super intelligent all powerful entity that created the universe it would be no more surpising than things I see every day.

my 2p

BoimB son of BoB · Post by **BoimB son of BoB** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:40 am

nolus wrote:Science (apart from mathematics) can't "proove" anything. What it can do is propose theories whose predictive power can be tested by experiment. When the current best theory fails to agree with observed reality then it is ammended or if necessary replaced by a better theory. In this way scientists believe that they can get closer and closer to the truth.

Has has been shown by Godal, Turing and others, there are many things that are true but which can never be proved to be true and many questions which can never be decided - even in principal.

The difference between science and region (IMHO) is that scientists for the most part are open minded and humble enough to admit that they don't know all the answers, but they believe (and it is just a belief) that the scientific method is the best way we have of eventually discovering all that can be known. Religions on the other hand arrogantly believe that they already know the answers to the most fundamental questions and that they have a right to impose their view of the world on everyone else.

Personally I am an atheist - I don't believe in things for which I see no evidence - but if it did turn out to be true that there is a super intelligent all powerful entity that created the universe it would be no more surpising than things I see every day.

my 2p

'all powerfull' ey, well well ... an all powerfull entity ... a lot of people will froun (how do you spell that) at you for that. you call yourself an atheist. agnost seems better. there are a lot of jokes going around based on the ridicule of that. there is a profound incorrectness in the possibiliy of an all powerfull entity.

super intelligent... why not, doesn't mean god. i rather believe in aliens so powerfull and intelligent that 'created ous' of at least set the seed. than a god. SG-1 isn't that far fetched

i totally agree with the science comment, though.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:03 am

well, I don't actually believe that such an entity exists, just making the point that the idea doesn't seem totally absurd when compared to everyday experience, but that is not a reason to "believe" in it.

If accepting the possibility of something, while at the same time thinking it to be very unlikely and not actually believing in it, makes me an agnostic then fair
enough. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

I'm not familliar with the philosphical argument that rules out something being "all powerfull" - or "allmighty" for that matter - I'll need to think about that.

I've enjoyed your posts on this thread, you have said most of what I've been thinking but was too lazy to post myself.

and since you ask - its "frown"

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:19 am

shtreimel wrote:Meef...if you're going to use conspiracy websites to spread ol' anti-semitic tales, you could at least include these

you are a drama queen aren't you! Anti semitic, don't make me laugh. How did I know you would pull that card?