Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[NorthernMonkey]

Uh, no:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israe ... n_conflict

'This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version.' - your reference is dismissible for now.

Look...if you don't know your Middle East History...what can I tell ya. The Israel/Lebanon nonsense is about land (though before that it was about IDF vs. PLO - 70's-80's). You're gonna have stretch this one pretty far to place the blame on You Know Who. But sure...the raison d'etre of Israel is Biblically based.

Middle East debate fiasco begins in 1, 2, 3.....

A bizarre response there, I was merely pointing out your reference holds no water due to the clear statement at the top of it.

[edge100]

...[

Forge, you raise some excellent question, to which I have (hopefully) excellent answers. Unfortunately, it would take another 62 page thread to go through all of this.

Suffice to say that:

(a) natural selection is not chance
(b) cells CAN sense (and respond to) their external environment (Google: epigenetics)
(c) no one knows who "put" DNA there; this is a different question entirely.

I would very much like to go more in depth in this subject, and perhaps that will be the topic of the book I keep intending to start. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now.

I'm not trying to avoid the questions; far from it, they're great questions. But for now, you'll have to accept that there are reasonable answers to those questions. You'll just have to take this on faith...............

oh dude - if you really do have any kind of reasonable explanation for (c) then please do at least attempt to summarise - that's what Bill bryson has done in this book with all of the subjects of science and just these simple summaries are often enough to get you chewing on the problem until you start to get it for yourself

for now at least, when I get time later the epigenetics wikipedia multiple tabbed browser tangent should waste a few hours tonight!

Epigenetics is a fascinating topic which deserves more input; I've done a LITTLE bit of work in this field, and it's amazing what is controlled not by gene sequence, but by expression patterns controlled by the environment.

As for point (c), I only meant to say that the question of how DNA came to be the genetic material, and how it got into cells to begin with, isn't centrally important to evolution. The fact is, DNA IS the genetic material, and natural selection is very obvious.

You have to remember, the first organisms were very likely an order of magnitude SIMPLER than even bacteria; think viruses, which are really just a protein coat and some DNA (or RNA) stuffed inside. I think we're talking about things even simpler than that.

I'll try to elaborate tomorrow. It's music making time tonight!

[shtreimel]

456778949803940982

But sure...the raison d'etre of Israel is Biblically based.

what a farce that is...smokescreen comes to mind...
anywho, let ye who speak of israel read this
and comment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_De ... on_of_1917

Israel..the name...Jacob...Bible
Returning to the land of Zion...Bible

The political process was a dream actualized for thousands of years (every passover we end by stating: "Next Year In Jerusalem"). Zionism was born a long time before Herzl and the attachment of the Jewish people to the land of Israel has most ancient roots. Jews have lived in Jerusalem, Tsvat pre-dating brit involvement for thousands of years.

That's that. I've participated in one too many on-line ME discussions...w/ nasty things being said by both sides. Next.

God and atheism, that's the hot topic these days.

[b0unce]

sure,
its mostly for the benefit of seyzor anyways - he puts it down to religion, I put it down to politics. We cant just go around reclaiming land we say is promised to us by the bible, by the way - anyways, Israel exists today because of political persuasion and nothing else. Britain & Co did not help establish it because they believed it should be done, according to the bible. so seyzors theory that the fighting between israel & lebanon is purely down to religion, is flawed imo...hence my reason for highlighting the balfour declaration of 1917.


I find it almost hilarious that they would claim to be for israel on purely righteous grounds (the whole promised land shtick)......yet they wont fuck off out of northern ireland ? Excuse me ? Strange logic.

[knotkranky]

Forge, you raise some excellent question, to which I have (hopefully) excellent answers. Unfortunately, it would take another 62 page thread to go through all of this.

Suffice to say that:

(a) natural selection is not chance
(b) cells CAN sense (and respond to) their external environment (Google: epigenetics)
(c) no one knows who "put" DNA there; this is a different question entirely.

I would very much like to go more in depth in this subject, and perhaps that will be the topic of the book I keep intending to start. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now.

I'm not trying to avoid the questions; far from it, they're great questions. But for now, you'll have to accept that there are reasonable answers to those questions. You'll just have to take this on faith...............

oh dude - if you really do have any kind of reasonable explanation for (c) then please do at least attempt to summarise - that's what Bill bryson has done in this book with all of the subjects of science and just these simple summaries are often enough to get you chewing on the problem until you start to get it for yourself

for now at least, when I get time later the epigenetics wikipedia multiple tabbed browser tangent should waste a few hours tonight!

Epigenetics is a fascinating topic which deserves more input; I've done a LITTLE bit of work in this field, and it's amazing what is controlled not by gene sequence, but by expression patterns controlled by the environment.

As for point (c), I only meant to say that the question of how DNA came to be the genetic material, and how it got into cells to begin with, isn't centrally important to evolution. The fact is, DNA IS the genetic material, and natural selection is very obvious.

You have to remember, the first organisms were very likely an order of magnitude SIMPLER than even bacteria; think viruses, which are really just a protein coat and some DNA (or RNA) stuffed inside. I think we're talking about things even simpler than that.

I'll try to elaborate tomorrow. It's music making time tonight!

Ya gotta wonder what it was that kicked it in. God? or a space born biological oddity. Or are they the same thing

[forge]

[
As for point (c), I only meant to say that the question of how DNA came to be the genetic material, and how it got into cells to begin with, isn't centrally important to evolution. The fact is, DNA IS the genetic material, and natural selection is very obvious.
!

yes but it IS centrally important to this debate really

this is essentially the nuts and bolts - modern notions of "intelligent design" could easily encompass the simple question of where did DNA come from, how did it get there in the nucleus of the cell

[Machinesworking]

Again, I've challenged folks on attachment issues and children, countertransference, provided links to prove a causal relationship b/w athesim and psychotherapy...and the only rebuttal I've had is in the form of a self-help book by Dr. Scott.

Honestly you linked Freud, whom pretty much every psychologist I've ever met has problems with at some level. I've never cared for him much myself, the childhood sexual stuff is just off IMO.

I read M. Scott Peck because my girlfriend asked me to. She wanted to see if I was so biased against religion that I would write him off as stupid etc. I thought he seemed like a decent person who wanted to help people. Sorry if that didn't meet your standards? Though I'm not sure what your standards are? I mentioned modern therapists etc. having less of a bias towards religion. I wouldn't call therapists quoting freud modern?
I see a lot of religious therapists around here, I've done some work for alcohol treatment centers, and whether your neck of the woods is secular or not, here in Seattle it's the exact opposite, mainly religious therapists and counselors who actually ask the patients to look towards religion for help etc.

My stepmother and sister work for the Oregon Research Institute, so I'm quite aware of the human frailty of people in the mental health field. The place has made a name for itself, in california I worked as a care provider for the extremely developmentally disabled, and ORI research findings were being used in practice to reenforce good behavior there etc.

You'll be happy to know that the jewish counselor I know is both practicing and of very high standards IMO. Really good person, and not at all judgmental. Definitely one of the people out there that actually cares. I would recommend him to any person, atheist or religious.

Personally I don't get your constant attempts at painting atheists as less together etc. than the religious, like I've said before, I have never found religion, or lack of religion to make any real marked effect on a persons ethical behavior.
For instance, I have two examples of practicing jewish counselors, one that I know is about as unbiased as you can get, and you, who admit to your own biases. I find it actually quite funny that you entered into debate with atheists here on this board stating things like "I don't think atheists are the kind of people I care to have tea with" , and now you're basically stating that the one atheist, who lives near you, who happens to have a job that literally screams intellectual, is now OK in your book....
But hey, the internet twists personalities. I'm quite possibly reading you all wrong, and you're not half as biased and ethnocentric as you seem. edge100 on the other hand doesn't seem to ever get personal in his debates, and in that way I agree, and think you are justified in this hypocritical turn of stated beliefs here, but hey, you did mention how you were glad it wasn't some of the other whackos here who lived near you.... which makes me worry about your patients, the not so subtle anger there...

Edge does have some good lines though eh?

But at no time in the past as a question about physical reality been answered by anything except science. This is SO well established that I have "faith" (which, as I've explained, is in no way related to religious 'faith') that it will continue to happen.

One thing that comes to mind again and I guess out of context here, but people keep on being astounded at the complexity and order of the universe, cell structure etc. then claiming that the order inherent in the universe is proof of god.... as if without god chaos would rule?
To me it sez more about the nature of the individual, without a belief in god for that individual, chaos would reign. to any person looking at the universe as a whole, you would see the natural dance of those two basic forces in nature (chaos/order) constantly rearranging the universe. Whether or not you want to ascribe the order there to god is inconsequential to the fact that the order exists, and dissipates towards chaos in an endless cycle. (hippy points are requested here!)

... and in that sense, I agree with you somewhat, for some, religion is a binding force that creates order out of the chaos in their head, and that's another very strong reason I disagree with Dawkins about flushing religion etc..... but realize to others it can easily be a chain that binds them towards conformity and sterility intellectually.

[Machinesworking]

Just to throw that out alone here, DNA or other complex physical structures that create life, forces of nature that create the solar system, the binding energy and combustion of stars etc. None of the order in the universe is proof of god, it's just proof that the nature of things is towards order and beauty.
I mean really? why wouldn't a complex structure that has the nature of the universe inherent in it's design want to replicate it's order? Why wouldn't it carry a small set of codes to reproduce itself?
And this is an interesting point to me anyways, because we human beings are apart of the universe, we also carry that desire for order and chaos etc. So we look at a cell, and are somehow stunned that our logic is replicated in the design, as if it of course had to be some reflection of our nature, so must have intelligence... Yet that brings up the question where did that intelligence start? what birthed it?
To me anyway the idea that the universe has anything resembling human intelligence,( IE a god who made man in his image etc. ), is infinitely narrow in perspective.

How about the simple, and easily possible explanation that the universe is:

Endless, and timeless,( many big bangs instead of one big one )

and without any perceivable intelligence, central command location, or lack of structure when examined.

My only explanation as to why I don't feel this is a cold and heartless examination of life is because I do not feel like I am apart from the universe. I don't think I'm a separate being in the sense that I am space dust, and will return to space dust etc. We exist, then die, yet we always will have existed, we are the luckiest sperm!

[Seyser Koze]

Except that astrology follows obvious rules following only stars we can actually see that conveniently are grouped into 12 "signs" that convinently fit our months of the year.

Astrology is the single best piece of evidence to suggest that humans are spectacularly good at seeing patterns, and spectacularly bad at interpreting them.

it's quite unfortunate that astrology gets lumped in the newspaper horoscope realms of fiction

I first became interested because I was amazed at how often my mother could pick things about people based on it

I learned the basics at 16 so it's just in there now, but if it was ever something you were interested in exploring you might be surprised just how often it can work

like I said, I dont know how, just that it seems to

maybe one day I'll write a paper on it and properly research it for any other plausable explanations

I did say I will not debate this one and I won't. But as I have said many many time before in this very thread. I respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe but do not expect me to have to respect it too.

I think the key point of your post above is "It just seems to". There is the rub. It seems to, but actually it probably doesn't.

[Seyser Koze]

You can call these wars what you like but I, inline with Dawkins on the subject, believe that mostly these reasons are a masquearde for the real reasons.

Israel/Lebanon - Stated land grab, real reason: Judaism vs Islam
Ireland - Stated Reason, british intervention, real reason: Catholiscism vs protestantism.
USA/GB/Iraq - Stated reasons - Human rights, oil etc, real reason: Christianity vs Islam

They are bound up in many ways but when it comes down to it IMO, all these wars would simply not be happening if none of these people were religious.

Just a point of fact on Northern ireland though Bounce, there are as many people living in Northern ireland who do actually want to remain British as there are those who do not. I'm afraid it isn't clear cut as the British simply "fucking off".

However, whatever you call it it is still an unsolvable problem due to centuries old conflict between catholics and protestants that is to blame.

Give it a name, sure.

me? I call it religious war.

[forge]

[
I think the key point of your post above is "It just seems to". There is the rub. It seems to, but actually it probably doesn't.

to which you reply "probably" doesnt?

nay bother I'm not really set on trying to convince you, I guess the only reason I even mention it is because I am open to the possibility that there could be valid scientific reasons why iI have seen it be so accurate so many times - and I dont equate that with flaky hippy "beliefs" by a long stretch - in fact my agnosticism has leaned far more towards the cynical end of things for a while now

I'm not talking about "beliefs" I'm talking about my own observations and how often I've seen it strikingly accurate

I'm also saying I've hypothesized as to why that is and my view is far more of a scientific one

so actually your response is far more dogmatic - and so closer to a narrow minded religious viewpoint - because you are not open to that possibility and are basing your assumptions on a preconception which is in all likely hood not substantiated your own individual experiences

science is about hypothesis as much as proof

[Seyser Koze]

Not quite.

I said probably, because my beliefs are all based on probability, as I have also said many times before.

The probability of any one god existing is so low that to my mind it can be effectively ignored compared to the probability that one doesn't exist at all.

The probability that the effects seen by anyone being attributed to astrology is so low that I can effectively ignore it as being possible.

Just statisitcs, tha's all.

However, i do accept that my stance in recent times has become more hardline. That is becasue I see the problems religion and superstition have brought upon our earth becoming worse and ruining more lives while we, the non believers, sit by and let it happen without saying anything.

We don't want to (and nor have we been allowed to) upset the religious. We have allowed them a voice in our schools and parliaments.

Would we allow the same previledge to to an astrologer? I seriously doubt it we would let our contries laws be determined by the power of the stars nor let our children be taught it in schools. Yet we do allow it with equally improbable beliefs such as christianity, judaism and islam.

In fact we tolerate whole countries being managed in this way.

I'd like that to change. I think they should expect challenge and open questioning about the ridiculous probabilities they base their lives on. It's not unreasonable to expect answers.

But yet, they have none. because despite their faith and beliefs, there is no proof. no proof of a god, no proof of prayer working, no proof of a better life, no proof of an afterlife, no proof god doesnt want cahtolics to use contraception, no proof that god wants muslims to kill the non believers, no proof god laid down the ten commandments etc.etc.

And yet, we, those who live by the probability that this is all wrong, are forced to endure the problems that those who do bring to our world. The violence, the indoctrination, the wars.

It is palpably wrong and life I believe can be fun and good and challenging without the need to follow superstitions ans scare our children in to following the same.

[elemental]

so actually your response is far more dogmatic - and so closer to a narrow minded religious viewpoint - because you are not open to that possibility and are basing your assumptions on a preconception which is in all likely hood not substantiated your own individual experiences

science is about hypothesis as much as proof

thats it ... Seyzer and many others here are as dogmatic and closed in their beliefs as right wing religious leaders in my opinion. Its about being open to the fact that there are a lot of things we cannot explain, with science or otherwise. Yes science has answered many questions, in its own way, and given us a lot of what we have, but it really isnt the holy grail that a lot of people think it is.

This may offend some people, but it seems these days that atheism and science are the new religion! What I mean by that is many people put their faith into scientists that they will answer all our problems just as people used to put faith into priests.

[Seyser Koze]

I can't....I cannot repeat myself any more.

So, I'm out.

[NorthernMonkey]

The way I see it is this. Science has proven itself to be incorrect many times; religion has gone through many iterations of reform in an attempt to correct itself. Neither are perfect, they are both flawed - there is no empirical truth. And one of the fundamental issues (as war has been brought up) that bothers me is the widespread misuse and abuse of both science and religion. I'll give you two very clear and very defined examples of this:

1. The abuse of religion has lead to many acts of terrorism and war;
2. The abuse of science lead to the creation of the atomic and nuclear bomb.

I have experienced the effects on human life of both of these - throughout my early teens my mother was a strong campaigner for CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament); on the 7th July 2005 I was travelling on the London Underground at the time of the bombings. I've said it before and I'll repeat it now - what is required is a common ground where both scientists and religious people are prepared to leave their comfort zone and discuss the fundamental issues - what binds them to science/religion? what established and maintains their belief and faith, be that scientific or religious? - plain English answers, no quotes, no references, no anecdotes. Just don't be too surprised if the answers are the same.

Until either side has been proven without doubt to be correct, dismissing one but not the other is, in my opinion, foolish. Until that time, we must stay open to all beliefs.