Dawkins on Evolution

[Zorkorist]

Hell, they work on Sundays.

 

[Descartes]

Any downside that religious people may currently inflict (lectures about hell or whatnot) gets mitigated by their charitable work with the poor, homeless, abused women shelters, relief efforts in third world countries, etc. Atheists harrass people about religious beliefs, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing to make the world a better place - when was the last time you saw an atheist soup kitchen?

That's a bit silly to say. Of course you're not going to see an atheist soup kitchen, because the unifying goal is not to spread atheism a bowl of soup at a time. That's what I find so disingenuous about so many of these charitable organizations. They're there to help, sure, but often in a self-serving way and often by exploiting the weak to fill this endless desire to convert and to spread their own version of truth to others.

And for what it's worth, there are A LOT of organizations that are non-religious, filled with non-believers and still do great things. The difference is that there isn't this great need to proselytize and thus you hear less about them.

Growing up in the bible belt, it seemed the discussions of missionary trips were little different than sports events, counting converted soles like goals and caring actually very little about the person once the conversion was made.

 

[Zorkorist]

They aren't offended when someone takes the Lord's name in vein.

Pork, is just another breakfast meal. Saying God, doesn't freak them out.

Aren't you sure you don't want to come to the dark side?

 

[glenn1]

That's a bit silly to say. Of course you're not going to see an atheist soup kitchen, because the unifying goal is not to spread atheism a bowl of soup at a time. That's what I find so disingenuous about so many of these charitable organizations. They're there to help, sure, but often in a self-serving way and often by exploiting the weak to fill this endless desire to convert and to spread their own version of truth to others.

And for what it's worth, there are A LOT of organizations that are non-religious, filled with non-believers and still do great things. The difference is that there isn't this great need to proselytize and thus you hear less about them.

Growing up in the bible belt, it seemed the discussions of missionary trips were little different than sports events, counting converted soles like goals and caring actually very little about the person once the conversion was made.

Sure, I can name several good non-religious charity organizations myself. The point still stands, however, that many atheists seem to have a beef with those who are religious and forget about the good work they do. I'm not sure why there seems to be the animosity towards the religious.

I'll go so far as to stipulate the truth value of evolution and the atheist point-of-view, but what does that get you? Atheism provides no great call to action, no directive to go and convert others, so what difference does it make if someone disbelieves in evolution? What difference does it make it someone believes in a god that you don't? If anything, it seems supremely irrational to spend time, effort, and possibly money trying to put pro-atheism billboards on the side of buses as in England or similar efforts.

 

[Zorkorist]

Glenn, thanks for engaging, I imagine it is hard.

Atheism does proviide a call to action, it empowers the individual, free from Religion, and free from the State, to pursue happiness.

Unbounded, by hocus pocus, or, government taxation, an atheist can generally live better, than someone bound by theology, or, Government.

 

[Siddhartha]

When it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Catholic Church and Christians lost all credibility when the church tried Galileo for hersey and condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture".

I do not feel a need to get them or anyone to stop believing in the Easter Bunny. But I refuse to let them control science based on their dogma.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It is you and Dawkins and the six day types that have created this artifice that if you are religious you are anti science. There is a good chance that Collins will wind up with a Nobel for his work at some point, while the "real" scientists like Dawkins won't, and there's the rub. The two of you dismiss the facts of his accomplishments based on your faith that Collins is anti-science. It's your religion which says "thou must be an athiest to be a scientist". Collins just doesn't fit into Dawkin's box, which is the only criteria for validation.

You keep bringing up his religious beliefs. You wish to dismiss him based on that and not the merits of his work.

As far as Dawkins goes, unless they create a category for asshole then he's never going to see a Nobel. The "anti-science" person is superior to the one who claims he's inferior. Now that's hubris on Dawkins part.

BTW, I'm brilliant too

My dear dear friend, no, read what i wrote, read what Collins have written, Collins doesn't fit inside ANY box because he CLAIMS EVIDENCE THAT DON'T NEED TO BE PROVEN SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN THIS WORLD.

Son, i'm going to stop here and right the fuck now, i have hope that you perhaps misunderstood this issue, if you did not.. Don't ever adress me again.

I am not shitting you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

When it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Catholic Church and Christians lost all credibility when the church tried Galileo for hersey and condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture".

I do not feel a need to get them or anyone to stop believing in the Easter Bunny. But I refuse to let them control science based on their dogma.

THIS man speaks of the truth.

 

[spittledip]

When it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Catholic Church and Christians lost all credibility when the church tried Galileo for hersey and condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture".

That is ironic considering that Galileo was a Christian. The Catholic Church is more of a political organization than a religious one. They make a ton of money and have a lot of power you know. The Catholic Church as an organization and individual Catholic churches are different things in some cases.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That is ironic considering that Galileo was a Christian. The Catholic Church is more of a political organization than a religious one. They make a ton of money and have a lot of power you know. The Catholic Church as an organization and individual Catholic churches are different things in some cases.

So fucking what?

ALL religions at ALL times have only one purpose, to make money for those who are "extra special believers"

Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity or Islam doesn't fucking matter, it's a suckers game, like the e-mails from nairobi princes but the difference is that people actually pay and buy into this shit in billions.

You'd think that evolustion would have culled out the extremely stupid by now, apparently not.

 

[spittledip]

So what? Galileo was a Christian, so it renders the point you quoted moot.

So fucking what?

ALL religions at ALL times have only one purpose, to make money for those who are "extra special believers"

Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity or Islam doesn't fucking matter, it's a suckers game, like the e-mails from nairobi princes but the difference is that people actually pay and buy into this shit in billions.

You'd think that evolustion would have culled out the extremely stupid by now, apparently not.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So what? Galileo was a Christian, so it renders the point you quoted moot.

Son, drink some water and some coffee and sober the FUCK up.

I haven't mentioned Galileo by name or intent in ANY post i have posted.

Is that FUCKING CLEAR?

 

[spittledip]

Son, drink some water and some coffee and sober the FUCK up.

I haven't mentioned Galileo by name or intent in ANY post i have posted.

Is that FUCKING CLEAR?

hehe, you get so upset so easily! Actually, if you look at the post that I was responding to, to which you then responded to me, you will clearly see that you owe me an apology!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

hehe, you get so upset so easily! Actually, if you look at the post that I was responding to, to which you then responded to me, you will clearly see that you owe me an apology!

No, twat, i don't owe you an apology, you owe me one.

I didn't make any reference to Galielo and i'm not taking responsibility for anyone elses words or actions.

That is why i asked you if it's clear, obviously you are too fucked up in the head to understand such an incredibly simple concept.

I was born pissed off when reatarded shits for brains try to justify their idiocy in response to me by referencing what others have said.

Get that? Got that? Good, now run along and play with the other kids.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Catholic Church and Christians lost all credibility when the church tried Galileo for hersey and condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture".

I do not feel a need to get them or anyone to stop believing in the Easter Bunny. But I refuse to let them control science based on their dogma.

So do you know the background of this or you just regurgitate "what everyone knows?"

Did you know the Pope accepted what Galileo (who mocked him) was saying and he knew it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My dear dear friend, no, read what i wrote, read what Collins have written, Collins doesn't fit inside ANY box because he CLAIMS EVIDENCE THAT DON'T NEED TO BE PROVEN SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN THIS WORLD.

Son, i'm going to stop here and right the fuck now, i have hope that you perhaps misunderstood this issue, if you did not.. Don't ever adress me again.

I am not shitting you.

Somehow I don't feel particularly threatened. I've read what Collins has done scientifically in reference to science. You've decided to focus on something completely different. So be it.

Dawkins won't be remembered for his scientific contributions while Collins will and Dawkins can wring his hands for the rest of his life for all I care.

Performance talks, BS goes on the religious lecture circuit.

 

[Descartes]

Sure, I can name several good non-religious charity organizations myself. The point still stands, however, that many atheists seem to have a beef with those who are religious and forget about the good work they do. I'm not sure why there seems to be the animosity towards the religious.

No doubt many atheists have a "beef"; in fact, I'd say that that's part of the reason many choose to "believe" in atheism in the first place. Sadly, like all belief (or non-belief) systems, it's now less about the pursuit of some truth and more about slinging mud.

Still, the quiet atheists, including those that don't know they're atheist, seek answers to problems in opposition to current dogma, be it science or something religious.

I'll go so far as to stipulate the truth value of evolution and the atheist point-of-view, but what does that get you?

I get evolution intuitively, and I'm not an atheist (not a Christian either, but that's another story). For me, the value of an idea is in its practical application, the ability to use it as an abstraction to drive further thoughts.

So, for someone that isn't attempting to convert others into a way of thinking, whether others think it's true or not makes little difference; however, I think the frustration comes from the fact that anti-evolution folks tend to drag us back a few centuries in terms of scientific thought. The general intellectual health and competitiveness of us as Americans depends on our ability to be agile in mind and lead the way. These battles get us nowhere as a country. I'm sure the same goes for other countries.

Atheism provides no great call to action, no directive to go and convert others, so what difference does it make if someone disbelieves in evolution? What difference does it make it someone believes in a god that you don't? If anything, it seems supremely irrational to spend time, effort, and possibly money trying to put pro-atheism billboards on the side of buses as in England or similar efforts.

Oh, I see we're talking about the same thing. Hopefully my response above provided some thoughts on the matter. I think some folks just like to bash others regardless of what they believe, but as I said there's a general concern that this anti-progressiveness holds us all back while other countries steam far ahead. Skepticism is healthy, but dogma is the enemy of skepticism and progress.

I wish we could all just accept that the value of science is to provide something of use to people. If it doesn't work, it doesn't get used. Ideas that allow us to understand things better should be embraced, regardless of what you want them to be.

 

[spittledip]

*spewing sadness, bitterness, loneliness*

ok then, I will have to live without your apology then. Oh well.

This is the same way that Dawkins behaves- arrogantly. He behaves arrogantly b/c he is insecure. All arrogance is due to insecurity, not confidence. If one was truly confident, they would not feel the need to get upset with differing viewpoints, nor would they get upset about what someone may say about them or their belief system. His need to insult others is more telling about him than it is about those he insults.

 

[JSt0rm]

ok then, I will have to live without your apology then. Oh well.

This is the same way that Dawkins behaves- arrogantly. He behaves arrogantly b/c he is insecure. All arrogance is due to insecurity, not confidence. If one was truly confident, they would not feel the need to get upset with differing viewpoints, nor would they get upset about what someone may say about them or their belief system. His need to insult others is more telling about him than it is about those he insults.

There are the great vast majority of atheist that keep their mouths shut. Spirituality of apart of the natural order of things and most atheist understand this.

 

[Siddhartha]

That is ironic considering that Galileo was a Christian. The Catholic Church is more of a political organization than a religious one. They make a ton of money and have a lot of power you know. The Catholic Church as an organization and individual Catholic churches are different things in some cases.

Galileo was a scientist who reported what he saw in the night sky with the new telescope. Unfortunately, what he reported was different from the Catholic church's dogma. The Church had zero tolerance for anything that differed from its dogma and used its political power to force strict adherence.

My point was that when it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Christian church has shown itself to more interested in promoting its dogma.

 

[Atreus21]

Heh, maybe you haven't seen?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155369

By far one of their most insightful episodes, horrifically vulgar parts excluded.

 

[spittledip]

Galileo was a scientist who reported what he saw in the night sky with the new telescope. Unfortunately, what he reported was different from the Catholic church's dogma. The Church had zero tolerance for anything that differed from its dogma and used its political power to force strict adherence.

My point was that when it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Christian church has shown itself to more interested in promoting its dogma.

The church has a fine line to walk, and there have been many times that it has gone way over the line. Usually this is b/c of political interference -both internal and external- and has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[sandorski]

The church has a fine line to walk, and there have been many times that it has gone way over the line. Usually this is b/c of political interference -both internal and external- and has nothing to do with Christianity.

Indeed. The line between Fantasy and Insanity is truly fine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Galileo was a scientist who reported what he saw in the night sky with the new telescope. Unfortunately, what he reported was different from the Catholic church's dogma. The Church had zero tolerance for anything that differed from its dogma and used its political power to force strict adherence.

My point was that when it comes to understanding how the world really works, the Christian church has shown itself to more interested in promoting its dogma.

This is a great story. The noble Galileo fighting the powers of ignorance, subdued by the Pope and the rest of the Catholic Church.

Ahh, yes. False, but nice.

The reality is that Galileo was an underhanded self serving egotist who locked up his own daughter in a nunnery, lived in fear of being eclipsed by Kepler and who used the telescope as a lure to keep tabs on the latter. Kepler, an unassuming person who wanted very little, dearly wanted to look at the skies through one of Galileo's instruments, but while the latter promised him a look, he carefully never delivered.

He was a brilliant despicable scoundrel. Urban VIII, the Pope at the time was a supporter of him, however Galileo made many enemies in the Church because he was politically inept. In fact he made a habit of rubbing the nose of the most powerful central organization at the time in crap. Consequently Urban, while sympathetic to Galileo's discoveries urged Galileo to not make more enemies and wait a while until the most hostile elements were gone.

In return for Urbans counsel and support, Galileo wrote an essay with Urban taking on the part of Simplico, the village idiot.

Now Urban could no longer shield Galileo, and had little reason to stick his neck out any more.

He wanted everyone to accept his views then and now. It was his ego at work.

The bottom line is that if you decide to spit in the face of The Man it doesn't matter if you are right, you are going to get your ass kicked.

 

[BeauJangles]

ok then, I will have to live without your apology then. Oh well.

This is the same way that Dawkins behaves- arrogantly. He behaves arrogantly b/c he is insecure. All arrogance is due to insecurity, not confidence. If one was truly confident, they would not feel the need to get upset with differing viewpoints, nor would they get upset about what someone may say about them or their belief system. His need to insult others is more telling about him than it is about those he insults.

No, Dawkins is deeply disturbed and upset by the intrusion of religion into what should be non-religious topics. His hostility is directed at the minority of Christians (especially) who insist on putting religion into science, public policy, and other inappropriate forums.

I am an atheist and, while I agree with Dawkins' main points, I disagree with his aggressiveness and the extreme to which he carries his logic. I am also not vocal about my own beliefs, nor do I feel the need to convince people that I'm right and they're wrong. If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.