Deep, I love you, man, but it really does come as a shock to me that you would defend Dawkins' propaganda, nice way of saying deception and/or lies. Even if he garners support, his tactics will fail, just as communist tactics did in Russia. They tried to oppress the church and it grew quicker than they could stamp it out.
I didn't say the man wasn't free to express himself. I am shocked anyone takes his propaganda seriously.
Thanks, luv u too, but don't be shocked.
After 2000 years of christian propaganda, 3000 years of jewish propaganda, and 1400 years of Muslim propaganda, it's quite possible that any discussion of religion is considered propaganda.
His "tactics" are to point out the illogic of religion, and to apply reasonable analysis to religion the same way we do everything else. When we do so, it fails badly. I understand how dangerous that is to religion, but it's past time it was brought to public discussion, such as ours.
Dawkins is no communist tyrant who kills religious and other opposition. He is a wordsmith. He leads no army of violent people, nor would he. His sword is persuasion.
Have YOU seen his movie "The Root of All Evil"? It's on YouTube. In it, you'll see how easily Dawkins strips off the thin veneer of respectability off of religion and uncovers the absurdity and hatred beneath it.
I'm confident in my atheism. I think I'm right. But, I could be wrong. This is what makes me different from the religious. They know they're right, even in the knowledge that other people, with other religious thoughts are also entirely certain that they are right in their mutually exclusive convictions. They can't all be right. As a matter of fact, at most, only one, at most, can be right. In the absence of evidence it is absurd for any person to demand that he has the one, true knowledge to the exclusion of all others. And, in that same absence of evidence, even that one conviction is nothing to kill and die for.
For Dawkins to explain and expand on these, and other, points is far from propaganda. It's a necessary discussion in these times when religious warfare could involve nuclear weapons.
DF
After 2000 years of christian propaganda, 3000 years of jewish propaganda, and 1400 years of Muslim propaganda, it's quite possible that any discussion of religion is considered propaganda.
His "tactics" are to point out the illogic of religion, and to apply reasonable analysis to religion the same way we do everything else. When we do so, it fails badly. I understand how dangerous that is to religion, but it's past time it was brought to public discussion, such as ours.
Dawkins is no communist tyrant who kills religious and other opposition. He is a wordsmith. He leads no army of violent people, nor would he. His sword is persuasion.
Have YOU seen his movie "The Root of All Evil"? It's on YouTube. In it, you'll see how easily Dawkins strips off the thin veneer of respectability off of religion and uncovers the absurdity and hatred beneath it.
I'm confident in my atheism. I think I'm right. But, I could be wrong. This is what makes me different from the religious. They know they're right, even in the knowledge that other people, with other religious thoughts are also entirely certain that they are right in their mutually exclusive convictions. They can't all be right. As a matter of fact, at most, only one, at most, can be right. In the absence of evidence it is absurd for any person to demand that he has the one, true knowledge to the exclusion of all others. And, in that same absence of evidence, even that one conviction is nothing to kill and die for.
For Dawkins to explain and expand on these, and other, points is far from propaganda. It's a necessary discussion in these times when religious warfare could involve nuclear weapons.
DF
Whatever, I don't claim to have all the answers and I doubt the majority of "the religious" do either. I know what I know, but there is an awful lot I don't know. Also, the more that I learn, the more apparent how much I don't know becomes.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding Dawkins.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding Dawkins.
Link
The average biology teacher, mine included, not being a specialist in the theory of evolution, simply teaches the standard textbook 'proofs'. But the Dawkinses of this world? They are the real culprits in this Darwinian deception. For a number of years I quietly contemplated doing something about Dawkins's writings but nothing materialized until September 2006 when I read his book The God Delusion. That finally galvanized me into setting up this website which points to numerous articles, books, DVDs, lectures and reviews (on other sites) that provide answers and alternatives to Dawkins's arguments on atheism and Darwinism, from a number of different perspectives. Your comments are welcome. To get in touch with me, either click intouch@atheistdelusion.net or hit the contact button in the header of this page and fill in the form.
Michael J. Penfold
P.S. Here is a fascinating excerpt from the newly published book There Is A God - How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Anthony Flew (Harper Collins, New York, 2007, p. 78-80):
"In addition to my public debates, I have engaged in various polemical discussions in writing. One prominent instance of such discussions is the exchanges I have had with the scientist Richard Dawkins. Although I commended his atheist works, I have always been a critic of his selfish-gene school of thought.
"In my book Darwinian Evolution, I pointed out that natural selection does not positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive. A variation does not need to bestow any actual competitive advantage in order to avoid elimination; it is sufficient that it does not burden its owner with any competitive disadvantage. To choose a rather silly illustration, suppose I have useless wings tucked away under my suit coat, wings that are too weak to lift my frame off the ground. Useless as they are, these wings do not enable me to escape predators or gather food. But as long as they don't make me more vulnerable to predators, I will probably survive to reproduce and pass on my wings to my descendants. Darwin's mistake in drawing too positive an inference with his suggestion that natural selection produces something was perhaps due to his employment of the expressions 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest' rather than his own ultimately preferred alternative, 'natural preservation'.
"I went on to remark that Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene was a major exercise in popular mystification. As an atheist philosopher, I considered this work of popularization as destructive in its own ways as either The Naked Ape or The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris. In his works, Morris offers as the results of zoological illumination what amounts to a systematic denial of all that is most peculiar to our species contemplated as a biological phenomenon. He ignores or explains away obvious differences between human beings and other species.
"Dawkins, on the other hand, laboured to discount or depreciate the upshot of fifty or more years' work in genetics - the discovery that the observable traits of organisms are for the most part conditioned by the interaction of many genes, while most genes have manifold effects on many such traits. For Dawkins, the main means for producing human behavior is to attribute to genes characteristics that can significantly be attributed only to persons. Then, after insisting that we are all the choiceless creatures of our genes, he infers that we cannot help but share the unlovely personal characteristics of those all-controlling monads.
"Genes, of course, can be neither selfish nor unselfish any more than they or any other nonconscious entities can engage in competition or make selection. (Natural selection is, notoriously, not selection; and it is a somewhat less familiar logical fact that, below the human level, the struggle for existence is not 'competitive' in the true sense of the word.) But this did not stop Dawkins from proclaiming that his book "is not science fiction; it is science…We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." Although he later issued occasional disavowals, Dawkins gave no warning in his book against taking him literally. He added, sensationally, that "the argument of this book is that we, and all others animals, are machines created by our genes."
"If any of this were true, it would be no use to go on, as Dawkins does, to preach: "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." No eloquence can move programmed robots. But in fact none of it is true - or even faintly sensible. Genes, as we have seen, do not and cannot necessitate our conduct. Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of either ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion."
The average biology teacher, mine included, not being a specialist in the theory of evolution, simply teaches the standard textbook 'proofs'. But the Dawkinses of this world? They are the real culprits in this Darwinian deception. For a number of years I quietly contemplated doing something about Dawkins's writings but nothing materialized until September 2006 when I read his book The God Delusion. That finally galvanized me into setting up this website which points to numerous articles, books, DVDs, lectures and reviews (on other sites) that provide answers and alternatives to Dawkins's arguments on atheism and Darwinism, from a number of different perspectives. Your comments are welcome. To get in touch with me, either click intouch@atheistdelusion.net or hit the contact button in the header of this page and fill in the form.
Michael J. Penfold
P.S. Here is a fascinating excerpt from the newly published book There Is A God - How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Anthony Flew (Harper Collins, New York, 2007, p. 78-80):
"In addition to my public debates, I have engaged in various polemical discussions in writing. One prominent instance of such discussions is the exchanges I have had with the scientist Richard Dawkins. Although I commended his atheist works, I have always been a critic of his selfish-gene school of thought.
"In my book Darwinian Evolution, I pointed out that natural selection does not positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive. A variation does not need to bestow any actual competitive advantage in order to avoid elimination; it is sufficient that it does not burden its owner with any competitive disadvantage. To choose a rather silly illustration, suppose I have useless wings tucked away under my suit coat, wings that are too weak to lift my frame off the ground. Useless as they are, these wings do not enable me to escape predators or gather food. But as long as they don't make me more vulnerable to predators, I will probably survive to reproduce and pass on my wings to my descendants. Darwin's mistake in drawing too positive an inference with his suggestion that natural selection produces something was perhaps due to his employment of the expressions 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest' rather than his own ultimately preferred alternative, 'natural preservation'.
"I went on to remark that Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene was a major exercise in popular mystification. As an atheist philosopher, I considered this work of popularization as destructive in its own ways as either The Naked Ape or The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris. In his works, Morris offers as the results of zoological illumination what amounts to a systematic denial of all that is most peculiar to our species contemplated as a biological phenomenon. He ignores or explains away obvious differences between human beings and other species.
"Dawkins, on the other hand, laboured to discount or depreciate the upshot of fifty or more years' work in genetics - the discovery that the observable traits of organisms are for the most part conditioned by the interaction of many genes, while most genes have manifold effects on many such traits. For Dawkins, the main means for producing human behavior is to attribute to genes characteristics that can significantly be attributed only to persons. Then, after insisting that we are all the choiceless creatures of our genes, he infers that we cannot help but share the unlovely personal characteristics of those all-controlling monads.
"Genes, of course, can be neither selfish nor unselfish any more than they or any other nonconscious entities can engage in competition or make selection. (Natural selection is, notoriously, not selection; and it is a somewhat less familiar logical fact that, below the human level, the struggle for existence is not 'competitive' in the true sense of the word.) But this did not stop Dawkins from proclaiming that his book "is not science fiction; it is science…We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." Although he later issued occasional disavowals, Dawkins gave no warning in his book against taking him literally. He added, sensationally, that "the argument of this book is that we, and all others animals, are machines created by our genes."
"If any of this were true, it would be no use to go on, as Dawkins does, to preach: "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." No eloquence can move programmed robots. But in fact none of it is true - or even faintly sensible. Genes, as we have seen, do not and cannot necessitate our conduct. Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of either ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion."
Certain actions do indeed seem genetic. The love for our babies, for example, seems to be quite hard-wired. Even many reptiles show this quality.
"Darwinian deception"? What do you mean? All the legitimate evidence supports Darwin. I'd love to hear your objections.
DF
"Darwinian deception"? What do you mean? All the legitimate evidence supports Darwin. I'd love to hear your objections.
DF
DF:
I have been thinking this over for hours. Darwin got it backwards. Natural selection does not pick the winner, it leaves behind the last choice. It would be more of natural elimination. My mind has been going over and over this.
The speckled moth example. We're taught natural selection 'chooses' the white moth. Wrong. The black moths are eliminated by predators until the only thing left is the white one. It was not chosen, it was left. It is not the best or strongest or more cunning, it simply was the last one left. It also fits with fossils. The fundies claim that no intermediates means no evolution, but what we are finding are the losers, the ones that did not make it. The lines are broken because as each fell away, a different type was left. Its not survival of the fittest, its the last one standing. I can't believe I never looked at it from that point of view. I must go think some more.
I have been thinking this over for hours. Darwin got it backwards. Natural selection does not pick the winner, it leaves behind the last choice. It would be more of natural elimination. My mind has been going over and over this.
The speckled moth example. We're taught natural selection 'chooses' the white moth. Wrong. The black moths are eliminated by predators until the only thing left is the white one. It was not chosen, it was left. It is not the best or strongest or more cunning, it simply was the last one left. It also fits with fossils. The fundies claim that no intermediates means no evolution, but what we are finding are the losers, the ones that did not make it. The lines are broken because as each fell away, a different type was left. Its not survival of the fittest, its the last one standing. I can't believe I never looked at it from that point of view. I must go think some more.
So,your theory could be right, LMM. The Lord will take the Christians and the atheists
will be LEFT BEHIND.
Interesting.
will be LEFT BEHIND.
Interesting.
My dear L,
You are on to it. Your understanding of evolution is just fine.
Those species who fit their environments succeed. It is not a matter of which trait is "better", but which is more appropriate.
Is a dark moth "better" than a pale one? Or is one more suitable for a given environment?
Congratulations, you get it.
DF
You are on to it. Your understanding of evolution is just fine.
Those species who fit their environments succeed. It is not a matter of which trait is "better", but which is more appropriate.
Is a dark moth "better" than a pale one? Or is one more suitable for a given environment?
Congratulations, you get it.
DF
The problem is DF, that I thought I 'got it' 30 years ago. I repeated the mantras but never got the meaning.
As for the hard wired nature to love our children, not so much. We read too many stories of abuse. I think that one is more nurture and not nature.
As for the hard wired nature to love our children, not so much. We read too many stories of abuse. I think that one is more nurture and not nature.
My dear L,
The "meaning" of evolution is that the more appropriate adaptations succeed. This has led to us. Not bad, eh? Imperfect, but not bad.
As for child abuse, it's horrible in its every example, but it makes the news like plane crashes-- the exception, not the rule.
OK, I could be wrong. There is the indoctrination of innocent children into religion and other dogmas. That is pretty normal.
Best,
DF
The "meaning" of evolution is that the more appropriate adaptations succeed. This has led to us. Not bad, eh? Imperfect, but not bad.
As for child abuse, it's horrible in its every example, but it makes the news like plane crashes-- the exception, not the rule.
OK, I could be wrong. There is the indoctrination of innocent children into religion and other dogmas. That is pretty normal.
Best,
DF
quote:OK, I could be wrong. There is the indoctrination of innocent children into religion and other dogmas. That is pretty normal.
You could have left this off. Somehow you picture reading the Bible and going to church as torture. I can not see it that way. My kids have never attended a church on a regular basis (HORRORS) and I have never made them choose one or the other. They decided on their own.
L,
I could have left it off, but that would be less informative.
I'm glad to hear you let your children decide on their own. Very brave and innovative of you, I mean it. I hope you are influential in the Shoals regarding child rearing. Seriously.
Independence is all I ask.
DF
I could have left it off, but that would be less informative.
I'm glad to hear you let your children decide on their own. Very brave and innovative of you, I mean it. I hope you are influential in the Shoals regarding child rearing. Seriously.
Independence is all I ask.
DF
quote:I know what I know, but there is an awful lot I don't know. Also, the more that I learn, the more apparent how much I don't know becomes.
Amen.
Contemplating this whole stupid Large Hadron Collider thing has forced me into a rabbit hole. They have barely powered the thing on yet and I'm already blown away by the discoveries they will make. What we know about reality is breathtakingly nothing compared to what we don't know.
It is sad, so very heartbreakingly sad, that so may people will not be able to appreciate the new ideas that are about to be thrust upon our race.
And what we don't discover is almost as mind blowing as what we think we will.
. . . Okay, I must not post while under influence of bottles of Merlot. I will read this tomorrow and wonder who wrote it.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
L,
I could have left it off, but that would be less informative.
I'm glad to hear you let your children decide on their own. Very brave and innovative of you, I mean it. I hope you are influential in the Shoals regarding child rearing. Seriously.
Independence is all I ask.
DF
I home schooled remember? Most of the remarks I received on this forum were everything from 'ignorant lazy b88ch' to 'child abuse'. I am very independent. I am also very stubborn, especially when I'm right, (and I am always right!)
Nothing scandalous about this:
Send A Dollar To DeepFat.
DF
Send A Dollar To DeepFat.
DF