The God Delusion.

[vanityinvirtue]

So I have been talking about this to a few people (ie, Cassidy, John, Steve, etc). So I thought I would share it with everyone. There has been a lot of controversy going on about this book by Richard Dawkins, one of my recent heros. For people who believe in god, this will probably shock and anger you and you will close your mind off to it. For

Comments

[spiderpirate]

Being as polite as possible.

Regardless of what one believes (for I'm not one to say "zomg magical poof! people!" either)... there's only ideas with evolution.

Jeff put it best:

I have come to realize over the years that, with great frequency, a single word is often invoked to refer to at least two separate things. This is especially so with the use of the word, "Science

[spiderpirate]

Even for a single species to make an evolutionary leap is nearly impossible. Two members of the same species will have to undergo exactly the same changes within the same generation within the same herd being one female and one male in order to pass that evolutionary change off to their offspring... which again would have to continue the same chain. I think people need to take some time to study the complexity of genetics to realize how much of a farce it is. Increasing the timespan for this to occur to "millions of years" greatly increases the odds against such changes happening within the same generation much less the same herd or the same change happening to mates of the species at the same time

[vanityinvirtue]

So you are saying that the theory of evolution, which is coo-berated but mountains of evidence is somehow a giant conspiracy theory? I find that rather unrealistic and hard to believe. maybe I am just choosing the lesser of two evils here. But do you think that religion is a far superior option to science?????? Religion which is backed up only by tradition, word of mouth, and ancient scribblings? Scientists have the scientific method. Which, yes, they do follow

[spiderpirate]

I never said religion was better.. but they do go hand in hand. YOu are VERY misinformed though about the theory of evolution and your "evidence". My recommendation is to actually LOOK into the observations... find it... THEN post it. I tell you now... you will find absolutely zero facts. I can then show you MANY reports, studies and links that will show how a lot of the experiments that were once THOUGHT to have been steps proving such a thing... failed... how when they revisited these so called theories with new information about the world.. they didn't hold up and they had to recall their belief

[which_rotation]

I think that Dawkins asked questions that a lot of people have and are and will continue to struggle with for the foreseeable future. There were quite a few ideas in the video that I'd like to address

[which_rotation]

if Dawkins begins with the gift of empathy as his primary "building block" of morality (aka: religion/defining values), and then commences to scale "Mt. Probable" one step at a time until he can look out over the inhabitants of the cities and mourn their (not his) depravity as if he were Jesus longing to gather Jerusalem under his wings, then isn't he erecting a tower of babel? can this be seen as an attempt to reach God? to conquer God? to be God? I realize that he probably intended to place these metaphors there, to mock all that he lumps into "religion" in a clever sort of spoof. however, I have to wonder what he's offering as a substitute for "all that" - if it's just "questioning" and "skepticism," a "healthy" non-chalance, then he's playing the fool, and that is childish, not childlike

[spiderpirate]

VERY well written.

Hello

[eye_yer_mind]

That Sam Harris/ Andrew Sullivan debate got better, in my opinion.

It starts here. It's related to this.

[relativedynamic]

I read some into this recently. I won't get into internet debate though, the only way they get anywhere is by taking it one piece of information at a time, as you do in conversation, not posting a book. That's a simple respect issue when trying to understand others points of view, one issue at a time until you get on the same playing field.

I will say that many of the ideas I find true, even if the evidence isn't overwhelming at this point. As many scientists will tell you, science for some is the attempt at understanding the universe around us, the debated 'god's creation'. As time goes on, we try to understand it better and better, and change our ideas. This is the main difference with religion, the effort and speed at which ideas are examined.

... Gotta go, but this conversation would be interesting in person. I'm not much for internet debates unless they are tried with the upmost effort towards both people understanding each other(which become exponentially more difficult with more than 2 internet debaters).

Ciao!