tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post113747905116297702..comments2023-10-18T16:25:13.593+01:00Comments on Famous for 15 megapixels: The Root of all Evil pt2Stefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137806641346142122006-01-21T01:24:00.000+00:002006-01-21T01:24:00.000+00:00This might be worth wading through...http://www.ar...This might be worth wading through...<BR/><BR/>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htmStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137806006848058532006-01-21T01:13:00.000+00:002006-01-21T01:13:00.000+00:00So do I ;)I've got a bee up my arse about this sub...So do I ;)<BR/><BR/>I've got a bee up my arse about this subject because there is a sustained campaign in the media that's brainwashing people into thinking that the War on Terror (and all that flows from it) is all about religion when it patently is not<BR/><BR/>It's about money and power and hegemony and until we face up to that our societies will be committed to perpetual war.<BR/><BR/>Re. ID - if you fancy a laught check out this story from the Vatican Newspaper<BR/><BR/>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/18/the-vatican-newspaper-on-_n_14071.html<BR/><BR/><I>The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.<BR/><BR/>"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.</I>Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137805244520448892006-01-21T01:00:00.000+00:002006-01-21T01:00:00.000+00:00Stef,I mostly agree with the gist of your comments...Stef,<BR/><BR/>I mostly agree with the gist of your comments - i.e. religion is not the root of all evil, and Dawkins has a tendency to bigotry against religion.<BR/><BR/>In fairness to Dawkins though, the worst I've heard him propose is that religion does not deserve respect, and should be a conversation-stopper (I haven't seen the channel 4 programme though - very annoyed I missed it). I also believe his arguments are directed at faith generally more so than religion. Although you are right, and he goes beyond the data often, I can see where he's coming from. Myself, I believe the real common factor is not faith or religion, but absolutism - i.e. the complete conviction that one knows best. This is the lethal ingredient.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Dawkins falls in that category, though he's not far off it - he certainly believes he is right, but as far as I know he's not proposing to force anything down anyone's necks. He's not proposing to kill or jail anyone who disagrees. Whereas organised religion really does have such exhortations - burn witches, kill your children right after baptism and they will go to heaven - and from time to time they get acted on. But when was the last time you heard of a bunch of agnostics holed up somewhere and threatening to shoot their way out or burn the place down?<BR/><BR/>Interesting point re Catholics and condoms, though. I agree that the conclusion is hasty but I wouldn't bet on the negative correlation you go for. Like most right-wing morality, Catholic morality is mainly intended for others to follow and is not a matter of choice. In other words, the tendency where possible is to deny condoms to everyone and not just themselves (if even themselves).<BR/><BR/>Got to respond to those ID points you brought up too - I feel a post coming on... :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137649069864510472006-01-19T05:37:00.000+00:002006-01-19T05:37:00.000+00:00... Listen, sonny Jim. Sleeping like this will add...<I>... Listen, sonny Jim. Sleeping like this will add ten years to your life. I learned it from Keith Richards when I toured with the Stones. This may be the reason why Keith cannot be killed by conventional weapons.</I>Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137630386196608682006-01-19T00:26:00.000+00:002006-01-19T00:26:00.000+00:00PS I for one would never suggest that morality is ...PS I for one would never suggest that morality is impossible without religious belief<BR/><BR/>What I would suggest is that it would be possibly be very different indeed to what passes for mainstream morality today<BR/><BR/>PPS The insect and germs argument doesn't really apply as natural selection is all about selection within species not between them. Here's a Dawkins quote on the subject<BR/><BR/>'<I>Milton misunderstands the first thing about natural selection. He thinks the phrase refers to selection among species. In fact, modern Darwinians agree with Darwin himself that natural selection chooses among individuals within species. Such a fundamental misunderstanding would be bound to have far-reaching consequences; and they duly make nonsense of several sections of the book.'</I>Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137629750264132022006-01-19T00:15:00.000+00:002006-01-19T00:15:00.000+00:00FrankI think I implied that the argument was inval...Frank<BR/><BR/>I think I implied that the argument was invalid in my post.<BR/><BR/>And when it comes to Straw Men Dawkins is the master - which was one of the points I was trying to make<BR/><BR/>Essentially all I was doing was inverting Dawkin's own argument - selecting evidence that only supported my thesis and mumbling some subjective twaddle about fitness. <BR/><BR/>I personally have never bought into the notion of fitness anyway and would never use it in a serious argument. In Darwinian terms the definition of the fittest boils down to 'that which survives' which is pretty circular in my book<BR/><BR/>It is matter of record that societies that have abandoned religion have been amongst the most appalling stains on humanity over the last couple of centuries and Dawkins made no reference to them and their mistakes. Not a squeak. That is dishonest, not objective and unscientific<BR/><BR/>It is not smart of useful to pretend, as Dawkins does, that religion is the cause of the world's ills and that jacking it in would make the world a better place.<BR/><BR/>Is that to say that organised religion is anyway perfect? Absolutely not<BR/><BR/>All this anticipates another post that's brewing but a more straightforward response would be somehting like<BR/><BR/>'Just because organised religion is full of shit doesn't mean that Dawkins isn't full of shit as well. The two are not mutually exclusiveStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137628207922708832006-01-18T23:50:00.000+00:002006-01-18T23:50:00.000+00:00"A tad harsh? A tad one-sided?"No, just complete n..."A tad harsh? A tad one-sided?"<BR/><BR/>No, just complete nonsense because from the outset it is based on the strawman argument and false premise that fitter means better. If it does, then the likes of insects and germs are the true aryan master race. (As we all know, in the event of nuclear war the only ones left standing will be cockroaches and Keith Richards)<BR/><BR/>Also, the problem with the notion that morality requires mainstream religion, or that everyone is equal (in the fitness sense), is that pretty much everything about both notions is demonstrably false. <BR/><BR/>Morality <I>doesn't</I> require religion, people <I>aren't</I> equal (cf. "the blank slate"), and mainstream religion itself appears to be utter BS at best, and a scam at worst. <BR/><BR/>It is <I>not</I> a smart or useful idea to encourage people to believe that 'love thy neighbour' etc depends on things which they can easily find out for themselves simply aren't true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137611378028055902006-01-18T19:09:00.000+00:002006-01-18T19:09:00.000+00:00hmmm Dogma ...I like that film.Any piece of work t...hmmm Dogma ...<BR/><BR/>I like that film.<BR/><BR/>Any piece of work that features Selma Hayek and El Escremento, the Shit Demon is alright in my bookStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1137505844920408932006-01-17T13:50:00.000+00:002006-01-17T13:50:00.000+00:00They'd go with b), wouldn't they? Unless they're a...They'd go with b), wouldn't they? Unless they're aresholes.<BR/><BR/>I always read the long ones. :)Apprenticehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00856592023848792416noreply@blogger.com