The Purpose of Purpose - Richard Dawkins

[Deicide]

It almost makes up for my horrible genetics........almost (sigh)

I did some cardio at home after the gym today and now i feel kinda sick. Indoor cardio = gay.

Yup...

[Nordic Superman]

The real irony here is that Deicide will readily advocate for and willingly place one of those repersentatives in power who do not believe in evolution, believes in putting prayer in public schools, does not value or really support the wall of separation between church and state and also beleives in teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in public schools whilst getting rid of NASA, NIH, CDC, USDA, etc...and any other science based government based entity.  That religious zealots name is Ron Paul.

Oh the irony is so thick you`d think he is totally misguided.

Richard Dawkins would not approve of Deicides love affair with Ron Paul, nor do I.

Ron Poop is poop.

Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?

[Deicide]

Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?

[polychronopolous]

Doesn't Obama believe in God? Does he, or would he be man enough to say he believes in evolution via means of natural selection?

Sadly in the United States you must lie about your religious beliefs to be elected to Congress or the Senate.

I believe we have something like 1 confirmed atheist out of 435 members Congress and 100 members in the Senate.

[Nordic Superman]

Sadly in the United States you must lie about your religious beliefs to be elected to Congress or the Senate.

I believe we have something like 1 confirmed atheist out of 435 members Congress and 100 members in the Senate.

Yeah, what I was trying to get across was Adonis's hypocrisy.

[Necrosis]

this is not really true.......athiests like to discredit and humiliate people who believe in god and question the dawkins/darwin paradigm of evolutionary thought...........they say say "these people dont believe in evolution........its been proven look at all the evidence".............when in fact this should be qualified..........some choose not to, based on alot of of evidence, and missing evidence....tons of it.......accept that all varied forms of modern life on earth is drawn from one single, single celled creature which itself just appeared out of entropy and total nothing ness......that life was produced from non-life.  and mind you, the dawkins crowd has absolutely no idea how this happened, not even a working hypothesis.....they just take random guesses when pressed.  no one, except a few on the fringes are arguing that species  do not adapt and change (evolve) over time.

and this is the conflict in the definition of evolution............if you are saying that species over time, adapt to their enviornments, and change based on requirements........ever yone accepts that.............but what they mean is that every form of life came from a single celled creature, which itself came from nothing............so when they say that ID proponents dont believe in evolution.........what they are talking about is their specific brand of evolution

not long ago, maybe it was the movie expelled, which in light of some argumentative fallacies, is a pretty good movie, someone said .............the chance that all modern life on earth is sprung from total disorder, chance, and non-existance............is like a tornado going through a junkyard full of old airplane scraps......an leavign in its wake a brand new, fully functional  boeing 747.

just like ancient earth......of course tidal pool and volcanos were able to thrash some chemicals around...... but that is not a way to create a functional cell........... if 25 years ago we thought that a cell was like a cadillac, today we consider it a fighter jet..........scients still stymied by the milllions of functions it is able to perform and regulate..........its like a supersomputer

remember our universe seeks entropy, things move towards disorder, youu need conciousness and energy to produce extropy from total entropy

you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.

evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.

the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within?  the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.

[Sir Humphrey]

Let's keep this thread bodybuilding related.

[Saxon]

I don't get the Dawkin's nuthuggers.  It isn't as if he has anything original to say on religion and he is a philosophical peasant.  At least Christopher Hitchens is slightly amusing despite being a trotskyite muppet. 

[polychronopolous]

I don't get the Dawkin's nuthuggers.  It isn't as if he has anything original to say on religion and he is a philosophical peasant.  At least Christopher Hitchens is slightly amusing despite being a trotskyite muppet. 

Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you wouldn't throw around such slanderously false accusations?

Show me evidence that Hitchens is currently a Trotskyite.


I, on the other hand, can show you documented corroboration to the contrary.

Here is an excerpt from an interview Hitchens granted to Rhys Southan in the November 2001 issue of Reason Magazine






Free Radical
Journalist Christopher Hitchens explains why he's no longer a socialist, why moral authoritarianism is on the rise, and what's wrong with anti-globalization protestors.


REASON: So, do you still consider yourself a socialist?

Hitchens: Brian Lamb of C-SPAN has been interviewing me on and off for about 20 years, since I’d first gone to Washington, which is roughly when his own Washington Journal program began. As the years went by, he formed the habit of starting every time by saying: "You haven’t been on the show for a bit. Tell me, are you still a socialist?" And I would always say, "Yes, I am." I knew that he hoped that one day I would say, "No, you know what, Brian, I’ve seen the light, I’ve seen the error of my ways." And I knew that I didn’t want to give him this satisfaction, even if I’d had a complete conversion experience.

The funny thing is that, recently, he stopped asking me. I don’t know why. And just about at that point, I had decided that however I would have phrased the answer -- I didn’t want to phrase it as someone repudiating his old friends or denouncing his old associations -- I no longer would have positively replied, "I am a socialist."

I don’t like to deny it. But it simply ceased to come up, as a matter of fact. And in my own life there’s a reason for that.

There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism -- certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement. There just is not and one has to face the fact, and it seems to me further that it’s very unlikely, though not impossible, that it will again be the case in the future. Though I don’t think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved.

[grab an umbrella]

Quite a few misguided attempts at discrediting method, so lets get started.

If by macroevolution, you are more directly referring to cladogenesis, then thats fine.  But the layman considers macroevolution to be large scale broad evolution.

Second, a lot of scientists argue that cladogenesis isn't due to "survival of the fittest", but more to do with genetics.  Do a little research about genetics, its fantastically complicated, and we as humans have only scratched the surface.  Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation.

Using the logic that since the courts have proven ID to be religious than it must be, is weak at best.  Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it correct or fair.  Remember slavery?

For now I will leave it at that, as I'm sure you don't want to have an in depth discussion about entropy on the interweb.

you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.

evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.

the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within?  the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.

[Necrosis]

Quite a few misguided attempts at discrediting method, so lets get started.

If by macroevolution, you are more directly referring to cladogenesis, then thats fine.  But the layman considers macroevolution to be large scale broad evolution.

Second, a lot of scientists argue that cladogenesis isn't due to "survival of the fittest", but more to do with genetics.  Do a little research about genetics, its fantastically complicated, and we as humans have only scratched the surface.  Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation.

Using the logic that since the courts have proven ID to be religious than it must be, is weak at best.  Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it correct or fair.  Remember slavery?

For now I will leave it at that, as I'm sure you don't want to have an in depth discussion about entropy on the interweb.

\


when you postulate an intelligent designer you lose all credability. What you say about the courts is fallcious, the best evidence was presented to people who are not involved in the dispute and they, on both occasions, deemed ID is religion. In fact one of the exhibits was an old text with the words rearranged, how embarrassing.

there really is no distinction between the two, if we use laymens terms i am referring to change at the level of a species, such that they can no longer procreate.

Once you say points to an intelligent designer you have to say why something needs a designer, simple analogies like a watch wont do here. How it creates,why,when etc... you are adding complexity to the situation by envoking a creator, something outside the system. It is what meatbags do when the shit gets to complex, lets just say god did it.

"Everything in the genetic code points towards some sort of intelligent creation."

what kind of pseudoscientific bullshit is this? like what?

[dknole]

Looks interesting.

I am currently going through my second go around with The God Delusion.

Dawkins is an excellent writer and orator.

have you read "god is not great"?

[MethodGNA]

you are a mental midget. nice fuckup on entropy at the end to.

evolution is a proven fact, macroevolution has been witnessed. All fields of science point towards it. You see complexity as needing design, yet fail to infer that a creator would be even more complex begging that it to be designed. Your argument initiates an infinite regress and has no axioms whatsoever. God is a failed hypothesis my friend, logic dictates that he cannot have the attributes we ascribe.

the 747 comment is out of context and is not a proper analogy. Expelled my friend is propaganda full of liars. Would you like me to demonstrate the lies found within?  the people for ID are liars. ID has been proven in court, twice, to be nothing more then religion. The proponents of ID would not stand trial.

you seem like a very hateful parson, very characteristic of the zeitgeist your defending............the ultimate "humanists" in my experience have been the most idealogically entranched and interpersonally detatched.  first of all, i never said that 'Expelled'  was the be-all-end-all of the argument, i merely pointed out that it had some very cogent points which shook the dawkins paradigm to the core.  

as previously stated by me, "evolution" is proven fact..........but the whole non-life-->life-->single cell-->>modern complex multicellular organism  threory is not just frought with some loose-ends...........its entirely unproven and unevidenced........to buy this hook, line and sinker takes almost the blind leap of faith it would take to believe in a creator.

im just a dumb muscle head who comes here to talk about oiled musclemen in thongs, you can probably run circles around when it comes to talking about biochemistry and evolutionary theory........but in the end, all people like you are the same............as intellectually closeminded and hateful as the misguided faith you portend to be fighting..........you are an exquisitely empty individual, and you must loath the possibility that there may just be a creator, and that someday you may be taken to task for your actions during your stay here.

your argument ; that you, and dawkins, KNOW, that our universe is compleatly indifferent and that you are Positive there is no creator is laughable.............no ne of us really know anything, and for you to say that you know there is no god, means that you are saying that you areas smart as a god............because like i said, maybe there is no god, maybe we are here becasue we were seeded by aliens, or maybe we are like one big ant farm for some being in another dimension............... ..but you keep thinking that you have all the answers, it makes you sound very smart on message boards

[Necrosis]

you seem like a very hateful parson, very characteristic of the zeitgeist your defending............the ultimate "humanists" in my experience have been the most idealogically entranched and interpersonally detatched.  first of all, i never said that 'Expelled'  was the be-all-end-all of the argument, i merely pointed out that it had some very cogent points which shook the dawkins paradigm to the core.  

as previously stated by me, "evolution" is proven fact..........but the whole non-life-->life-->single cell-->>modern complex multicellular organism  threory is not just frought with some loose-ends...........its entirely unproven and unevidenced........to buy this hook, line and sinker takes almost the blind leap of faith it would take to believe in a creator.

im just a dumb muscle head who comes here to talk about oiled musclemen in thongs, you can probably run circles around when it comes to talking about biochemistry and evolutionary theory........but in the end, all people like you are the same............as intellectually closeminded and hateful as the misguided faith you portend to be fighting..........you are an exquisitely empty individual, and you must loath the possibility that there may just be a creator, and that someday you may be taken to task for your actions during your stay here.

your argument ; that you, and dawkins, KNOW, that our universe is compleatly indifferent and that you are Positive there is no creator is laughable.............no ne of us really know anything, and for you to say that you know there is no god, means that you are saying that you areas smart as a god............because like i said, maybe there is no god, maybe we are here becasue we were seeded by aliens, or maybe we are like one big ant farm for some being in another dimension............... ..but you keep thinking that you have all the answers, it makes you sound very smart on message boards

well the fact that you same non-life-->life blah blah and are talking about evolution shows me you know nothing about science. Totally seperate fields, to be frank, im sick of idiots attacking evolution who havent read a single peer reviewed article on it.

Show me one argument ben stein presented that was decent? please...

he is a proven liar, the documentary is complete shit, wrought with lies, complete bullshit from half the interviewees

[MethodGNA]

yeah, more peer-reviewed journal articles ............i'll get right on that when im  done with the LSATs.  haha, you win, there is no god..........have a good day, and enjoy your meaningless existance.

[The Jayhawker]

Growing up in Kansas I have heard and read plenty about the Intelligent Design debate. While it can be argued about who the designer is, the original argument was that a Christian GOD created man and the Earth and so on. People on the Kansas Board of Education that voted for the teaching of ID expressed specifically that they believe that their Christian God created man and it should be taught in school as a possibility of existence. The debate has morphed into saying that the creator could be something other than a God but there is still a creator. This is avoid the original arguement because the bible has many flaws and contradictions that can easily be rebuffed through debate. Such as Noah holding ever creature on Earth in his Ark.

But even if Intellegent Design were true then how did the creator(s) become to exist? If a super intelligent alien race created the humans on Earth, then who created the alien race and so on?

I am on par with Dawkins belief scale and place myself at a 6 out of 7. I can't say I believe 100% there is no God because that would be as stubborn and ignorant as those that say without question there is one.

[Necrosis]

yeah, more peer-reviewed journal articles ............i'll get right on that when im  done with the LSATs.  haha, you win, there is no god..........have a good day, and enjoy your meaningless existance.

nice avoiding any actual arguments, wouldnt want to actually read science. If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around. A finite amount of time means our lives have meaning, living forever, robs us of purpose.

[MethodGNA]

nice avoiding any actual arguments, wouldnt want to actually read science. If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around. A finite amount of time means our lives have meaning, living forever, robs us of purpose.

avoiding actual agruments......i have been arguing for 4 pages with people like you.......all of your premises are either flawed or purely speculative.........like when you say "If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around" .........how the fuck would you know that, how could anyone polssbly know that unless they themself are a god............i not here to change anyones mind, and i didnt set out to.  we have traded some barbs, but i hope everybody finds their own way to internal peace and self-fulfillment in life.

and remember everyone.......all that truely matters is this:                                                                                           

[Necrosis]

avoiding actual agruments......i have been arguing for 4 pages with people like you.......all of your premises are either flawed or purely speculative.........like when you say "If god exists and our lives are truly eternal then life is meaningless, not the other way around" .........how the fuck would you know that, how could anyone polssbly know that unless they themself are a god............i not here to change anyones mind, and i didnt set out to.  we have traded some barbs, but i hope everybody finds their own way to internal peace and self-fulfillment in life.

and remember everyone.......all that truely matters is this:                                                                                           

well most people equate god with an afterlife, jesus with living an eternity in heaven, its not to far fetched. I like how you tell me im being speculative as you cherry pick my response for something so off center. Meanwhile, all you have done is speculate and challenge established science with nothing more then, its to complex someone did it.

[Vince B]

When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.

The intelligent design crusade is lame. Complexity can evolve. The process is a physical one. There is no direction in evolution. It may appear that species adapt to environments but that is not how evolution works. Simply, the individuals who survive are the ones who have advantages in their environment.

The human genome was described in 2001. What puzzled scientists was why the vast majority of the 3 billion genes are not needed to replicate an individual. Well over 90% of those genes do not serve any known purpose. Clearly if all life was designed by an intelligent agent then why all this rubbish? That can't be intelligent.

When scientists understand more about genetics they can and will improve the human genome. We will accept it when genetic diseases can be controlled and even avoided. Will scientists then become God? I think not, but the future is going to be very interesting. Who knows what humans will eventually become.

It amuses me the way some individuals keep creating new ways to use language. Where is this higher 'intellectual plain' someone was arguing about? What kind of plane is that?

[grab an umbrella]

Basile, pretty weak argument regarding us not knowing what 90% of our DNA does.  Hell we cant even cure the common cold, the human genome was decoded less than fifty years ago, we haven't been to another planet, etc.  Scientists tend to think they know it all and work off of unproven "theories" to build other theories.  I imagine in 50 years we will look back and laugh at how stupid our science was.

When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.

The intelligent design crusade is lame. Complexity can evolve. The process is a physical one. There is no direction in evolution. It may appear that species adapt to environments but that is not how evolution works. Simply, the individuals who survive are the ones who have advantages in their environment.

The human genome was described in 2001. What puzzled scientists was why the vast majority of the 3 billion genes are not needed to replicate an individual. Well over 90% of those genes do not serve any known purpose. Clearly if all life was designed by an intelligent agent then why all this rubbish? That can't be intelligent.

When scientists understand more about genetics they can and will improve the human genome. We will accept it when genetic diseases can be controlled and even avoided. Will scientists then become God? I think not, but the future is going to be very interesting. Who knows what humans will eventually become.

It amuses me the way some individuals keep creating new ways to use language. Where is this higher 'intellectual plain' someone was arguing about? What kind of plane is that?

[Vince B]

Over 90% of our genes are rubbish. How does anyone explain that in the intelligent design debate? I design and build gym equipment. You have to get it precise to make it work. Well, what kind of intelligence is in the design of the human genome? If most of the genes are rubbish there is no design. The rubbish was passed on through countless generations but only a few genes have information needed to replicate another human. Perhaps less than 40,000 out of 3,000,000,000 are active ones. What about the vast majority of those other genes? What kind of design is this? Answer: no design at all.

Those who think clearly accept the evidence and go from there. Those with an agenda keep dodging and retain their beliefs. The whole of science supports evolution. There is no support for ID that I could find. Only the zealots from the bunkers of organized religion.

[io856]

When it comes to religion and other belief systems, such as bodybuilding, people cling to pet beliefs. What a pity that believing something doesn't make it true.

I 100% agree... you can tell people in the gym how you trained to achieve to your muscular size which they sooo wanted to know... but they are still referring to what they heard... i.e. thats overtraining or thats too often... etc.

Well then why ask? ...you saw the results in the first instance?

if some people ran their business accounts like they did their bodybuilding efforts... oh my...

[Vince B]

In science if your theory is false you either have to try to find more evidence to support yours or you abandon it. I am prepared to abandon my belief in evolution if evidence finds otherwise. Are the religious people ready to abandon their religions if proved false? Therein lies the issue. Those who believe in religions will not abandon their beliefs no matter what they find. They can always 'explain' everything through nonsense concepts such as God.

The sad thing is that we all have to live in societies forged by believers. In the USA there is still severe censorship re nudity, etc. In 2009? Those of us who went to university some half a century ago would not have believed that it would be possible for a modern country to sustain controls on the media. I guess anything is possible in a country where you can still elect local sheriffs! Why can't we watch the popular show Jerry Springer without censoring swearing and nudity? Darwin put a dent in religion but most persist and it is business as usual and plenty of new disciples appearing daily. Einstein was right when he said that the only unlimited thing in this vast universe was human ignorance.

[io856]

Einstein was right when he said that the only unlimited thing in this vast universe was human ignorance.

LOL!

haven't heard this one before...