The ridiculous conflict

Evilpoet,

And in the case of whatsup where the infection is so complete, I suspect that he did not have an immune system from the beginning or it was extremely weak. I.e. near zero ability at critical thinking.

The real question is how to treat such an extreme case. Logic and reason do not work because his ability to accept such a treatment is absent or very minimal. Anything more advanced like a paradox (e.g. omniscience vs free will) is an utter waste of time since it is entirely beyond his comprehension.

The best hope lies in very small simplistic remedies that he can understand. The downside is that such a tactic will require many many doses and consistent and extreme patience, and of course lots of time.
 
Whatsup,

Please define stupidity as it applies to Richard Dawkins. Some of his history, qualifications, and achievements are listed below.

Are you qualified to judge someone like this? I would accept such judgment if you can show at least equal achievements and qualifications or greater. Just what are your qualifications for judging someone as stupid?

Richard Dawkins.

Full biography - http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Biography/bio.htm

Qualifications

* Studied at Oxford University and graduated in 1962.
* Remained at Oxford to work for his doctorate with ethologist Niko Tinbergen.
* Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley 1967-1969.
* Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College from 1970.
* Published his first book, The Selfish Gene in 1976.
* Holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science 1995.
* Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997.

Books

* The Selfish Gene (1976; second edition, 1989), became an immediate international bestseller.
* The Blind Watchmaker, was translated into all the major languages.
* The Extended Phenotype, followed in 1982.

His other bestsellers include –

* River Out of Eden (1995).
* Climbing Mount Improbable (1996).
* Unweaving the Rainbow (1998).

Awards and Accomplishments.

Richard Dawkins won both the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times Literary Prize in 1987 for The Blind Watchmaker. The television film of the book, shown in the 'Horizon' series, won the Sci-Tech Prize for the Best Science Programme of 1987. He has also won the 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science. In 1994 he won the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and in 1995 was awarded an Honorary D.Litt. by the University of St Andrews. Humanist of the Year Award 1996. Since 1996 has been Vice President of the British Humanist Association. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997. Winner of the 1997 (Fifth) International Cosmos Prize in Commemoration of Expo' 90.
 
Cris,

"And in the case of whatsup where the infection is so complete, I suspect that he did not have an immune system from the beginning or it was extremely weak. I.e. near zero ability at critical thinking."

You are not born with the ability to think critically, it is a learned ability that must be taught. If the primary caregiver has no critical thinking skills it stands to reason that none will get passed on. Allow me to quote Dawkins again, "The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

"The real question is how to treat such an extreme case. Logic and reason do not work because his ability to accept such a treatment is absent or very minimal. Anything more advanced like a paradox (e.g. omniscience vs free will) is an utter waste of time since it is entirely beyond his comprehension."

I got really, really tired of debating the same points over and over again ad nauseam. Which is why I finally decided to drop out of any sort of religious debate (as I stated in an earlier post). For me, it isn't worth the time or effort it takes and in the long run nothing gets accomplished. Each person must follow his/her own path even if that path is a path of willful ignorance.

"The best hope lies in very small simplistic remedies that he can understand. The downside is that such a tactic will require many many doses and consistent and extreme patience, and of course lots of time."

Allow me to quote myself:

"It occurs to me that fundamentalists, any of them, are a lot like dental plaque. It builds over time and gets out of hand if you let it go without being checked. It's a bitch getting it removed. You have to chip away and knock off all the icky stuff before you get to the clean stuff underneath. The longer it goes the ickier it gets and so on. Why spend more time in the 'dental chair' then is necessary? As the old saying goes - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
 
The real stronghold of religion is in it's huge base support and it's established hold on society. Religion is hereditary. It is passed down from the parents. The word "religion" seems to be used synonymously with "race". People assume that religion must be right because we all put so much faith in humankind. Our logic:
"We are civilized and extremely intelligent creatures. Religion must be worthy of it's long life. There must be a REASON why it's still practiced by most of the world. It MUST be true." This logic is established as a logical, yet usually subconcious, base for belief. Think about it. What if religion was only 1% of what it is now. What if it was confined only to a handful of undeveloped nations. Lets say that whatsupyall came to learn about religion on the internet when researching countries in Africa for a school project. Do you really think he would believe it as obvious truth? No, he would laugh it off as nonsense. Or let's say that he decided to research this subject of religion even further to learn everything thing that he knows about it now. Would he now consider it as a possible truth? Probably not.
 
Check this yo:

Assumption:

It is inherent to the condition of consciousness to eventually come to the question "Why do I exist?".

Second assumption:

This question must eventually be answered or properly abated in a way that satisfies the "conceptual matrix" (so to speak, kind of "the organization of an individuals thoughts and how they relate to each other", implying an inherently subjective "geometry" to thought) of the individual. If it is not answered, the answer must be sought.

Implications:

The very first humans had to have stumbled across this quandry. I would imagine given the social nature of us, and our ability to communicate though language was probably minimal, that this was discussed or grunted about or whatever.

Consider the context in which the first humans found themselves. Literally nothing. They had to make stuff up as they went along to explain the environment around them. They also had to make stuff up to descibe the environment within them. Likely, the smartest or most shamen-like of the group supplied the neccessary rethoric for the group. "hey, what's all this green stuff on the ground?"... "it's grass"... "how did it get there?" ... "uh, hmmmmmm.... the grass god grew it". This answer could be anything that fit withing the context they'd established at the time. Once this heirarchy of explanations is in place it is as matnay said, passed from generation to generation.

Every generation stumbles upon large implications that shatter the current model though. It would then stand that the logical transgression of the "grass god" would be to the "plant god". If you take the concept of using magical people in the sky to it's limit, you end up with one god, all-powerfull. Hence christianity, muslims, blah blah.

Conclusion:

Not only is christianity a meme, but it is a meme that has adapted itself throughout the history of consciousness to always be the "best explanation at the time". It is still in circulation due to cultural lag (the passing down from generation to generation through family and friends) and the appeal of the easy answer. I would hold that there would be a bell curve as to the level of need to the answer to the question "why do I exist". Those who are on the high end of the bell curve are likely more tempted than others to grasp onto any explanation that they can cram into their "conceptual matrix" as described before.

I realize that is somewhat of a halfassed attempt at an essay, but really it was first draft off the top of my head and christ, there are only so many hours in the day. I hope you catch the drift, I'll be happy to clarify.
 
wes,

Ok I’ll buy that. But the reason the early people invented gods is because they didn’t have any better explanations, i.e. no scientific data.

If you take the concept of using magical people in the sky to it's limit, you end up with one god, all-powerfull.
Click to expand...
Or if you take the fact of no scientific data to actual facts then the projection is not to 1 but to zero.

But that might just be me being hopeful.
 
Was it just no scientific data, Cris, or also no methodology to take what data they could get and formulate some rational explanation, ie, the scientific method?
 
Originally posted by Cris
wes,

Ok I’ll buy that. But the reason the early people invented gods is because they didn’t have any better explanations, i.e. no scientific data.
Click to expand...

Indeed, science had not yet been concieved... so yeah, definate lack of related data.
Originally posted by Cris

Or if you take the fact of no scientific data to actual facts then the projection is not to 1 but to zero.
Click to expand...

You mean zero invisible sky people? Why Cris, isn't it obvious by now the the invisible sky guy is mad as hell and gunning for you? *giggle* Sorry, kidding obviously. Well, I was referring to the natural evolution of a multiple god type of theistic perspective (regardless of the details). This implicitely converges to one, regardless of scientific data, which is obviously the problem.

It's just so freakin primitive. It really blows me away that people can't see that it's pretty retarded. I do therefore assume there is some capatolistic/evolutionary reason for theism. It was a substitute for context until well, this last century. Well, obviously it still is for some, but it's retarded to cling to primitive gods. Cultural lag and the meme thing are why it is still around.

I guess lack of quality education is another large factor. Sure the context is there now for the most part, but if you aren't smart enough or trained to see it, you'll probably sucker for some theists mind warp.

I just think that's tragic. I'm a little too emotionally involved there though, I know. I shouldn't let it bother me. It could be that religion is a good thing if you aren't equiped to contemplate philosophy on a meaningful level, but it just doesn't seem that way to me. :)
Originally posted by Cris

But that might just be me being hopeful.
Click to expand...

Hehe, well, there is nothing saying god doesn't exist. You'd never say that, but the existence of the typical god definition is certainly pretty damned unlikely. To the point of ludicrous in my opinion.

On a related note: I had a realization similar to my "Check this yo: " post... regarding the bible. Apply the available context to the invididuals writing the respective pieces of the bible and shazaam. The whole thing makes a lot of sense. For instance, the tower of bable. Imagine being a jewish scribe living amongst your peers for your whole life, then one day your are captured or out on a long walk you run across the city of babylon. It is multicultural, consisting of crazy shit you've never seen and people speaking in tongues. Your religion states whatever it states, you see things that violate those statements, you might draw the the conclusion that god smote those people with language retardation for not doing what he said because that is the extenct of your context at the time.

Eh, just a line of thinking. Really probably nothing new, I don't know, I just thought about it for a really really long time, learned a bunch of stuff (like an anthropological approach to history) and this is the kind of shit that spews forth from my head. Honestly I like to believe I'm quite insightfull, but I've learned from experience that I'm always really "pretty insightfull" but a little less that I like to think I am. :)
 
Originally posted by EvilPoet

For me, it isn't worth the time or effort it takes and in the long run nothing gets accomplished. Each person must follow his/her own path even if that path is a path of willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Its not that nothing is accmplished, things are accomplished, and that is the revelation of atheism's stupidity..
HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH A GUY WHO THINKS NATURE ISNT ORDER BUT PURE CHAOS, TO KNOW MEANS TO CONTROL, AND WILL ONLY BELIEVE IN GOD IF WE EXPERIMENTED HIM AS WE DO TO MONKEYS, PUT ALL SORTS OF WIRES ON HIS HEAD, AN SEE IF HE CAN DETECT COLOR...
HOW CAN YOU EVER ARGUE WITH SOMEONE THAT STUPID? TO DEBATE WITH BRAINWASHED ATHEISTS INDEED TAKES YOU NOWHERE...A FACT...


Note: U have all sorts of theories and opinions. But when the time will come, all the faith that you have earned throughout the years will fall and crash into pieces...
 
After reading about the Christianity meme, all the complaining, preaching, and warning of damnation finally makes some sense. Simple survival tactics.

Wes: your theory of the Towel of Babel origin sounds plausable to me. I'm convinced that many events of the OT and other ancient documents are the remnants of various culture memories passed down and finally recorded.

The constant argument of creationists about the Flood is that so many other cultures have similar recording, so it must have happened...they may be right, behind every myth is a bit of truth. The latest thing I read (some book at the library) was a theory on the pre-Mediterranean area being below sealevel, until the Gibraltor area gave way to rising ocean levels, creating gigantic falls which eroded into a massive flood. An event like that would be overwhelming to the survivors.
 
Last edited:
Whatsupyall:

<i>HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH A GUY WHO THINKS NATURE ISNT ORDER BUT PURE CHAOS...</i>

Perhaps you are referring to evolution here, in which case you are much mistaken.

Believers in evolution do not think that nature is chaotic. All the order of nature doesn't go away when you accept evolution. It's all still there, plain to see. The only difference between the naturalistic view and a fundamentalist religious view is the believed <b>source</b> of the observed order in nature. Obviously, a believer in evolution says that order arises from purely natural processes (as described by the theory), whilst religious fundamentalists insist that order can only come from God.

The scientific evidence, of course, is all on the side of the evolutionists.
 
Has anyone ever considered the following: Order only exists in the universe through the human mind. Do you see what I'm saying? Order is only achieved through perception, the mind observes it's surroundings and organizes the data. Therefore it is the mind that provides the order, for order cannot exist until it is concieved. Does it not then stand that universe has an order that WE provide it through our perceptions and thoughts? Does a dog live in an ordered universe? To you yes, but what about to the dog? I bet the order of his universe is pretty simple. Eh, just putzing around. I shut my hole now. Pardon for the rant.
 
Jaxom,

Yup, the absence of a formal methodology is probably far more important than the data itself.

Today if data is missing then we agree that we cannot reach a proved conclusion, whereas the religionists insist on a conclusion whatever the evidence.
 
wes,

Order only exists in the universe through the human mind.
Click to expand...
Nah, order remains intact regardless of whether it is observed or not.

There are some nice proofs for this as well.
 
wes,

On the conclusion of zero gods I was imagining a graph plotting the trend of the number of gods over time. We started with a god for everything and then this was gradually reduced to one. If you now fit a trend line showing the future then you eventually reach zero.
 
Jenyar,

How does something that is made up out of so many elements that, when combined, fill in the circle of truth so efficiently that it seems exactly like the truth, while it is in fact only a reconstruction of it?
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on memetics yet but I’ll take a stab at these questions.

Firstly, for those infected, there is no circle of truth and there can be no comparison with any alleged truth; there is only the meme. The meme operates like a biological virus and spreads from person to person, and to a large extent just like biological viruses, it will mutate and adapt. Those who are immune can see the effects of the meme and the meme itself and can see it for what it is, but those who are infected do not know they are infected with the result that to them the meme is truth.

I’ll come back to your other questions later.
 
Originally posted by Cris
wes,

Nah, order remains intact regardless of whether it is observed or not.

There are some nice proofs for this as well.
Click to expand...

yeah, I agree that it is intact, but the fact remains it is completely meaningless until percieved. The act of perception literally assignes the meaning. The essence of order can only exist in the human mind, even though the order iteself exists externally. Maybe I'm mincing words.
 
Originally posted by Cris
wes,

On the conclusion of zero gods I was imagining a graph plotting the trend of the number of gods over time. We started with a god for everything and then this was gradually reduced to one. If you now fit a trend line showing the future then you eventually reach zero.
Click to expand...

That's basically what I was assuming, sans trend line. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean.
 
Those who are immune can see the effects of the meme and the meme itself and can see it for what it is, but those who are infected do not know they are infected with the result that to them the meme is truth
Click to expand...

This theory hold the same attraction you contribute to religion. Only the ones who can see the truth knows the truth, and those what can't see it don't know it. Airtight....

If the sign of infection means that you don't know it, how do you know that you are not just a more recent infection? After all, belief in God is far older than belief in epistemology. Maybe the people who are certain God exists have developed a resistance to the meme that reason explains everything. A meme, I might add, that developes from reinforced belief just like any other belief. The memetic solution is one that begs for a question.

If you know something that gives you an answer every time - call it your oracle - you will either start believing in the answerability of your questions, or in the vast knowledge of the oracle. How do you know what is true and what isn't? If you have to be elevated above the truth in order to see it, then memetics fares no better than any other system of belief.
 
Jen,

Good questions I think.

I could answer you from the perspective of a traditional atheist but I’m not quite comfortable viewing this as a memetic issue for the moment.

I see several issues –

How to recognize a meme.
How to decide whether a meme is helpful, benign or malignant.
How to recognize if someone is infected or not.
How to recognize if one is personally infected.
How to validate such suspicions.

I find the memetic concept very attractive but it does require a different mindset to the more traditional approaches. I need to study this further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top