General Chat

Beverley - I forgot to mention - if some of the believers in an organised religion are barking up the wrong tree - does that condemn them to an afterlife of doom and gloom, or maybe no afterlife at all...? Hmmm. Difficult one indeed!

Better to believe in none then you can only be wrong once.

Yep, I agree with that Beverley. Although I question the figures. But it begs a further question - which one of the religions is the RIGHT one? Or are they all right? If so, how can that be? Is the religion of the Khoi san bushmen inferior to that religion of the catholic masses? Or is it superior? Or could it be that it's all a load of bunkum?

I'm going to have to have a lie down to ponder this one. Actually, no I don't. I know the answer already! It cam to me in a flash of divine inspiration.

RR - good point. The other possibility is, of course, that there is a malfuntion in my stupidly small and dyslexic laptop keyboard.

But within that 80%, some will believe that others are wrong, so IF the 20% who don't believe in a formal religion are wrong, not all of the 80% are going to be right...are they...;-))

I'm just saying according to Eldrick they're wrong :)

well they could be beverley.there again they may be right.which is back to where we started .lol

80% of the world's population believe in a formal religion. That means 4 out of 5 people are wrong.

one typo yes Eldrick...two typos in one , quoted, sentence? ...nope can't let that pass... it shows a lack of attention to the argument at hand :) but then do we KNOW it was a typo, can we prove it ? or is it just that Mr Hitchens can't spell ?

its the big words that do me eldrick lolol.but .......im not a quitter so i,ll keep going .lolol

Oh, Rose, I thought better of you to than to use typos as a bolster for an argument. Shame on you. However, I shall correct it if it makes you feel better. There, all done :-)

lol - it's not me getting uptight, in case you haven't noticed! I'm quite happy, but the woo believers are the ones that stamp their feet when anyone points out the absurdities of silly beliefs. By reaction - do you mean a total disinclination to believe nonsense? Sorry, astrology, for example.

Joy, it's easy, lol. You need to read the book, not the synopsis. But actually, you have a point and I dont mean this disrespectfully. It takes a bit of effort to get into the complexities of the likes of evolution and the reasons behind belief systems and beliefs. But once you're in, you will never look back. Conversely, it takes no effort have a belief in something that cant be explained. That's one of the reasons things like astrology, homeopathy, new age nonsense and religion are so popular :-)

Since Christopher Hitchens can not ( apparently) spell 'without' I am not likely to pay much heed to anything he might have to say :))

Reading the replies from Eldrick is similar to the reaction when I have a general discussion with my relative about the 'stars'. Patrick Moore also reacts in the same way. What is it in the scientific 'brain' that gets so uptight about other mere mortals having theories.-JLe

In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity of pure randomness as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. He demonstrates this by the example of the Weasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid.
HUH???[whats he on about]

Ahh, but RR, I know I'm right, and the evidence is there to say so. You only THINK you are right because it suits your belief system. You dont have any evidence, dear. It simply won't stand up to scrutiny in a court of law :-)

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Christopher Hitchens.

eldrick is it like real clever stuff.[i struggle with that ]
but im all for a good read.

Ahh, but they are the conspiracy theory fruitcakes. But I take your point, although I would add the caveat that there are things that can be seen but not believed **by those who deliberately choose not to believe**

Joy - it's just evolution in action. Darwin's natural selection at work. Read 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Dawkins. Puts it all into perspective :-)

"RR - settle down, take a deep breath."

not patronising ?

hmmm

Settle down Eldrick , take a deep breath, there there dear, you just cosy up to your scientific journal like a good boy and may it bring you much comfort to believe you are right :))

My final word Eldrick - Belief

As an 'aside' to the teapot, there are still people who believe that man never landed on the moon, even though there is a piece of equipment up there which bounces back a laser signal from earth. So some things can be 'seen', but still not 'believed'.

well thats livened um up eldrick lol.
see i kinda go both ways on this .theres stuff i cant explain.am i gonna spend all my life looking for it ...no.
but it dont stop me thinking.
if you look at a tree ,then the leafs .there pretty amazing in there works .now think ....we need those trees to breath.without um were dead.
something thought this out real well.same as our bodys the veins etc .how all links in and makes us work.
pretty smart i say.who or how ......i dunno.
but i still feel that maybe i need some more proof to go the whole hog if you get my drift.
oh and i feel its good we dont think the same .we,d be like clones .