General Chat

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.

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]

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

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

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 :-)

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 :-)

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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...;-))

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.

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.

The answer came from Wikipedia Eldrick so if that is wrong, please take it up with them.

Most religions actually worship the same God but in different ways. I don't want to get into a religious argument but my point is that 80% of people in the world believe (to the death in some cases) something you say doesn't exist so in a group of five people, you are right and the other four are wrong.

Hmmm

well i do pray..often.
pls forgive me for the sins ive done
please forgive me for the sins im about to do
and pls forgive me for the ones i do in the future.



I PRAY ALOT .:)

Yep, I think that about sums it up nicely.

However, I'm quite happy to change my mind if they come up with just a little bit of evidence :-)

Of couse, I might be in a group of atheists, in which case we would all be right.

Surely you do not believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?
Aristophanes

(checked for typos - not quite sure about old aristoph thingy whatshisname, but it will do for now)

Organised religion has more to do with man trying to pigeonhole God into man's own image...rather than the other way around :).

It is terribly limiting I think, either God is more than man can possibly imagine, or I would be inclined to say he doesn't exist ;)

We seem to have come full circle - you want proof.

The only proof I need is what is in my heart.

The rest is between me and my maker

No, I want evidence. It doesn't have to be proof in the form of incontrovertable evidence, it just has to be evidence. A tiny shred of it. A little sliver of it. A morsel, a titbit, a soupcon of a hint of evidence will do nicely. Unfortunately, god (or jehovah, or allah, or odin, or jupiter) has taken it upon himself (why are the big gods always male?) not to give me any. Sigh. It's not asking much, really, is it? Really?