BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults

Subject: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:10 AM

Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad - and I don't mean Dawkins.

Story about Telegraph non-story about Dawkins and slavery.

Actual Telegraph news breaking piece

Yesterday Anne Atkins was in her maddening mode - sometimes she seems quite reasonable attacking Dawkins for not saying something about Soham when discussing something else on Today.

Mail non-story

If these are the standards of their arguments, what solid ground* have they to stand on?

Penny
*unconsciously chosen echo of hymn

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:12 AM

Punctuation correction...


Yesterday Anne Atkins was in her maddening mode - sometimes she seems quite reasonable - attacking Dawkins for not saying something about Soham when discussing something else on Today.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: theleveller
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM

I caught a bit of Ainsley Harriot on Who Do You Think You Are, yesterday and it appears that not only did he have ancestors who were slaves, but also slave owners. And WTF has it to do with Dawkins' religious beliefs? Should the 'sins' of the fathers be visited on the children? Well, a couple of my ancestors were whalers but it doesn't mean I can't be a mamber of Greenpeace.

Anne Atkins has always struck me as your typical blinkered religious bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM

Apparently the reporter rang back woith a biblical quote about the sins of the fathers and the number of generations punishment could be expected for them...

As various people have commented, a similar investigation of Telegraph staff and readers is unlikely to find them squeaky clean in the slavery department.

And I suspect that American opponents of Dawkins ought to be careful about that particular objection. There's one in the comments doing an Iona.

Personal hands up = I don't KNOW, but my mother's father's family had a big house near Bewl Bridge reservoir (not there then) and I have suspected that their investments were probably in such things as sugar, and hence were not innocent. They lost the place through following faulty investment advice from a "friend".

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 10:06 AM

Dawkins' own view of the article is worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 10:19 AM

I had an ancestor who was a notorious highwayman. He robbed, plundered, pillaged, and raped. He was known to steal candies from babies. He once flayed a clergyman alive, and he corrupted legions of innocent virgins with his wily ways. He assaulted sheep in pastures and stole from church collection plates. He kicked dogs. He denied God and laughed up his sleeve at atheism. He spread social diseases all across southern England. He used the name of the Lord in vain. Were he alive today he would use the name of Dawkins in vain too, and would probably piss on his front step to add insult to injury!

What should I do about it? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 10:26 AM

he corrupted legions of innocent virgins with his wily ways

Bet I wasn't the only one to do a double-take there...

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 12:25 PM

The story is already being satirized at NewsThump.

(You might need to used Google Cache to see it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 01:03 PM

I got enough faults of my own that my enemies don't hafta go dredgin' up stuff about my ancestors.

And proud of it, I might add. ;-D Ook! Ook!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 09:56 PM

Who gives a crap about the behavior of someones ancestors? Shouldn't we consider the actions of a person by how they behave today? It's all a tempest in a teapot. Or as Bill Monroe used to say - "That ain't no part of nothing".

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:26 AM

But do we think that some aspects of character and personality are inherited? Are there familial traits which turn up in each generation? The Human Genome project has found quite a few indications that this might be the case. The Irish side of my family has for generations been quite gifted in linguistic ability. My father's ancestors (traced back to the 1600's) were nearly all connected to the sea or ships, even those who hadn't particularly been brought up to it. But even if personality is to some extent inherited, we do have free will to choose how to live our lives. With regard to slave-owners, we should try to judge them from the standpoint of the culture at the time. Cruel and abhorrent though it is to us now, slavery was seen then as the norm as a source of free labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 04:54 AM

I used to work with somebody who was descended from Genghis Khan (via his son Hulagu, who was an ancestor of the Romanian/Ottoman administrator/diplomat/scholar/musician Dimitrie Cantemir, who was one of her ancestors).

When I last heard from her she was making wooden toys at an eco-village in Italy, which doesn't sound a lot like an expression of the raping and pillaging gene.

It seems Genghis has more known descendants than any other other identified human being in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Owen Woodson
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 05:26 AM

Anne Atkins is a vicious right wing bigot. She is best ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 06:02 AM

Ah.. that will be the rise of aggressive err... sec... err... religious bigotry.

In the scheme of things, it is nothing on Baroness Warsi's diatribe when meeting with the pope, aggressively attacking secularism for being aggressive.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that organised religions are using whatever means they can to stem the tide of common sense. The buggers have too much power and influence to lose. You don't expect them to play fair do you?

I have ancestors who were non conformists so although they obviously were influenced by religious superstition, (these were simpler times) they saw the marriage of state and church as a bad thing. Oh, and one was hung for sheep rustling. Rather proud of that...

When you think about it, we have ancestors going back to star fish apparently. Lots of scope for slavery, rape, pillage, patricide, infanticide, being late with your library books...

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 07:24 AM

That inherited ability to re-grow severed limbs is very handy.   In the case of fundagelicals, perhaps severing the appendage between the two arms is the best bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 08:50 AM

I have given about a day's thought and some serious soul-searching to the question of what I should do about my remote ancestor who was a notorious highwayman who robbed, plundered, pillaged, and raped, and was known to steal candies from babies, and once flayed a clergyman alive, and corrupted legions of innocent virgins with his wily ways, and assaulted sheep in pastures and stole from church collection plates, and kicked dogs, and denied God and laughed up his sleeve at atheism, and spread social diseases all across southern England, and used the name of the Lord in vain on frequent occasions, and would, if he were alive today probably use the name of Dawkins in vain too, and would probably piss on his front step to add insult to injury!

This is what I'm going to do about it. Fuck-all! How about some music instead? ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 11:20 AM

"The Irish side of my family has for generations been quite gifted in linguistic ability. "

Unless you count getting drunk and poetically bullshitting on nearly any topic at hand, including their own religion and country of origin, the Irish side of my family negates yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 01:14 PM

I am a bit sad to say that I have no Irish side to my family. A pity. I think the Irish are wonderful people. I am blessed, however, with a Scottish side, so that's one good thing, though it may cause some nervousness in sheep...

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Feb 12 - 11:26 PM

This whole thread has me wondering whether I should feel guilty about my ancestors, or not. The French part of my family arrived with Cadillac and were part of the founding of Detroit. I suspect they were prosperous, but it seemed that each generation made its own way. The most successful French family member owned a flower shop.

The German part of the family, who I suspect had Jewish roots, were furriers and then engineers. I suppose my dad was a Captain of Industry since he was an engineering manager - should I feel guilty about him? He was (and is) a nice guy, and very generous.

The Irish part were cleaning ladies and housewives, so I guess I don't need to feel guilty about them - their men were unknown.

On second thought, maybe it doesn't make sense to feel guilty about my ancestors, or to apologize for them. Apologizing for my ancestors seems really, really stupid. So, I agree with Mr. Dawkins that blaming him for his ancestors is silly. Maybe, though, might it also be silly to blame all religious people for the misdeeds of others? Mr. Dawkins seems to be quite balanced and tolerant in this discussion (click); but many of those who claim to support Dawkins, are far less tolerant.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 11:28 AM

I think, LH, that you are confusing Scotland with Wales - but no doubt all of us Anglophones from this side of the pond sound the same to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 12:04 PM

Hardly, Richard! Hardly! I can easily detect numerous different accents from the UK, all of them quite interesting, and I am most certainly not confusing Scotland with Wales. My mother's people originally came from Scotland, clan MacGregor, and I am steeped in Scottish ballads, a la Ewan MacColl (who wasn't in fact a Scot himself, but he did sing their songs).

Regarding Wales, it's probably the area of the UK that I am least familiar with in terms of both the culture and the accent(s). I did thoroughly enjoy the impromptu Welsh chorus in the movie "Zulu", though...(the soldiers in the movie sang a heroic song prior to the final Zulu attack at Rorke's Drift).

Oh...you meant the bit about the sheep? ;-D Well, I can't say for sure regarding that. I've just heard rumours.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 12:19 PM

I `ad that Little `awk in my cab the other day. All `is feathers were nicely preened and `e was dressed up to the nines. I wonder if a little `unting bird was the first thing `is mum saw when `e was born?
`e said, "Howdee Jim, I`m off to do some genealogical research on one of my ancestors, that one I described on that Mudcat forum. Where d`you reckon I should I start".
I said, "Somerset `ouse or the Palace of Westminster I suppose, but I didn`t know one of your lot was a Member of Parliament!!"


Whaddam I like???

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 12:25 PM

It sounds to me loik you're a cockney or some workin' class bloke from Soho, innit?

Am I close?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 01:39 PM

There were slave owners on my father's side of the family from Mississippi. I don't feel the least bit guilty about that nor am I about to pay reparations to anyone.

I have not exhibited any impulse to own slaves and abhor the practice.

The Telegraph has shown itself to be an ignorant newsrag and would be well
used to line the bottom of a birdcage or cat box.

Professor Dawkins has done such a service to humanity that in my estimation outlives
any proclivity of a great great great great great great grandfather forbear.

I have rarely met anyone who didn't have a slaveholder or racist bigot in their family at
one time or another.

Joe Offer has criticized Professor Dawkins for not being tolerant but he doesn't know much about how Professor Dawkins conducts his personal life. Many of his acquaintances and friends are religious and despite the disagreements he may have with them, their relationships remain amicable.

He is also tolerant of some of the colleagues when they meet academically and participating in prayers for social reasons and out of respect for the needs of the
meeting. Professor Dawkins is being vilified by religious fanatics who don't understand the graciousness, intelligence and sensitivity of the man.

Shame on those who speak ill of him including the Telegraph Newsrag.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 06:06 PM

Chongo Chimp has offered to battle Dawkins in a "bare knuckle" steel cage match in Miami, Florida, but it isn't because he holds any rancour toward Dawkins. He just thinks it would be a damn good fundraising event. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 06:14 PM

"It is a desirable thing to be well-descended, but the glory belongs to our ancestors." -- Plutarch

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 06:28 PM

One out of 200 males living in 2003 had the genes of a common ancestor, possibly Genghis Khan? That's not to say they are like him. Only that he got around.

Great producer-reproducer

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 12 - 06:36 PM

It sounds like Genghis Khan lived sort of the way Chongo would like to in his more lurid fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 05:29 AM

I didn't mean to imply that ALL Irish people (or any other people) may be linguistically gifted, I only meant that on a personal level, my Irish family have this gift. As we hardly know eachother and have been brought up separately, I conclude it's genetic. My father's people are Scots, from way up north in Sutherland, and again the seafaring 'gene' has been strong from 1600, even among those not born near the sea. (I ought to have turned out to be a cruise-ship interpreter!) I've noticed in pupils' families, (I'd taught the parents of many of my pupils) that certain personalities seem to run in families. This subject interests me, as I wonder if 'blame' and 'punishment' could be modified or adjusted according to genetic factors, but I also wonder to what extent we truly have 'free will'. I studied (among other auxiliary subjects at Uni) Moral Philosophy, and these questions have been chewed over for centuries. But now we have more scientific evidence of gene patterns, they could be chewed over some more.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM

The less science and history people learn, the more they rely on the process of association to get them through life. The process of association can be helpful in life, but it isn't accurate enough when push comes to shove. (Being suspicious of someone because of what his ancestors did is an example.)

Who is Dawkins, anyhow?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 09:48 AM

That was my question too. "Who the hell is Dawkins?" But I have found this forum to be a very good provider of the answers about that. Ya just stick "Dawkins" in the search box, and you can pull up all kinds of fractious hoo-hah and ravin' on about the guy, and a few hours of readin' it can bring ya right up to snuff to where ya can go to yer local bar and wow yer buddies with yer knowledge about Mr Dawkins.

I done this at Duffy's Bar only last week, and it prompted a vigorous debate between about 30 apes and monkeys that finally degenerated into a furniture-bustin' and window-breakin' brawl that spilled out into the street and stopped traffic for the next fifteen minutes.

Duffy is still cleanin' up the mess and will reopen on the weekend, he says.

I blame Dawkins for it. If he was here, I would kick his ass.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 10:46 AM

""It sounds to me loik you're a cockney or some workin' class bloke from Soho, innit?""

Very close, but "innit" only if you are under thirty (approx).

If we old fogies start using their patois, the hoodie'd knuckle draggers will have to come up with something different and you wouldn't want to overtax their brain cell, would you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM

""It sounds to me loik you're a cockney or some workin' class bloke from Soho, innit?""

or Dick van Dykehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCmVDl46rY

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 11:54 AM

I made up some other words to that chimney sweep song from Mary Poppins. They go like this...

Chimp, chimp'n'ee, chimp, chimp'n'ee, chimp, chimp-charee
A chimp is as ugly as ugly can be
Chimp, chimp'n'ee, chimp, chimp'n'ee, chimp, chimp-charoo
Good luck will rub off when he bites your hand through

And throw him a rock..........and he'll throw it back too! (WHACK!)

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Owen Woodson
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 11:58 AM

This is ridiculous. To a person all my forebears were good solid working class types. You know the sort. Never out of work. Never scrounging on the sick. Never frittered their wages away on horses and drink. Always ready to help a friend or neighbour. Never got into debt or owed anyone a red cent, and as honest and as law abiding as the day is long.

So if it's all in our ancestral genes how can anyone explain ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 12:38 PM

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/myalgic encephalopahty

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 12:58 PM

We have half your mother's genes,
1/4 of our grand mothers (of which we have 2)
1/8 of our great grand mothers (of which we have 4)
1/16 of our great, great grand mothers (of which we have 8)
1/32 of our great, geat, great grand mothers (of which we have 16)

If you follow the maths we inherit very little from each of our ancestors

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 06:05 PM

Actually, once you get back past your parents, it's more complicated. Each of your parents inherited half their chromosomes from each of their parents, but there's nothing to say which half of their parents' chromosomes they got. It isn't impossible that all of the genetic material from their mother was from her mother, but not likely. It isn't impossible that none of it except the X was from her. On average, it would be about half from each parent and so that 1/4, but it isn't going to be definitely that.

Also, as the genes are usually inherited on the chromoseomes they arrived on, a person has 23 sets from each parent, anywhere between 0 and 23 from each grandparent, but probably about 12. Next generation about 6 each, next about 3, next about 1 or 2, next - who knows? (Of course, there's a bit of shuffling about mixing things up a bit.)

Makes all that stuff about bloodlines in the aristocracy rather meaningless - except for the inbreeding.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 06:15 PM

""Don't blame yourself. The apocalypse wasn't your fault. Actually, it was just as much your fault as it was anyone else's. Come to think of it, if you're an American, it was probably about 80-90 percent more your fault than the average human. But don't let that get you down. It wasn't exclusively your fault. Unless you're the president. Then it might be your fault. But you'll have plenty of interns to tell you that it wasn't, so you'll be fine"".

MEGHANN MARCO, Field Guide to the Apocalypse

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 08:24 PM

Les and Penny: You're leaving out mitochondrial DNA, which comes 100% from your mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 12:45 AM

Stringsinger says: Joe Offer has criticized Professor Dawkins for not being tolerant but he doesn't know much about how Professor Dawkins conducts his personal life. Many of his acquaintances and friends are religious and despite the disagreements he may have with them, their relationships remain amicable.

What Joe Offer actually said above: Mr. Dawkins seems to be quite balanced and tolerant in this discussion (click); but many of those who claim to support Dawkins, are far less tolerant.

Need I say more?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 03:39 AM

Shall I tolerate those who tell me what I should tolerate?

L in C#
ps true about mitocondreal DNA but sure it changes the point much

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 04:55 AM

"It sounds to me loik you're a cockney or some workin' class bloke from Soho, innit?

Am I close?"

I was going to present you with the 'Dick van Dyke award for an inhabitant of the North American continent pretending to be a Cockney', LH - but someone beat me to it! Thanks for brightening up a dull Manchester morning!

As for the 'Dawkins ancestors were slavers' thing - it's worth pointing out that the whole of western 'civilisation' was built on a foundation of slavery. The same goes for empires of the past - Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Aztec, Ottoman etc., etc., etc. Our 'civilisations' were, and still are, all based on the enslavement and exploitation of other human beings and the natural environment - and it's time we admitted it and faced up to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: theleveller
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 07:00 AM

"Actually, once you get back past your parents, it's more complicated."

You can say that again. I was thinking of doing a bit of genealogy on my mother's family and was told not to bother as my grandfather's father was never disclosed, even to him. It seems that, in his 20s, he was told that his mother and father were, in fact, his grandparents and his sister was really his mother, having been put in the family way by a local landowner. Hey - I could really be an aristocrat, as I've suspected all my life!

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 02:39 PM

Slaveholding is a cultural and behavioral problem not a genetic one.
I doubt whether descendants of Washington or Jefferson held slaves.
It was obviously a smear campaign at Dawkins by the Telegraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Feb 12 - 02:45 PM

Joe, if you agree with Dawkins, then I apologize.

As to those who are critical of religion, I would stack their intolerance against those of religious persuasion who are intolerant of atheists. It works both ways.

Tolerance is a peculiar word however, as it smacks of being patronizing. I think
understanding would be a better way of accepting those who don't agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 12 - 04:57 AM

Hi, Frank. I agree that the word "tolerant" is inadequate. I don't know if I'd say that I'd agree with Dawkins, but I am open to his perspective and I do think he has much to say that is very worthy of consideration. The people I have trouble with, are those who lump all religious thought together and reject it all without consideration.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Feb 12 - 06:06 AM

You have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but don't forget that none of these is exactly the chromosome that any of your ancestors (including ma nad pa) had. During meiosis* (the process of separating the paired chromosomes into the single strands that produce the contestants in the egg-and-sperm race), not only do each of the separated chromosomes distribute randomly into the gametes, but during meiosis the paired chromosomes swap sections with each other, producing a new selection of genes on each one. The process is not completely random - there are preferred sites for the crossing- but it does mean that the genetic material gets a thorough shuffling over time.

*I had difficulty remembering which cell division process was which, until a friend told me: meiosis is what happens in my ovaries. Mitosis is what happens in my toeses.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 25 Feb 12 - 11:29 AM

Dawkins had a debate with Rowan Williams last week, and acknowledged he was probably an agnostic, but suggesting a 9.5 probabilty of there being no God.

Various sites report this Oxford union event.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 12 - 11:56 AM

It's extremely hard to determine a probability factor for the existence of God...given the fact that people can't agree on a clear definition for the term in the first place. ;-D There are at least a few million different ideas about what it means!

I wonder what Dawkins' definition of "God" is? I bet it's not anywhere near my definition of God.

The mistake most people make when talking about "God" is...they automatically assume that everyone else defines that word the same way they do. Their assumption is very often incorrect. And that doesn't even seem to occur to them. What they are doing, in most cases, is arguing for the nonexistence of something that meets the specific definition they already have in mind, but has little in common with what someone else is thinking about when using the term. It all ends up being about as silly as Don Quixote charging the windmill, and produces about as much useful effect. Lots of sound and fury: no useful conclusion whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Feb 12 - 04:03 PM

i've not accessed it but what i have heard has made the word "debate" seem like a gross exageration.did williams debate dawkins?maybe when i get time i'll find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 04:36 AM

Here's the link to the event.

Oxford video

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 06:39 AM

Ms/Mr Hawk,

"I wonder what Dawkins' definition of "God" is? I bet it's not anywhere near my definition of God"

His book "The God Delusion" gives a pretty good idea of what RD thinks a definition of god is or might be. But I guess you have read that and dismissed his definition. Fair enough.

It is not for atheists to define god - because we don't see any evidence for such a concept. We don't all believe or think the same about god because atheism isn't a collection of ideas, beliefs or concepts - it's simply a view that from the evidence before us it doesn't look much like s/he exists.

However, if we stand back from the massed ranks of believers, Jews, Chrstians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs .............. with no offence intended ... and hundreds of other faiths, am I correct in thinking that most believe that 'god' created the Universe and intervens in it sometimes on a human and personal level?

Is that a reasonable sort of basic level understanding or definition of god?

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 08:03 AM

The Church of Reality

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 08:17 AM

The Dick van Dyke award. I am trying to get my daughter (who lives in "the Ditch" ie Shoreditch)to teach me Ongey, but I am having terrible trouble with even the most basic issues like when to say "innit", when to say "izzit" (or the interrogative form "ears-it") and when to use "true bro" and when "true dat" or simply "troof".

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 08:46 AM

"i've not accessed it but what i have heard has made the word "debate" seem like a gross exageration.did williams debate dawkins?maybe when i get time i'll find it."

Ummm? What? Don't understand that, pete.

To add some clarity, I'm re-posting the description of the debate which I originally posted on the "creation nonsense" thread:


Yesterday (23.02.2012) Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a televised debate on Evolution. I didn't actually see the debate on TV, but I read about it in today's 'Independent' newspaper (UK). Apparently Dr Williams " ... even confessed his belief in evolution, and agreed with Dawkins that humans shared non-human ancestors."

"Rather than arguing, Dawkins and Williams seemed intent on finding areas of agreement. Did the Archbishop agree that there was probably no "first man", that human evolution was gradual, and that - in Dawkins' formulation - no pair of Homo erectus parents gazed down proudly at their Homo sapiens new-born? He [the Arcbishop] did."

"Could Dawkins disprove the existence of God? He could not, he confessed, describing himself as an agnostic [rather than an atheist] ... On his own atheism scale of one-to-seven, the Professor suggested, "the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9"." Spot on - in my opinion!

So, there you go, Iona and pete, even a head honcho of the God-squadders believes in evolution!

Then, I'm afraid, I made a cheap crack about religious sectarianism. I know I shouldn't make such facetious remarks, and it's unbecoming, but it gives me such pleasure!

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 09:11 AM

Les - No...I haven't read Dawkins' book. I've been too busy reading a variety of other books I am probably more interested in. I may get around to reading Dawkins at some point. I can't comment on his definition of "God" since I am unacquainted with it. I suspect it's different from my definition...most likely...but that's just a guess on my part.

You say: "am I correct in thinking that most believe that 'god' created the Universe and intervens in it sometimes on a human and personal level?

Is that a reasonable sort of basic level understanding or definition of god?"

Well, yes, a good many religious people make sort of general assumptions along that line...with a lot of variance in how they imagine that it would take place...

One might assume that "God" created the Universe in 7 days! Another might assume that the "7 days" is metaphorical and symbolizes a period of millions of years, and development of the Universe as we know it through 7 epochs of millions of years.

One might assume that God is male. Another might assume that God is female. Another might assume that God is both male and female. Another might assume that God is beyond gender. Another might assume that God deals with people personally, another might assume that he/she/it does not deal with people personally, but as an overriding principle rather than a personal contact.

Another might assume that God made the world without the process we term evolution. Another might assume that evolution is a normal part of the ongoing creative process.

And so on...and so on...

Still others might assume nothing...but merely say, I think it might be this or that...but I can't say I know that it is, because the fact is: I don't know. I just think it might be.

All these possibilities rest within the field of religious thought, spiritual thought, and philosophical thought, and an open-minded person must, in fact, be willing to at least consider them...or he is not an open-minded person...he's a closed book.

You find those closed-book people among both religious fanatics and atheist fanatics.

Dawkins does not sound to me like an atheist fanatic, but he does appear to be a man with a mission...and I'm curious what it is that has prompted his particular mission.

Best wishes also. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Musket
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 10:55 AM

Interesting point LH. If everybody defines God differently...

It would make debates rather circular.

I have always assumed that God falls into two categories; a convenient word to ascribe what we don't yet understand to, that's my usual take. Like Dawkins and the vast majority of people in The UK, I understand religion as being something many people need, perhaps as a comfort blanket, perhaps as a moral compass.

The issue being that if others dismiss it as irrelevant, that makes the case for believing much harder for the faithful. Hence accusing more rational people of being out to suppress religion.

You see, religion can only work if it takes the form of population control, and whilst ever idiots like me point and laugh, the power of old men in pointy hats is challenged. As we can see with how Dawkins is vilified by people who claim to preach peace, challenging religion can be dangerous. As well as upsetting the followers of Allah, as well as the papal and then the Spanish inquisition, as well as the crusades, as well as....

You might upset the old ladies who make the after service teas....

ps. I don't normally nod in agreement with governments ministers, but Featherstone saying that religions don't have the monopoly on the word "marriage" was a welcome change from the usual kowtowing to the bishops.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 12:15 PM

Well Ms/Mr LH, Dawkins has spent a lot of time and thought clarifying his position as an atheist. His book is thoughtful, funny and well organised But I guess many of the faithful will be too afraid to read it but will find other reasons for saying they cannot read it.

That's fine. Many of us atheists haven't read all the gospels or the important books of many other faiths although some of us have read some. But then again many people of faith are unfamiliar with the important books of their own faith - a point Dawkins makes rather well.

A good example of the failure of people of faith to understand the teachings of such faith is given above - The Church of England, The Catholic Church and many other Christian faith groups accepted evolution a ver long time ago - but many memebers of those groups don't know that - impressive or what?

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 02:01 PM

Joe, I would agree with you. There are many religious folks who are good people and have done important things for society. My view is that behavior is more important than professed ideology.

Dawkins has been unfairly attacked by people who haven't taken the time to absorb
what he has to say.

I think that those who lump any thought religious or otherwise into a category without examining it is not only ignorant but reprehensible. Painting everyone with the same brush is a manifestation of bigotry. As a FreeThinker, I have met fellow "atheists" (a word which is loaded) to find that there are issues with which we don't agree. Some of
these issues are related to politics and warfare. I don't expect every religious person to agree in lockstep on issues and the same is true for fellow FreeThinkers.

I have great admiration for some religious people, MLK, Ghandi, Dorothy Day, the AFSC, the Berrigans, Chris Hedges and others. I can be in agreement with many religious people on specific issues, for example, some of the people in OWS for example, with whom I share their convictions.

I think, Joe, if we really can listen to each other with an open mind, we can solve
problems together in society. Attacks against anyone in particular is a dead end street.
I don't think supplanting one form of fanaticism with another solves anything.

Frank



"Hi, Frank. I agree that the word "tolerant" is inadequate. I don't know if I'd say that I'd agree with Dawkins, but I am open to his perspective and I do think he has much to say that is very worthy of consideration. The people I have trouble with, are those who lump all religious thought together and reject it all without consideration.
-Joe-"

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM

Frank, do you think it is possible to be a Free Thinker and religious? Though that word with its root of rule following is probably not the one I really want. Spiritual might do, I suppose, though that can get inappropriate connotations, as can mystic.

Because I think, as a dyed in the wool descendant of Non-Conformists and Dissenters, that is what I probably am. There's a current Quaker poster "Thou shalt... think for yourself," which sums it up.

I also think that there is a good deal too much concentration in some quarters on What and How and When, and not enough on Why. Which is something I have grown up wanting to know. And which all the concentration on the nineteenth century inventions of literalism totally fails to answer, while raising yet more unanswerable questions about the possible nature of possible deity. And if there is a deity, the only possible proof has to be direct experience, which is, oddly, something I've not had answers about from any creationist I've asked.

And which raises the very worrying question for anyone who does believe as to why so many people don't have such experiences. It's not like asking a colour blind person to belive in red. Red can be shown to be a set of wavelengths detectable by meters. Or like asking a deaf person to believe in sound. Ditto. This sends people down the road of Calvin and Augustine, and the doctrine of the Elect.

I wouldn't want to go there.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 09:12 PM

Les, I haven't read Dawkins because I have a long list of other books in front of me that I'm tremendously more excited about reading than reading Dawkins. So why would I be reading Dawkins? Why are you not reading books about Taoism? Or Japanese WWII aircraft? Or North American Indian history? Or Joan of Arc? Etc?

We have different interest areas, that's all. I'm not terribly interested in atheist viewpoints, because I grew up in an atheistic family, was brought up as an atheist, never went to church when I was a kid, never joined a religion, was an atheist myself for a fairly long time, eventually changed my mind about that, and now it is a subject that frankly bores me. Okay? It's very frikking boring to me. Understand? I'd rather read about pipe wrenches. It might be useful to me in some way if I needed to do some plumbing repairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 12 - 11:45 PM

Well, in that case, LH, why even open this thread, let alone contribute so frequently & resolutely to it? I don't bother to open threads on topics whose titles announce them to be of no interest to me, for the express purpose of contributing to them comments to the effect that I find the entire topic profoundly uninteresting. What is your point in doing so?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 05:37 AM

Little Hawk

All these possibilities rest within the field of religious thought, spiritual thought, and philosophical thought, and an open-minded person must, in fact, be willing to at least consider them...or he is not an open-minded person...he's a closed book.

Okay? It's very frikking boring to me. Understand? I'd rather read about pipe wrenches. It might be useful to me in some way if I needed to do some plumbing repairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 06:26 AM

TheSnail,
          Should you ever be in need of plumbing and tightening expertise I have a wonderful little publication you are more than welcome to. It is "The Observers Book of Spanners" by J.R.Stilson.

TTFN,
John

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 07:10 AM

Xlnt John, really xlnt

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 08:02 AM

Hey, it's important to tell everybody how bored you are with a topic.

Otherwise, how would they know how boring you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 09:01 AM

I find the spiritual philosophy aspect of life interesting, folks. I like talking about spiritual philosophy of any kind, because to me it is a fascinating subject, probably the most fascinating subject in life, as it touches upon every single aspect of life. That is why I come to these threads.

True, atheism itself utterly bores me. But spiritual philosophy, and indeed...philosophy in general...absolutely fascinates me. It is the meaning and purpose of life itself that deeply interests me, and that's why I am drawn to threads where people end up discussing different viewpoints regarding their own understanding of the meaning of life. This thread has touched upon those matters in various people's posts here, and that is why I was drawn here.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 09:15 AM

Oh...and the original reason I came to this thread...if you really wish to know...was this:

I thought it was absolutely hilarious that Anne Whats-her-name or anyone else would criticize Richard Dawkins over his ancestors' faults!!!!! What an astounding and idiotic thing for them to do! Things that are hilarious usually attract my attention. That's why I came here. For amusement. And I have found a good deal of it here. ;-) I was having a good time making jokes till you prickly chaps decided to get offended over the fact that atheism bores me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 09:16 AM

Little Hawk,
            As years roll by the philosophical questions you refer to do take on greater importance in ones life. Much of the material matter soon passes it`s sell by date. There is one question that puzzles me and that is, since evolution can be associated with Newtons law`s of physics (or that`s is what I`m sure I heard in Dawkins Oxford debate), why do we die? And why is it that, for millenia, man`s span has always been seventy years?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 10:16 AM

Little Hawk, you are perfectly entitled to be bored with atheism. I'm inclined to agree actually. Defining yourself as not believing in something that doesn't exist seems a curious position.

What I was drawing attention to was the contrast between that and your insistence that "an open-minded person must, in fact, be willing to at least consider them [all the multifarious definitions of God]...or he is not an open-minded person...he's a closed book.". "Must"? Sorry, I've got better things to do with my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 10:19 AM

""Frank, do you think it is possible to be a Free Thinker and religious?""

Certainly Penny, it is possible to be a free thinker, a humanist, and believe in a deity.

That is what free will is all about, the art of using your brain to decide which bits are of use in being a good human being, and which are simply agenda driven misquotes and misinterpretations by other men exercising their free will in an attempt to deprive you of yours.

Those with insufficient self confidence or self esteem fall victim to the controlling traps of dogma and doctrine which are the opiates with which their critical faculties are numbed to insensibility, the antithesis of free will.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 10:30 AM

What has Newton's Laws of Physics got to do with it?

If you accept the basic laws of The Principia, (and although they have been refined, it is only Newton's rejection of relativity that has been rejected itself through discovery and Albert's insight,) then some things don't evolve as they are constant.

The thermodynamic laws etc hold now and held similar when the earth was young, (that's really young, not Biblical make believe young.) I'm not aware of the debate obviously, so am curious as to how Newton gets into the picture?

The 70 years is interesting though. Go back as many generations as you like and you will read of people reaching 70, and that seems, (although a little on the short side,) to be a natural "everything is shagged out" run for your money.

So, when people were physically active in order to survive but got what they needed, they lasted that long. When populations grew and towns enlarged, industrialised etc, the average went way way down through malnutrition, disease and crime. We made up for it by popping out more children, hoping that some survived till their balls dropped and could be useful.

It could be argued that we have had it when men can't get it up and women can't benefit from it if you could. That varies, varies a lot. hence evolution in action.

Interestingly, thanks to junk food, sedentary lifestyles and stress, the average in Western countries is falling again. Longer lives are reliant far more on intervention than general hale health.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 10:45 AM

""And why is it that, for millenia, man`s span has always been seventy years?""

Strangely enough John, that seems to be one of the world's greatest fallacies.

The average life expectancies through human history are easy to find on line, and two minutes search turned up this interesting breakdown.

Cave man   13 years
Neo-paleolithic man (10000 - 15000years ago) 18 years
Romans (250 BC) 26 years
1900 AD 48 years
1950 AD 72 years
2000 AD 77 years
2012 AD 81 years

Max lifespan as at 1997 122.3 years
Expected max in 2050   150 years

I cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy of these figures but the trend is obvious and irrefutable.

The reasons are many, various and generally obvious, but the fact remains that the ""Three score years and ten"" we have all heard so much about has, in truth, only been the lot of a very small number of humans prior to the mid twentieth century.

I suspect that in all eras, the best fed or richest were the ones who attained to silver hair and veneration as elders and that would include, I am certain, members of the priesthood.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 11:52 AM

john-would it be a "wrench" for you to pass on that book on spanners!
echoes of your excellent song in your post,i noted.

thanks penny for the link.watched it last night.there certainly seemed more agreement than debate between richard and rowan,but i thought the middle man raised some good points.dawkins, i thought shoehorned a couple of examples of "bad" design in ,whether or not they fitted.i seem to remember those examples countered by other scientists;but of course not the sort that the "9.6 agnostic "is willing to debate lest they be taken seriously!

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 12:33 PM

"I cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy of these figures but the trend is obvious and irrefutable."

Since you "cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy of these figures" they cannot on thr face of it be of much use. But Average !!!!!!!!!! life expectancy has gone up because less children die. This really isn't very complicated.

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 12:47 PM

I assume chrono-expectancy is the figure you are looking for Les?

In any respect, that is the term public health bods use when discussing the epidemiology of population.

Don's figures are indeed backed up by findings, and yet we also know of people living much older than his figures, based on dating of bones. An average attainment is not always an average expectancy. An average body can be capable of x years, but the average person last only y years. hence the figures through the ages.

I am trying to disregard the Biblical three score and ten, as I have no wish to encourage the buggers, but cells can only reproduce their own replacements so many times and then start going a bit haywire, or cancerous as we say. The 70 mark is a fair average of lasting without intervention.

Despite the average attainments now, they are very intervention led. In Doncaster for instance, 65% of over 40s are on daily prescribed tablets for life. That is a figure I know hence saying it, but it is not an outlier by any means. (The further south you go, the lower the number of people, all the same.) As we are discussing evolution, perhaps in a few generations we will be able to handle more fat and less exercise?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 02:45 PM

If present trends continue every body in the US will live in California, own a boat and have a STD.

Present trends need serious care

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 12 - 11:08 PM

Fair enough, The Snail. ;-) I figure everyone has a right to be bored by anything they do find boring.

John from Kemsing - "why do we die? And why is it that, for millenia, man`s span has always been seventy years?"

I don't know.

I suppose that we die for the same reason everything else does...entropy. All physical things appear to have a limited lifespan. I don't know if man's lifespan has always been about seventy years...but it may be so. If it is, I can't tell you why. Why is a budgie's lifespan 7 to 15 years?

We don't know. It just is, that's all. I accept the fact that we don't know everything and we never will know everything. I accept that there are some mysteries we cannot solve...we can just observe them and make poetry about them.

Religion has arisen mostly in an attempt to answer the great mysterious questions that we have the most difficulty answering, and that's why I find it so interesting a subject. It looks into the great questions of life. I'm not much interested at all in the deity/idol/ritual aspects of religion. I'm interested in the philosophical questions it raises.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 03:38 AM

It seems faily obvious that religions will be more interesting than atheism:

"We don't all believe or think the same about god because atheism isn't a collection of ideas, beliefs or concepts - it's simply a view that from the evidence before us it doesn't look much like s/he exists."

As such that view is "that from the evidence before us it doesn't look much like s/he exists."

It cannot be any other - it has no content does it?

One central issue for atheists and probably for others is - what is a religion and what is not? Scientology? Wicca?

What do religions think and say about each other? Certainly not continious understanding.

Much tension and unhappiness exists even within what are often called major faith groups over issues which seem to outsiders to be quite slight. Don't paint a strange picture of JC or burn the wrong book!

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 04:24 AM

"I accept the fact that we don't know everything and we never will know everything. I accept that there are some mysteries we cannot solve...we can just observe them and make poetry about them."

Trouble with that, LH, is that some people insist on declaring that the "poetry" is fact - and then insist that everyone else accept the "poetry" as fact - and then go on to insist that everyone else live their lives in accordance with the poetic 'facts'.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 08:20 AM

Shimrod - Yes, it is a problem that some people do that, as you say. I just do my best to avoid dealing with those people.

As in the case of the Bible, for example. I regard almost everything in the Bible as poetic metaphor...not history (although some of it certainly connects to history of the time it was written in...but usually in a highly symbolic fashion). It was normal in the Mystery Schools of that time for the spiritual scribes and writers to tell symbolic tales that demonstrated some sort of moral, ethical, or spiritual principle (sometimes on a number of different levels). This probably escaped the common people who, like many people now, tended to take things very literally. But the common people weren't concerned with analyzing spiritual writings. Like most people now, they were concerned with putting food on the table, and other prosaic and practical matters, so a literal view of religion came naturally to them, I would suspect.

Spiritual adepts in the Mystery Schools, on the other hand, were accustomed to looking beneath the surface of things...the books were written for them...and they were about the only people around (along with scribes and the well educated elite) who could read those books at that time.

The Mystery Schools seem to have originated in Egypt...long before the rise of either the Judaic faith or Christianity. They were still around during and after Jesus' lifetime.

Much of what is in the Christian and Jewish faiths can be found previously in Egyptian religious tales...so these were archetypal tales that were crafted to make certain points about life, death, spirituality, ethics, morals, and the purposes of life.

I find that very interesting. My interest in it does not require me to belong to any specific religion. It extends through all religions and cultures.

I'm not particularly interested in reactive modern movements such as atheism whose basic premise is a hostile reaction against the most fundamentalist and primitive forms of religious thought and practice...the result being that the atheist throws out the baby (rich metaphor and symbolic mysticism and spiritual philosophy from many great cultures) along with the bathwater (present rigidly fundamentalist religious beliefs and rigid outward practices).

I'm not interested in the bathwater. I avoid it. I'm interested in the "baby"...that is, the essential philosophy of life that lies at the heart of ALL great religious and spiritual traditions.

The above may include ideas about a deity or "God". It doesn't have to. Buddhism and Taoism do not propose a deity or God. They propose an existing order of things...but not a deity at the helm of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 09:42 AM

Pete and Don,
             I`ve just tapped in to yours posts :-

Pete, well spotted,very funny.
Don, that seems to make sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 12:49 PM

Penny, I think you've asked important questions. I have great admiration for the AFSC
or "Quakes" as I often affectionately call them.

I don't think one can be a FreeThinker and religious at the same time without a thorough definition of what one means by being religious. I feel that ultimately,
religion does more harm than good because it postulates and institutionalizes
a method of "belief" that in my opinion negates analytic or scientific rebuttal.

I have a problem with the term "spiritual" because for me the term means something ghostly or otherworldly.

That said, my admiration for the Quakers is boundless for their position on war.
(I was a conscientious objector), and their prodigious social work in helping the least fortunate. I worked for a while at an AFSC warehouse sending CARE packages in California.

I like "Thou shalt think for thyself" as well as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and do not see
these dictums in conflict with my position as a FreeThinker.

Like many FreeThinkers, I have explored religion from many angles being involved
with quite a few of them and the common denominator for me is that all of them
have been found wanting regardless of the good deeds that some of them do.

The "why" that you ask about can only be answered through personal experience.
I reserve the right to dissent from religion and its effects while holding AFSC and Unitarians and other socially-conscience religious people in some esteem.

I admire your position on "direct experience" and your view of it.
In my case, I have had the feeling of "religious experience" only to have
it contradicted by my personal experience that it doesn't exist in reality.

I see Joe Campbell's veneration of the Myth as a teacher for society and in this instance, the myth of Jesus on the Sermon On the Mount is instructive to me.

I consider the teachings of Augustine, Calvin and the others you mentioned useless
for the functioning of a better society.

The sound byte bumper sticker I feel sums it up.

"You don't need god to be good".

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 01:16 PM

Stringsinger, I'm not happy with the word religion and its derivatives, because of the root meaning it is to do with rules. The second link I put in the Freethinking thread includes a discussion between Karen Armstrong and Rochard Holloway about the meanings of the words "faith" and "belief". Armstrong suggested that the latter had changed its meaning from being a description of what people did to following a rigid set of ideas. Neither liked that sense.
I don't like the word spiritual either, but mostly because it gets associated with crystals, and Glastonbury, and ley lines and other such things.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 01:37 PM

Hi Penny,
I agree with what you said. Christianity has been hijacked by all manner of erstwhile
Christians and I agree with Campbell that it is in essence a pacifist religion in the new testament. It's a mythology in the Sermon that has value in my estimation.

Dawkins has made his position crystal clear and unambiguous and I support it.

Whenever religious people attack FreeThinkers, they do themselves great damage to their credibility and ability to understand.

The problem is that most if not all religious people can't conceive of a world without it
and are addicted to their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 03:47 PM

Free Thinking is exactly what I am in favour of. Genuine spirituality is allied with Free Thinking...as is science. There need be no conflict whatsoever between spirituality and science, as they are both avenues for seeking truth through experience and observation.

Science is the observation and systematic study of sense-perceptible phenomena. Spirituality is the observation and systematic study of subjectively experienced phenomena such as: consciousness, dreaming, self-discipline, self-analysis, examination of one's conscious ideals and one's emotional states, plus moral and philosophical awareness of the role of self and others in relationship to each other, to the world of Nature, and to human society.

Science and spirituality are naturally allied disciplines that complement and support each other, they are not mutually opposed disciplines.

Some people, however, imagine that they are mutually opposed disciplines. They could not possibly imagine that unless they have failed to actually understand the real purposes and function of spirituality (in my opinion).

If you have a negative reaction to the "word" spirituality, then you've gotten some negative impression of it based upon something you heard or encountered...but which probably is not accurate in the first place.

Are there some flaky people around who do silly things with crystals and other trippy stuff and call it "spirituality"? Yes! That doesn't say anything about real spirituality. It does say something about those flaky people.

It's possible to be a flake about anything if you apply it in a silly and superficial manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 07:40 PM

""Shimrod - Yes, it is a problem that some people do that, as you say. I just do my best to avoid dealing with those people.""

Good luck with THAT technique LH, when those people have become the law makers, thanks to people like you who avoid them instead of opposing their rabid evangelism.

You may not be the first to burn, but you'll burn just the same,.....and I don't mean in Hell.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 12 - 08:16 PM

Dawkins does not sound to me like an atheist fanatic, but he does appear to be a man with a mission...and I'm curious what it is that has prompted his particular mission.

He's a man with a mission all right. But it seems slightly perverse to single out Dawkins as a man with a mission when all the world's major religions are replete with men with missions. And I use the word "men" advisedly.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 02:27 AM

Don - We simply don't have that problem in Canada. That is why, being Canadian, I just avoid dealing with the few fundamentalists around here, cos it would be a waste of my time to deal with them, and they pose no significant danger. They are very few, they influence less than 1% of the vote here, and they have virtually NO influence on our national political process, because they don't get enough public support here to have any real clout whatsoever. This is NOT a country that encourages or would tolerate aggressive religious posturing at the ballot box! Anyone who tried it would not have a hope of winning their seat.

You're in an entirely different situation in the USA...one that I'd have to say is unique in the western world! You live in a country that is hamstrung by Christian fundamentalists.

I'm sorry about that. But I can't do anything about it. I don't LIVE in your country. There is NO way I can do anything about what's going on in your country...though, yes, it does concern me.

***

Steve, I was not criticizing Dawkins by calling him "a man with a mission". I was simply saying that I'm quite curious to know what impelled him to take up that particular mission (as opposed to 88,000 other things he could be doing instead). I'd be interested to know why it concerns him so much, because then I could understand him better. I like understanding people better. I came to this thread in the first place to make fun of idiots who were criticizing Dawkins over his ancestor's faults!....not to criticize Dawkins. You assume I'm attacking him? I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 03:37 AM

KO Ms/Mr LH,

"I was simply saying that I'm quite curious to know what impelled him to take up that particular mission"

I have read all Dawkins books of popular science and The God Delusion - which probably doesn't fit into that category. If you want to know why he is currently doing what he is, it grows out of his accademic work which led him to write The Selfish Gene and his desire to explain aspects of the natural world.

I cannot remember the details but he relates going to a lecture on I think botany. The presenter finished his presentation by stating that the leaf that Eve covered herself with was not one but another - the names I forget.

This angered RD because the lecture was a serious scientific presentation and the man in question had confused science with mythology, for want of a better word.

Clearly their is far more to the later work of RD but The GD does some up a lot of where he stands and I repeat - it is thoughtful well written and funny. Give it ago

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 09:40 AM

I wasn't suggesting that I saw criticism of Dawkins in your post.

Dawkins' mission as I see it is incredibly simple. He wants to promote the notion that nothing claimed as truth should ever be accepted without evidence, and that evidence should be assessed using reason. Most of the arguments about the existence of God revolve around what is and what isn't evidence. That's the meat on the bones of his mission.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 10:26 AM

I thought Robert Winston - a pioneer in IVF (and peer) - made some interesting comments on Dawkin's God Delusion on one of R4's recent programmes 'The Life Scientific'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b018cbnx

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 11:06 AM

Righto. Thanks, Les and Steve. I can well understand Dawkin's frustration over the man who was trying to determine which kind of fig leaf it might have been that Eve resorted to to cover herself!

I had the same frustrated reaction to the strange myths presented to me on the one occasion I went to Sunday School (at around age 6?). I came home and complained to my mother about it, saying, "They're telling all these crazy stories there that can't possibly be true!"...so she never sent me there again. That was my one and only encounter with traditional organized religion during my entire childhood and adolescence, since my parents were atheists. My natural inclination was to do what Dawkins suggests: look for evidence and use reason to interpret that evidence.

That is still my inclination when it comes to all forms of sense-perceptible phenomena (whether detectable through our normal 5 senses...or with the aid of technological machinery of some kind...such as a microscope, etc.).

And then there is spiritual inquiry. For that I have to go inside myself, because it's a matter of being aware of and using consciousness...observing and understanding one's own emotions and mental states...mastering one's own strength's and weaknesses, etc. I cannot do that in terms of the 5 senses. I have to do it through working with my own conscious awareness of what's going on inside my own consciousness. That's what I would term the spiritual aspect of life. I don't look for it through any kind of outer evidence...I look for it within consciousness itself. That's the inner experience of life. Dawkins (I would gather) is seeking truth through examining the outer, observable phemomena. I'm seeking it through examining the inner states of my own being. That puts us on different paths of inquiry, but it doesn't make either one of us "wrong". We're just focused on different matters, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM

Thanks LH,

"And then there is spiritual inquiry. For that I have to go inside myself, because it's a matter of being aware of and using consciousness...observing and understanding one's own emotions and mental states...mastering one's own strength's and weaknesses, etc"

The simple point I would make is: we clearly cannot go into your unconsciouse. What you bring from there may help me and it may not but it cannot be shared in the smae way thta much evidence gained through science.

I think much of the confusion comes from people not being clear about the difference between knowledge and personally held opnions

Best wishes

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 12:27 PM

Right, Les. My inner inquiries into myself are an individual matter. I think that the spiritual search is an individual matter. That's why I've been drawn toward spirituality...as opposed to organized religion. Organized religion (often) deals with a lot of outward rules, rituals, and structures that don't interest me much, because it's an outward system and power structure that builds itself an establishment in the world (just as governments and businesses and clubs do).

Within organized religion, though, one often finds a number of highly motivated individuals who are engaging in genuine spiritual search...that is, they are working on improving themselves through mastering their weaknesses, building their strengths, being kind and considerate to others, learning to forgive, etc.

So I have many good friends in various organized religions, while not officially belonging to those religions.

I'm not so concerned whether or not they believe in this or that concept of "God". I'm concerned as to what is their actual conduct toward others and toward themselves. If it's good, then I enjoy being around them, discussing spiritual/philosophical concepts, and discussing morality, ethics, responsibility, and other relevant subjects. I also enjoy playing music with them. Some of the finest and most positive people I've ever known have been in the churches in this town. They have their minds on a lot more than just property, money, social status, and survival. They want to be better people, to be kinder to others, and they work at it. I like that.

Religion helped bring that good side out in those people. That's why I am not inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply reject all organized religion on principle...just because I don't like some of the aspects of it. There's both good and bad in organized religion. I focus on the good parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 12:50 PM

Ok it sounds reasonable enough if that's what you want to do. It's relatively easy to look at one 'religion' or one sect within a religion and try to gain some understanding and maybe take something from it.

It seems to me that even different branches of the same 'religion' can have seriously opposing views and when we stand back and look at all the worlds 'religions' ....................... it's a bit like studying 'world mythology'.

You can do it if you like but then to bring any of either of those studies to an understanding of the natural world? I don't think it helps

That's it really

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Feb 12 - 03:44 PM

My understanding of the natural world is gained mostly through scientific knowledge and recorded fact, Les.

My understanding of my own most appropriate and constructive conduct within that natural world is what I attempt to work on largely through the study of spirituality/philosophy...and also, of course, through the useful information provided by science.

Science, for example, has made it very clear to me how important it is not to pollute the water, earth, and air provided in Nature...and what can be done to clean up and prevent pollution. Spirituality helps strengthen my ethical sense and my sense of personal responsibility regarding those same problems.

So the two work in harmony together to address the same basic issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 03:19 AM

But how do you balance the views of The Peoples Front for the Liberation of Palistine with Those of The Front for the Liberation of Palistine ( See: M Python, sometime ago!)

Cheers

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 05:00 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 10:34 AM

Les - LOL! Ummm...I guess the same way I would balance a chimp who is roller skating across the Niagara Gorge on a greased metal cable...!

Maybe use duct tape?

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 12:13 PM

You have all probably seen this but it is pretty good

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 10:14 AM

Yeah, it's great. Smart dog.

What I don't get is this: Why has no one attacked Dawkins over his poor choices in quality footwear? Or those dreadfully uninspiring ties he habitually wears when being interviewed? Anne What's-her-name has missed a splendid opportunity!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 12 - 06:46 PM

i had'nt seen it.funny and cute.