Child Preachers

[Dr Kynes]

OK I walked into that ... I'm hoping you know what I'm asking though. For me, as a scion of a 1st-generation American family (central European heritage) the choice was "Christian, or not?" I've been each of those two. Currently ... not.
Although in terms of regions and numbers ... BA didn't include a big one, which is Judaism and its flock. Could that be to point here? cn

meh.. jews are non evangelical. you are either born a jew or you have to seek out judaism. Jews generally dont really indoctrinate, they teach their culture and traditions, which can colo0ur one's perceptions, but rarely will you meet a jew who shouts about how he is one of the chosen people and all others are inferior goyim who should be his servants.

Zoroastrians are the same way, you can be one or not, and they wont try to change you.

christianity, mohammedanism, scientology, dawkinites (militant atheist evangelicals), and a few others are the assholes who love the "Submit Or Be Slain" theological rhetoric.

also, moose tracks is good but Chunky Monkey Uber Alles!

 

[cannabineer]

I'm a bit intrigued by your capsularization of militant antitheists as Dawkinites. I rather doubt Dawkins would appreciate that term. I've seen him defend evolution against the Intelligent Design wingnuts, but if that is the best the antitheists have in re a figurehead, they need to try harder imo. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'm a bit intrigued by your capsularization of militant antitheists as Dawkinites. I rather doubt Dawkins would appreciate that term. I've seen him defend evolution against the Intelligent Design wingnuts, but if that is the best the antitheists have in re a figurehead, they need to try harder imo. cn

dawkins is a rather lackluster choice as the head of a new quasi-religion of militant atheists, but he is really all they have.

much like jesus, he doesnt have much to say about how to punish the unbelievers and convert the pagans to the new faith, but just like jesus, his followers worshipers and adherents are often fanatical zealots with an eagerness to attack any who question their lord.

saying dawkins is a pretentious dickwad (which is absolutely true) drives them as mad as wet cats in a sack. like posting a picture of Ayn Rand in a philosophy thread.

also,



Lets Get Ready To RRRRUMBLE!

 

[cannabineer]

I've read a coupla Dawkins books and liked them. I could find neither antitheism or dickwaddery in them. His "Ancestor's Tale" is a fine read. cn

I have not read any Rand and am not about to begin. I would get very tired very fast of microwaved 18th-century political philosophy served up as a stilted bodice-ripper. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I've read a coupla Dawkins books and liked them. I could find neither antitheism or dickwaddery in them. His "Ancestor's Tale" is a fine read. cn

I have not read any Rand and am not about to begin. I would get very tired very fast of microwaved 18th-century political philosophy served up as a stilted bodice-ripper. cn

if you read The Selfish Gene then you read Ayn Rand's philosophy, repackaged, and served up with no attribution. and remarkably few ripped bodices. (which i found depressing and unsatisfying)

objectivism is not 18th century philosophy, thats all immanuel kant and his ilk. ayn rand's books were scathing (but yes, quite stilted) indictments of religion, socialism, crony capitalism, and the new deal. (plus lots of heaving bosoms and bodice rippings.) i dont much care for the style of her writing, but her observations of human motivation were spot on.

i have seen a few interviews with dawkins and a few debates and he just seemed to be a pantywaist a limp noodle and a poindexter. his adherents however, are militant vehement and always ready for a shouting match with any theist so brazen as to make a minor display of religious affiliation near them.

 

[cannabineer]

How can Dawkins have anything to do with Rand? He is a biologist. She was a social philosopher. "Nonoverlapping magisteria", to borrow a phrase from Dawkins' colleague Gould. cn

 

[tyler.durden]

if you read The Selfish Gene then you read Ayn Rand's philosophy, repackaged, and served up with no attribution. and remarkably few ripped bodices. (which i found depressing and unsatisfying)

objectivism is not 18th century philosophy, thats all immanuel kant and his ilk. ayn rand's books were scathing (but yes, quite stilted) indictments of religion, socialism, crony capitalism, and the new deal. (plus lots of heaving bosoms and bodice rippings.) i dont much care for the style of her writing, but her observations of human motivation were spot on.

i have seen a few interviews with dawkins and a few debates and he just seemed to be a pantywaist a limp noodle and a poindexter. his adherents however, are militant vehement and always ready for a shouting match with any theist so brazen as to make a minor display of religious affiliation near them.

The Selfish Gene wasn't meant to be metaphor for human culture, but some took it that way (like the Enron King douche). In fact, the theory shed some light on the dynamics of altruism, and the book gave us the concept of the meme. Any similarity to Objectivism is purely coincidental. I felt it was a great book, like almost all Dawkins' works. I've read all of Rand's works in my 20s, she really inspired me, although with age I deem her leaning a little too far to the right.
I love Dawkins, his work and his mission. I'd like to hear your criticism of his work instead of easy ad hominem attacks, I've never seen him lose a debate. His work is very important if one ascribes to his views on the danger of faith and religion, which seems to be easily supportable. He is an anti-theist, but certainly not the most vehement one out there. Sam Harris seems to be more intense on the subject, along with Daniel Dennett and the late, great Hitchens. I do agree some atheists make too much fuss over things that don't matter, and seem overly confrontational, but give them a break. Most groups that have been oppressed for so long overreact for a while with their new found freedom...

 

[Dr Kynes]

How can Dawkins have anything to do with Rand? He is a biologist. She was a social philosopher. "Nonoverlapping magisteria", to borrow a phrase from Dawkins' colleague Gould. cn

philosophy crosses all spheres of thought. his postulation that evolution favoured the creature who sought it's own needs at the expense of others is totally analagous to rand's assertions in the 50's that a man should serve his own needs, and not sacrifice for the good of others. dawkins just rebranded Rand's ideas as biology.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The Selfish Gene wasn't meant to be metaphor for human culture, but some took it that way (like the Enron King douche). In fact, the theory shed some light on the dynamics of altruism, and the book gave us the concept of the meme. Any similarity to Objectivism is purely coincidental. I felt it was a great book, like almost all Dawkins' works. I've read all of Rand's works in my 20s, she really inspired me, although with age I deem her leaning a little too far to the right.
I love Dawkins, his work and his mission. I'd like to hear your criticism of his work instead of easy ad hominem attacks, I've never seen him lose a debate. His work is very important if one ascribes to his views on the danger of faith and religion, which seems to be easily supportable. He is an anti-theist, but certainly not the most vehement one out there. Sam Harris seems to be more intense on the subject, along with Daniel Dennett and the late, great Hitchens. I do agree some atheists make too much fuss over things that don't matter, and seem overly confrontational, but give them a break. Most groups that have been oppressed for so long overreact for a while with their new found freedom...

dawkins is a biologist/sociologist/big giant head of the same school as Jared "why whitey got so much cargo" Diamond. his personal belief that man is just an animal, and sociological interactions and technological development are driven by primal urges to socialize, and sheer dumb luck of having fortuitous "memes" simultaneously insult biology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and common sense.

he is not nearly as persuasive on the issue of man's primal urges and instincts as desmond morris. plus desmond is classy as fuck.

 

[cannabineer]

philosophy crosses all spheres of thought. his postulation that evolution favoured the creature who sought [its] own needs at the expense of others is totally analogous to rand's assertions in the 50's that a man should serve his own needs, and not sacrifice for the good of others. dawkins just rebranded Rand's ideas as biology.

But that is what Dawkins did not do. The book is not about selfish creatures. cn

 

[tyler.durden]

philosophy crosses all spheres of thought. his postulation that evolution favoured the creature who sought it's own needs at the expense of others is totally analagous to rand's assertions in the 50's that a man should serve his own needs, and not sacrifice for the good of others. dawkins just rebranded Rand's ideas as biology.

That's not exactly right, Dawkins was proposing that it's not necessarily the creature that is selfish, but its genes. That's a big difference: creatures will display altruism to to protect their genes, often giving up their very lives to protect their mates and their young. This makes sense from the gene's perspective (if there was such a thing), the adult creature it has produced has had the chance to pass it on, so the gene's best chance to be replicated now is within the younger creature...

 

[Dr Kynes]

That's not exactly right, Dawkins was proposing that it's not necessarily the creature that is selfish, but its genes. That's a big difference: creatures will display altruism to to protect their genes, often giving up their very lives to protect their mates and their young. This makes sense from the gene's perspective (if there was such a thing), the adult creature it has produced has had the chance to pass it on, so the gene's best chance to be replicated now is within the younger creature...

self replication is one of the needs the gene has to preserve, i assumed you would get that. likewise rand does not advocate using one's opwn offspring as a cheap and reliable building material or a food source in famines. no matter how hard the haters try to insist that she does.

 

[cannabineer]

self replication is one of the needs the gene has to preserve, i assumed you would get that. likewise rand does not advocate using one's pwn offspring as a cheap and reliable building material or a food source in famines. no matter how hard the haters try to insist that she does.

But that is the gene and not the organism. Since the book is not about selfish organisms, the comparison doesn't hold up. Jmo. cn

 

[tyler.durden]

dawkins is a biologist/sociologist/big giant head of the same school as Jared "why whitey got so much cargo" Diamond. his personal belief that man is just an animal, and sociological interactions and technological development are driven by primal urges to socialize, and sheer dumb luck of having fortuitous "memes" simultaneously insult biology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and common sense.

he is not nearly as persuasive on the issue of man's primal urges and instincts as desmond morris. plus desmond is classy as fuck.

Dawkins is one of the world's leading biologists/zoologists, and perhaps the greatest authority on evolution by means of natural selection (Darwin's Bulldog). Man is an animal, a great ape specifically, but I don't remember him uttering the word 'just'. Progress is largely determined by social interaction and need for esteem, esp. sexual attention. Most of our efforts come down to an effort to get pussy: a look a lot of great men's achievements show that they were much more prolific before they were married. His factual assertions don't insult my common sense, and I fail to see to see how they are insulting to the other fields you mentioned. Could you explain how? I've met the man on a few different occasions, and it's my opinion that he is a very classy individual, indeed...

 

[ultraviolet pirate]

i bet ayn rand had some gritty pussy.

 

[tyler.durden]

self replication is one of the needs the gene has to preserve, i assumed you would get that. likewise rand does not advocate using one's opwn offspring as a cheap and reliable building material or a food source in famines. no matter how hard the haters try to insist that she does.

A sincere question, have you actually read the Selfish Gene? It states we are basically vehicles for our genes. I think it was Dawkins who said that if there is an answer to the question, 'what is the meaning of life?' the answer would be to pass on our genes. It's not a really a matter of survival of the individual creature, but that it's genes survive. In some instances, giving up one's own survival is the most effective way of accomplishing this. The theory also is a good explanation for why altruism exists today. As I'm sure you know, humans used to live in small hunter/gatherer tribes numbering less than 150. The chances that you shared genetic material with any of the tribe was great, so from a genetic standpoint it made sense to do for another. Even if not related, the chance for reciprocation for good acts was high. Nowadays with billions on the planet, it's no longer likely to share genetics with a stranger, but we still have the urge to be altruistic. To paraphrase Dawkins we have a similar urge to be good as we have a lust for sex, and for the same reasons. To make sure the genes survive...

P.S. LOL on the Rand baby-eating. I've never gotten people's perception of her, I still love her

P.P.S. Check out my location <<

P.P.P.S. Because how often do you get to see a triple-post script?

 

[tyler.durden]

i bet ayn rand had some gritty pussy.

She's got a golden dollar-sign clit ring...

 

[smok3h]

I have a hard time thinking of anything dumber than a child preacher.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Mad pseudo rep to TD. Also, mad honorable mention to Keynes, great back and fourth, I came.

 

[Dr Kynes]

A sincere question, have you actually read the Selfish Gene? It states we are basically vehicles for our genes. I think it was Dawkins who said that if there is an answer to the question, 'what is the meaning of life?' the answer would be to pass on our genes. It's not a really a matter of survival of the individual creature, but that it's genes survive. In some instances, giving up one's own survival is the most effective way of accomplishing this. The theory also is a good explanation for why altruism exists today. As I'm sure you know, humans used to live in small hunter/gatherer tribes numbering less than 150. The chances that you shared genetic material with any of the tribe was great, so from a genetic standpoint it made sense to do for another. Even if not related, the chance for reciprocation for good acts was high. Nowadays with billions on the planet, it's no longer likely to share genetics with a stranger, but we still have the urge to be altruistic. To paraphrase Dawkins we have a similar urge to be good as we have a lust for sex, and for the same reasons. To make sure the genes survive...

P.S. LOL on the Rand baby-eating. I've never gotten people's perception of her, I still love her

P.P.S. Check out my location <<

P.P.P.S. Because how often do you get to see a triple-post script?

ayn rand was advocating a naturalistic philosophy in tune with our normal natural healthy instincts while simultaneously rejecting the unnatural, unhealthy, counter-productive mindset of socialists (both democratic and authoritarian)
dawkin's theory walks hand in glove with the objectivist philosophy, and the selfish gene seemed like a biological explanation of why objectivism is right rather than any new groundbreaking insights into evolution, yet he never once mentioned rand, and distances himself from her (i guess to keep the haters from hating) and on the flip side of the coin Jerod Diamond (so many pornstar names these days) spends all his time explaining why we (the western european cultures) are so selfish and mean, and that we should feel real bad about that and sacrifice ourselves and our society so the noble primitives can have a fair chance to grab some of that cargo.

every time i listen to dawkins or read his works i get the impression of an oxford layabout on his velvet fainting couch discussing the meaning of life with a glass of claret in his hand, as his manservant pulls off his riding boots.

also, fuck dawkins, desmond morris is a stone pimp.