Dawkins getting slaughtered

I love it when you post 4 paragraphs of utter tripe

"With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will, if so all animals., then an oyster has & a polype (& a plant in some senses, perhaps, though from not having pain or pleasure actions unavoidable & only to be changed by habits). now free will of oyster, one can fancy to be direct effect of organization; by the capacities its senses give it of pain or pleasure, if so free will is to mind, what chance is to matter (M. Le Compte)—the free will (if so called) makes change

in bodily organization of oyster. so may free will make change in man.— the real argument fixes on heredetary disposition & instincts—.—Put it so.— Probably some error in argument, should be grateful if it were pointed out.— My wish to improve my temper, what does it arise from but organization, that organization may have been affected by circumstances & education, & by choice which at the time organization gave me to will—Verily the faults of the fathers, corporeal & bodily are visited upon the children.—"

You obviously don't know the first thing about Darwinian thought if you believe it accomidates free will

probably not, I am an atheist after all. I can safely leave all the pork banning and not treading on insects and worshipping cows and all the rest of it to you lot to scrap over

I dont believe man evolved in the way you think man evolved - I think human intelligence exists outside of micro-macro evolution.... Darwinist believe it is a product of micro-macroevolution

There is no denying that morals evolve alongside societies... but those morals can be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum of our morals (from human sacrficies to sun G-ds too the teaching and shagging of 11 year old spartans)... However I believe it is religion that binds down morality for without a clear right and wrong the morality is in a constant state of flux.

Unfortuatly because of our stage in history we can only examine the last 100 years for evidence of religious free societies... And although they have been horrifcly brutal and moral-free; it is far too early to draw any solid conclusion.

No I believe the majority of men or born with the ability to do both good and evil... but they are born with this capacity... darwinism teaches that good and evil are concious creations so they cannot exist at brith - rather our pyschee is a product of our environment.

No, biblically the Jews cannot control Israel until the coming of the Moshiach.

Historically on the whole Muslims and Jews have ot on fine as long as the Jews are a dhimmi under muslim rule (asd dictated by their religion).... the current conflict has nothing to do with religion.

You're talking about 3,000,000 in contrast to about 200,000,000.... they're not even on the same scale.

But there would still be the kurds, there would still be the muslim tribes (now just tribes) of different geographical origins... battling for control of the same land.

To blame this on the religion is idiotic, where in the Qur'an does it say sunni must fight shiia?

lol its completely to with darwinism, he wrote about it in great depth.... its amazing how quick your opinion changes when one posts up a quote from your idol

I wish my opinion could change that "freely"

really? where in the bible did we engage in a mechanical genocide of 12 million?

In private Hitler was an athiest you putz, he was publically christian for propoganda reasons... The vast majority of the SS governing class were athiest or pagan (norse mythology).... The holocaust was based on secular prejudice born out of the racial science of the early 20th century which at its core revolved around Darwins survival of the fittest.

Homosexuals and retards were murdered because they were deemed weak and an acheles heel of the aryan race.... This was pure darwinism.

As for your lifetime, we're invading Iraq at present, we invaded afghanistan, etc. and in fiarness 50 years in the history of mankind is nothing... there have been much longer periods of peace between states.... Your grasp of world history is about as solid as your grasp of darwinism

before the koran there was no sunni and shia .fact.

find me anybody who believes they are not. In your earlier post you appeared to say that some people are born evil.
Most Darwinian scientists believe that we are born without good and evil... Only those that believe in a good and evil believe in the concept.

I think your grasp of darwins teachings is as dodgy as mine is of the Torah. I'd love to see the quote from Darwin where he says this. As an atheist I don't believe in the concept of 'good and evil' only actions by people which have beneficial or catastrophic results.

The Asa Gray dialogue covers the good/evil subject in depth and it is more than apparent that darwin was of the mind that good and evil are products of environment - not something we are born with.... It is perhaps you who does not understand darwinian philosophy and its implications

the sunni and shia just happened to fight each other because they are 'different tribes'
You clearly don't understand how the middle eastern mindset has evolved, the arab nations have always been governed by external empires (be it the persians or turks) they were ruled through controling the tribes; the modern day conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with shiia and sunni, it's too do with the tribal forces clashing for power (there are more tribes than just sunni and shiia); these tribes tend to allign themselves with religions - but the conflict is not a product of the religions.... I suggest you do a little reading before talking out of your arse.

To blame the current violence in Iraq on islam is the stupidest thing I've heard all day (and I've been talking to drummers )

The jews are all secular, the state is whiter than white The controling Jews are secular and the state was founded by secular socialist Jews... or are you going to tell me otherwise like when you took a guess at understanding darwinian thought and when you took a shot in the dark at the Iraq conflict.

when it comes to positive things like the moral code of mankind or the prevention of war then it's all down to religion
Where have I mentioned the prevention of war? most religion support war.


before the koran there was no sunni and shia .fact.
Thats like blaming the war in Northern Ireland on the people that speak english... before people shared shared a common english language, there was no war in northern ireland.

Islam has nothing to do with the current Iraq conflict, the shiia and sunni muslim was born long after the Quran... so one could say after the quran there was also no sunni and shiia... whats your point?

twat

darwinian scientist or not, everyone believes that...... 'the majority of men are born with the ability to do good or evil' ........your quote. Which bit of that do you disagree with? I don't understand the point you are trying to make (other than being contrary for the sake of it )
or do you in fact think that people are 'born evil'

the quotes you gave show that Darwin was confused as to the nature of free will that's all. You seem to me to be as confused. Do we have free will or not?

I think I have as good an idea as you as to 'how the middle eastern mindset has evolved' you arrogant prick.
again you insist that a good outcome is due to religious influence and a bad one is not. It won't wash. most religions 'support war', you say. dam right they do, they are often the cause of it . A fact you like to gloss over by drawing attention to the wars it did not cause.

And the Northern Irish context is apposite. As in the sunni shia conflict the prot catholic religions gave a context and a justification for mass murder. That was their effect regardless of whether it specifically says go kill protestants in old so called holy books.
And while I'm on about the holy book there is plenty of exhortation to ethnic cleansing and war in there. So much so you could say that god was the one born evil

I believe man is created good but he has the implication to lean towards evil:

"the inclination in man's heart is evil from his youth." Bereishis 8:21

Then you haven't understood what you are reading; Asa Gray puts forward the notion that free will was created by an intelligent designer; Darwin replies that free will is a man made concept; natures reality is that everything is a product a of his environment - including good and evil.

If a man/puppy commits a positive act he is doing so in reaction to his environment, if he does a negative act this again is a response to his environment... thus the question of good and evil become irrelivant as he is merely responding to his existence.

I am of the opposite mindset; man is not responding to his environment, but responding as a human... just as we all have different faces as a result of genes; we also have different personalities, these personalities are unquestionably influenced by our environment, but how our environment is interpreted is a product of our personality and soul.

clearly not as you think the Israel/Palestine problem is one of religon and the Iraqi crisis is a problem of islam

I find this interesting, could you give me a list of wars that were caused by religion?

This I would love to see you quantify....

You see I was of the mind that the Northern Ireland one was a geographical conflict in which the Irish wanted independence and the British wanted to remain part of the UK... I didn't realise it was because the New Testament told the catholics to commit mass murder

Religion does not "cause war". Its is an excuse for war made by people.

If there were no religion there would still be wars, and no doubt various other excuses.

There are religious people who may find justification for war in their teachings and texts, but that is not neccessarily the fault of religion. As it seems most religious texts are as open to opinion and interpretation (much the same as with any writing or form of media) there will always be those who use it for their own means or their own interpretation, for good and evil.

I think that in that statement is the difference between right wing and left wing thought.
The right act from fear of man, and a belief in his inherent propensity for being bad. The left act from hope, and the belief that man is inherently good.

I guess your formative experiences lead you to one camp or the other. I prefer the hope, but feel that the Daily Mail fear driven view of the world is in the ascendent. Organised religion is nearly always right wing

lol great theory but a large proportion of the worlds leading left wing thinkers... believed the above.

Jewish thought was the biggest influencing factor in sculpt left wing philosphy.

You just talk shit mate.

an influencing factor mate. don't flatter yourself

?!?!??

Trotksy, Marx, Luxembourg.... You clearly have little knowledge on the development of left wing thought.

But even if it were only an "influencing factor" (which is bullshit) then it blows your previous statement out of the water.

I said they were affected (negatively) by religion, a fact you seek to deny

Even a fundamentalist like you cannot look at the middle east's situation and say that religion has played no part in it.