101. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6603 by melisande on November 15, 2006 at 4:27 am

357. Comment #6505 by Anonymous
"oh no another shouter!"

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the memepool...

:^P

102. Nice Guys Finish First

Comment #6415 by melisande on November 14, 2006 at 6:08 am

Besides being fascinating, the computer graphics are adorable!

A floppy disc! How quaint!

;^D

Seriously, though, thanks for continuing to post these links. No matter how old the show is, the material and questions posed are still current. And sadly, there are still people misinterpreting "The Selfish Gene"...

103. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5986 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 5:04 am

PS That whole last post was a response to Billy.
word.


Jack,
I'm just going to be totally incoherent soon, so I'll just say yes there is a specific point but the more important point was "take a joke, man!"
At least I thought it was funny.
anyway
Easy,
melisande

104. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5980 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 4:41 am

Right on. Yeah, I get that, good point. I've gotten stuck in that "It makes sense because it does, since it's there" type place.


Ooh I don't have an ex christian head! I'll go look on ebay...

I'm officially delirious now. I mun go sleep.

I'm sure that worm is an agent of the devil!
;^P
I like that quote, though, seriously.

105. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5974 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 4:11 am

Oh, Jack,
Not everything was able to throw itself in the mud at the perfect time to make sure that there was a fossilized series of events for people later on to point to. We do have to extrapolate at some point from the evidence we do have. But at least we _have_ evidence as opposed to just saying god did it.


Yes, a designer would want to make different eyes for different environments, but then I just have to think "why make different environments?" It seemed like this designer stopped mucking about at some point because there's lots of stuff that doesn't work quite right.
Personally, if there was a designer that created my eyes then he could have done a bit of a better job. At least my contacts were intelligently designed...by scientists.

So ok, you and I see the proof of radically different explanations for the situation. It's not really going to go anywhere from there except a "No, I'm right!" kind of thing. I know there's lots of stuff I could link to that support my side (as I'm sure you believe you could as well) but I don't really think there's much of a point at this juncture.

106. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5967 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 3:45 am

Billy,
I'm in complete agreement with you...I think.
I'm definitely not assuming any creator at all..I think it's preposterous.
My point, I believe, is in line with yours, if I'm reading it correctly. Which could be off, since it's really frikken late at night for me...
;^)

107. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5959 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 3:20 am

Comment #5946 by Jack sparrow

Oh good, you're balancing out the freak out yelling factor...

I think the key word you're not understanding there is "eventually". If one actually tries to comprehend millions of years, or billions, then the term "eventually" becomes more clear. Yes, Dawkins is starting at a specific point and touching upon some major steps that unfolded thereafter, but just because he's not going into every single detailed tiny change doesn't mean he's talking rubbish.
You'd still be reading that passage right now if he did go that route, and have no time to blast your "inconceivable!!!!!??"s at anyone.
The fact that the eye has evolved independently so many times actually supports the fact that there it wasn't designed by some creator. If there had been some designer, why didn't they make everything have the same eye?
Each of these ocular variations are products of the conditions that surrounded those organisms. Everything is working with the same basic erector set of DNA, so it's not that far fetched to see that similar solutions to the same type of problems would eventually and I do mean [i]eventually[/i] be reached? And I don't mean "reached" in a final achievement type of way.

I don't see any reason for this scenario to evoke such adamant incredulity.

108. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5948 by Melisande on November 12, 2006 at 2:47 am

Comment #5945 by Joad
Yes,
Eddie Izzard comes to mind immediately in the atheist humorist category.
George Carlin--definitely atheist. And angry.

Well, there are a lot of Jewish comedians/satirists I know of...but I have no idea how deeply they identify themselves with the faith itself or being part of the culture.
Well, Eric Schwartz is definitely a Jewish Atheist...
That might be worth looking into, since I value Teh Funy so highly.

hmmm...
;^D

109. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5942 by melisande on November 12, 2006 at 1:54 am

David,
sort of OT--
Though you may already be aware of this phenomenon, the internet brings people together....to yell at each other.
It's very easy to "dehumanize" the target when each person becomes symbolized by text on the screen.
Although I don't think it's helpful for people to spout insults here, in fact I find it grating and embarrassing, it is a common enough occurrence in almost any public debate on the web and shouldn't end up being focussed on.

Personally, what I've observed and even experienced is an abrupt change in manner if the same person one had been insulting online was encountered In Real Life. Meaning that I'm reasonably sure the vitriol that may be hurled around on here should not be extrapolated into a real world situation.

There are lots of people who visit this site and read the articles who do not immediately post kneejerk derisive, insulting or violent comments...in fact they probably don't post at all... And of course there are obviously the people who are still trying to engage in the argument a little more maturely. Of course, almost all of them think you're wrong. It _is_ Dawkins' website, after all.

If I wrote a pro choice article that was posted on an anti abortion website, or a review that disparaged vegetarianism and espoused the merits of bacon (mmmm, bacon...) on a vegan website I'm sure it would get the same kind of attacks. I'm not saying either of those examples are perfect replicas of the situation here, but just describing the general for/against type of scene....

It's an unfortunate, but not surprising, reaction and I do hope that you get the type of valuable debate aspired to here amidst the antagonism and random "poophead" remarks. Of course, they may now end up directed at _me_, but, whatever.

Cheers,
Melisande

P.S. I did comment on someone else's post that made fun of the title, and I do still find "The Extended Dawkotype" hilarious. Come on...it's funny! Let's all just have a laugh for a second before jumping back into the fray...
;^)

110. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5937 by melisande on November 11, 2006 at 11:52 pm

23. Comment #5721

Ha ha ha!!
The extended dawkotype....that's great.

111. The terrorist virus is no lightweight matter. We must contain its spread

Comment #5765 by Melisande on November 11, 2006 at 12:40 am

I'm always excited when people start talking memetics.
I have some issues with the slant of the article itself though. My first impression was a strident quasi nationalist tone that is a little uncomfortable. But I'm not British, so maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

I was thrown off by the phrase "turn of the century"...I automatically thought of the late 1800s/early 1900s... it just seems a little early to call the 1900s/2000s the turn of the century.
Maybe I'm old.
:^/

112. Losing Our Religion

Comment #5738 by Melisande on November 10, 2006 at 6:39 pm

I think this article brings up some of the issues that are being faced without feeling overly antagonistic towards the scientific pov.

And it shows the differences in the levels of investment within different scientists...Dawkins presents a unified front of scientists against religion whereas others seem to be a bit more sentimental and still others rather jocular...

In terms of weinberg's quote, my interpretation is that it's harder to live with truth but the truth of science is a lot more complicated and a lot less comforting. I don't think he is providing an argument more than just an observation that would relate to the general populace.

113. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5531 by melisande on November 9, 2006 at 8:49 pm

can I just say that I hate this "New Atheism" moniker?
As if it's some kind of novel concept...

114. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #3979 by Melisande on November 1, 2006 at 11:09 pm

Wait...is that last line true? People have altered Imagine to incorporate their religion? Now....That's blasphemy.

gah.

115. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3345 by melisande on October 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm

on Comment #3280
That's disheartening Matthew, but thanks for posting it. Definitely a strange choice to call "bullshit" on. Especially with the evidence pouring in (literally) about the icecaps melting etc.

116. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3291 by melisande on October 27, 2006 at 7:20 am

That was extraordinairily satisfying.
He says he's not eloquent....pshaw!
That's one of my favorite things about him!