This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

WereGryphon's Profile

WereGryphon's Avatar Joined almost 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by WereGryphon

More Discussions by WereGryphon

Latest Comments by WereGryphon

Go to: Global Population

WereGryphon's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by WereGryphon

Comment 14 by raytoman A bit late maybe but we can support many more than 7 billion if we sort out world government.

You need both atheism AND global vegetarianism if you're going to support even this many people. I remember it being calculated (sadly I no longer remember the source) that global vegetarianism could help to enable the support of up to 10 billion people before the environment fell into the imbalance it now suffers from.

http://www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.htm

A fairer division of currently available food resources might considerably easen it all though. 80% of the produced food in the world is consumed by us 20%...why is it so?

Thu, 13 May 2010 10:32:56 UTC | #469526

Go to: William Lane Craig Analyses The Arguments of The God Delusion

WereGryphon's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by WereGryphon

SeuMadruGa
I have only one problem with the Boeing 747 argument. Dawkins says very clearly that he is attacking a supernatural God. But If God is supernatural anything goes. What can it possibly mean that supernatural stuff is simple or complex?

SteveZara adressed this question eloquently around two years ago in a context of a theist (Alvin Plantinga) rejecting God's complexity.

http://richarddawkins.net/comments/105598

Sun, 09 May 2010 16:31:25 UTC | #468088

Go to: The moderate Christian mindset

WereGryphon's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by WereGryphon

black wolf
I see no indication that this Ken is identical with the biologist of the same name.
And to think I spent two hours compiling my message. Dammit!

Well, there was the indication of him being a moderate Christian, and you probably guess how I, as an evolutionist, categorize fundies and moderates.

But okay. If this really isn't that Ken, just try to read my post without the specific references to him. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

And apologies to the biologist-Ken in case he happens across this page.

Fri, 07 May 2010 14:25:09 UTC | #467473

Go to: The moderate Christian mindset

WereGryphon's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by WereGryphon

Is there any extent to which Ken would accept the Scriptures being subjected to biases and limitations of the time of the people who wrote them (and thus wrong)? Miller's own theology (as expressed in Finding Darwin's God), fluid and easy as it is for a layman to understand, isn't very sophisticated compared to that of theologians (Miller is merely a biologist himself), who nonetheless accept (to a considerable extent) that the Scriptures aren't, as it were, dropped from heaven.

There are several ways of addressing the question to Ken. First, I'd be very curious to hear what he considers to be the right Commandments. Because only those listed in Exodus 34:11-27 are told by the Bible to be written by God himself. If Miller disapproves of any or all one of them, I'd like to hear why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Text_of_the_Ten_Commandments

Oh, and the Bible also claims that π is a round number (1st Kings 7:23 2nd Chronicles 4:2) and that painting striped patterns to a pregnant cow will cause its calves to be born striped too (Genesis 30:37-43). Miller certainly knows that both (as well as many other things, many of which are listed in AronRa:s video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA) are false. And as well as factual errors, we can also prove the Bible has been deliberately modified for subjective (political etc) reasons.

Second, biology has revealed sexuality to be so fundamental an aspect of Great Ape (which humans are a subset of) nature that by controlling one's sexual freedom you have a good basis for controlling that person as a whole. For a biologist like Miller, that should've already made him suspicious of the motives behind the grim (and demonstrably unnecessary) sexual morality we all know from the Scriptures. Especially now that statistics already provide evidence for less involvement in sexual crimes by atheists than by evangelical Christians. Why? Because atheists don't have such restrictions they can freely satisfy their sexual hunger, disallowing its detrimental accumulation. The recent pedophilia scandal, if anything, should've opened Miller's eyes to all this; after all, he is a Roman Catholic himself!

Formulators of the Scriptural restrictions of sexuality were obviously fallible men, and apparently control freaks as well.

From that, you can easily generalize to the issue of equality between men and women in any Bible-influenced situation imaginable. Piece of cake, case closed.

 

Having said all that, I can only conclude that Miller would do well if he revisited his dogma of the assumed divinity and absoluteness of the Scriptural rules. He has already said (when talking about the chromosome II fusion in humans) that he hasn't chosen to believe in a deceitful Creator, so he better make clear whether or not he has chosen to believe in a Creator who wishes him not to use his reason.

 

Fri, 07 May 2010 09:02:31 UTC | #467440

Go to: Happy Birthday Richard Dawkins!

WereGryphon's Avatar Jump to comment 231 by WereGryphon

Mittaamattoman riemukasta syntymäpäivää professori Dawkinsille!

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:07:00 UTC | #452985

More Comments by WereGryphon