Religion without hell?

There's unimaginable pain associated with hateful evil, for the evil do-er. A pain which makes all "natural" pains, like wounds and stuff, seem insignificant. You would be foolish to think such pain can't exist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This sort of "moral" pain also exists before death of course. I just meant to say that hellish pain exists, regardless of whether you believe in God and hell, or not.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's hard because of choice. I think terms such as selfishness, and altruism quickly lose their original meaning when associated with biological systems. There are no selfish genes, selfish plants, or altruistic fish, it's not appropiate to use those terms that way in my opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's not so much a case of people misunderstanding, but more a case of Dawkins writing in a convoluted way. It is perfectly sensible to be a nazi-racist on account of Dawkins works of pseudoscience.(or that of other populists-Darwinists such as Haeckel, or Lorenz).I thought selfsustaining might replace selfishness, but then I really do not understand what Dawkins means by selfishness. As far as I can tell, everything that has a chance of reproduction would be noted as selfish in Dawkins doctrine.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In my opinion Dawkins is seriously evil. I don't think it's wise to bring in evidence other then the evidence you can produce yourself. You give some (faulty) interpretation of Haeckel, and omit any mention of Lorenz. The rest of your post also has much emphasis on damagecontrol. I think it's useless to discuss this way.As before, take the selfish gene theory and philosophise about it for some hours, as Dawkins encourages people to do. Put it in the back of your mind for some time, and see how nature and society appears to you on account of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Konrad Lorenz worked for a Nazi race office, and more to the point he advocated Nazism on account of Darwinism. This is also referenced in the essay about Mendel that I referenced before. He later said he was sorry for his Nazi-past, but he never told anyone he worked for the nazi-race office, which was only found out some years ago, and in other circumstances he said he was mostly sorry for his nazi-past because he put eugenics in a bad light that way. So he still was a fervent eugenicist even after saying he was sorry for helping the Nazi's. http://www.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~loennig/mendel/mendel05.htmThe evidence of Dawkins being evil would show, or not, if you would do as I say, the evidence from personal experience.I think it's pretty useless go on about evidence, and then ignore this primary evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It seems you dismissed the evidence about Lorenz as meaningful, so it's useless to give you that sort of evidence. Just tell me what it means to you to be born selfish as Dawkins says, that is the primary evidence I am talking about. What nature and society look like on account of Dawkins theory. If you can't find anything questionable when philosphising about Dawkins theory that way, then that would tend to weaken my case.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

A thought experiment yes.What it means for children to identify as being born selfish.What it means for parents to view their children as being driven by selfish genes.What does this selfishness consist of?That sort of thing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dawkins says among other things that universal love doesn't exist. Again, it's not fair to point out anyone misunderstanding Dawkins, while at the same time not pointing out his convoluted writings. It would be considerably less bad if Dawkins had written a formal treatment of his ideas somewhere, besides his personal writings. I also think that this is an interpretative work, much like Darwin's work, and we will have Dawkins interpreters with contrary opinions, just like we have Darwin interpreters with contrary opinions. If your essay would succeed in translating it into a formal treatment of it, then IMO you should get priority for the findings over Dawkins himself.You have not actually stated what it means for you to have these selfish genes in your body, or that of your family, and people in society generally. So I think your denial that Dawkins theory is pernicious etc. is empty, until you begin to address questions like that, or dismiss those questions for some reason.I guess it would be kinreproduction, rather then kinselection, like the parentinggene or something.I think the selfishness you point out could also be described as a mechanism that guards against mutation. It's not likely we will ever come to know for sure which is the more appropriate way of describing when we go about it in the way Dawkins does. I still think that Dawkins' selfishness logically just means for a unit of selection to contribute to it's own reproduction. It wouldn't matter how much a particular gene contributes to another gene's reproduction, it would still be noted as a selfish gene, and not an altruist gene, just because it contributed to it's own reproduction.Memetics is I think a reformulation of previous comparisons of organisms to language, with the change that now language is mainly compared to viruses in stead of independent organisms.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If you don't make a formal treatment, or find one, then your essay would not have much of a basis to begin with. In any case I would be glad if you produced it, since essays facillitate criticism more then these discussions. I've been waiting for an essay on Darwinism and Nazism for 3 years now, from some people on talk.origins, so by that experience I don't have my hopes too high that anything will materialise in the foreseeable future. Until such time that you do produce something I will consider your denial essentially empty of reason.Since "guarding against mutations" is just different words to describe the same thing you described before, I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist. You can say they are not appriopate words to describe.Dawkins is trying to formulate universal truths (tm), that is why he talks in terms of "the truth", which is unusual for scientists, since they mostly talk in terms of facts and theories. One universal truth he (re)posits is that Nature is red in tooth and claw, which is basicly false, since as before, Nature is more accurately metaphorically described as wet in penis and vagina.Another universal truth is the supposed "blind pitiless indifference" at the bottom of Nature, which in this book he establishes by denying universal love. Plain preaching of evil.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't think it was ever likely there was going to be an essay to begin with, since you neglected to even answer simple questions about the issue on numerous occasions. Maybe you use science for the religious purpose of believing in your own innocense eh?Dawkins writes in terms of "the truth", as is demonstrated by the quote Schrafinator pulled from "The Selfish Gene" elsewhere. For you to say he doesn't write in terms of universal truths is deceptive, when he is generally known for writing in terms of "the truth".Again, I said it is possible to describe allelles that destroy other allelles which are not the same, in terms of guarding against mutation, in stead of describing them in terms of selfishness.I don't think there would be insult or degradation if you would not refer to your authority constantly, and dismiss my authority constantly. If you are better read as I'm sure you are, then I guess it would be easier to refute my arguments with all your knowledge. That's as far as authority should matter in a discussion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu