Dawkin's Disorder

[Furrowed Brow]

…the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

So if Jcrawford is correct, the implication is that Darwin’s Disorder is an abnormality. Possibly even a mutation ! So question for debate:

What evolutionary place do sufferers of Darwin’s Disorder fill?

And a second question.

What is the evolutionary point of Atheists?

[Furrowed Brow]

…the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

So if Jcrawford is correct, the implication is that Darwin’s Disorder is an abnormality. Possibly even a mutation ! So question for debate:

What evolutionary place do sufferers of Darwin’s Disorder fill?

And a second question.

What is the evolutionary point of Atheists?

Ok I was being flippant. And that first question don't make much sense. Anyway, I think there is a point to the second question. There have been evolutionary arguments for the presence of religion. Maybe there is even a religious gene. But turn the tables. Why atheism?

[Cathar1950]

I didn't know Dawkin was sick or did the name a disorder after him?

[Confused]

As I addressed to him already, I am awaiting for him to show me where in the DSMIV Darwin Disorder is listed and what is its criteria.

In regards to your second question, I don't know that an atheist must ascribe to evolution. They could have a whole different opinion. Or they could very well not know anything about evolution, but reject a God based on their own conclusions, but don't really care enough to wonder how we got here and where we are going.

[jcrawford]

…the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

So if Jcrawford is correct, the implication is that Darwin’s Disorder is an abnormality. Possibly even a mutation ! So question for debate:

What evolutionary place do sufferers of Darwin’s Disorder fill?

And a second question.

What is the evolutionary point of Atheists?

Ok I was being flippant. And that first question don't make much sense.

It makes a lot of sense from a Christian POV, since those suffering from Darwin's Disorder fill the need for atheists also suffering from Dawkin's Delusion to believe in genetic mutation and natural selection as the force, power or cause effecting the transmutation of species into other more complex species and to summarily dispense with any need for God as their supernatural creator.

Anyway, I think there is a point to the second question. There have been evolutionary arguments for the presence of religion. Maybe there is even a religious gene. But turn the tables. Why atheism?

Atheism is symptomatic of the Scientific Syndrome evolutionists are exposed to culminating in Darwin's Disorder and Dawkin's Delusion.

[upallnite]

Atheism is symptomatic of the Scientific Syndrome evolutionists are exposed to culminating in Darwin's Disorder and Dawkin's Delusion.

I recognize the language being used here as English. I also recognize(and know what they mean) all the words being used. What I do not understand is how these words got combined in this order.

Is this stating that I don't belive in god because I am smart and that being smart is some sort of disorder? I will agree that many atheists do not belive in god due to their scientific knowledge. This Jarhead is not one of them.

Evolutionary point of Atheists?
I think atheism is a reaction to religion. If religion did not exist I would never have to tell people I do not belive in their religion. Religion created the division in humanity. Atheism is a way of pointing out that the division is needless.

[Cathar1950]

I undersatnd what you mean Upallnight. I sometimes wonder if JCrawford has any clue to the words he uses and sometimes I think he just makes them up. Anything to fight evolution in the name of psudo-science

Atheism is symptomatic of the Scientific Syndrome evolutionists are exposed to culminating in Darwin's Disorder and Dawkin's Delusion.

Here there is no substance. He is simply calling evolution a disorder and delusion and tossing names out as if he had a clue.

I often think atheism is a reaction to poor theology gone bad.
But there are other good reasons.
Christians were once called atheist by the Greco-Romans.

[QED]

The Breakfast news program on BBC1 today had a report on research that shows cynicism to be detrimental to one's health. It seems that people who apply critical thinking rather than open acceptance to things in general suffer more heart related illnesses.

I can certainly understand this. I feel an enormous amount of frustration when I see people of faith going about their business with absolute certainty over something that is fundamentally ambiguous. The ambiguity is obviously lost on those who never let their minds venture into areas where multiple interpretations may lead them. No doubt the believers have their own frustrations with this attitude as well, but from their POV the non-believer is simply a party-pooper.

So, when it comes to natural selection, I think we have a clear prediction that nature will favour the ready believers among us. This certainly seems to tally with the colossal numbers of different faiths actively practiced around the world. I only just found out that there are nearly as many Hindu Gods as there are Hindus.

[Goat]

…the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

So if Jcrawford is correct, the implication is that Darwin’s Disorder is an abnormality. Possibly even a mutation ! So question for debate:

What evolutionary place do sufferers of Darwin’s Disorder fill?

And a second question.

What is the evolutionary point of Atheists?

Ok I was being flippant. And that first question don't make much sense.

It makes a lot of sense from a Christian POV, since those suffering from Darwin's Disorder fill the need for atheists also suffering from Dawkin's Delusion to believe in genetic mutation and natural selection as the force, power or cause effecting the transmutation of species into other more complex species and to summarily dispense with any need for God as their supernatural creator.

Anyway, I think there is a point to the second question. There have been evolutionary arguments for the presence of religion. Maybe there is even a religious gene. But turn the tables. Why atheism?

Atheism is symptomatic of the Scientific Syndrome evolutionists are exposed to culminating in Darwin's Disorder and Dawkin's Delusion.

Is Darwin's Disorder your OWN Discovery? And 'Dawkin's Delusion" too??

Do you have a paper published on it?? You know, in a medical journal.

And do you think that rather than mental illness, those phsycological problems are caused by demonic possession?

[palmera]

jcrawford wrote:

Atheism is symptomatic of the Scientific Syndrome evolutionists are exposed to culminating in Darwin's Disorder and Dawkin's Delusion.

jcrawford, what syndrome did atheists suffer from two thousand years ago? It's not as if atheism is a relatively new thing. Further, the word atheist should really be thrown out. It's not as if we have a word to label someone who is a non-alchemist, or non-numerologist, or non-astrologist. Do Christians believe in Zeus? No: so then you're also atheists.

It makes a lot of sense from a Christian POV, since those suffering from Darwin's Disorder fill the need for atheists also suffering from Dawkin's Delusion to believe in genetic mutation and natural selection as the force, power or cause effecting the transmutation of species into other more complex species and to summarily dispense with any need for God as their supernatural creator.

I have to agree with the other posters and ask if you really care about the meaning of your words. Believe in genetic mutation? What a misuse of the word "believe." Saying someone believes in evolution is like saying they believe New York is east of San Francisco. Using "believe" when talking about scientific theory is nothing at all like using it when talking about the supernatural.

As for the evolutionary advantage for not believing in a supernatural creator... it remains to be seen. I doubt anything of the sort was selected for. While religion was certainly useful to us in our past, it doesn't mean that religion was selected for necessarily. It could simply be that religion is a byproduct of other traits we have.