Example of Athiest Garbage (Dawkins Guy)

“More ordinarily, selfish behavior may consist simply in refusing to share some valued resource such as sexual partners.”

That’s by the athiest “God” Dick Dawkins. I didn’t believe it myself until someone showed it to me, but it’s right there in black and white in The Selfish Gene Chapter 1.



  1. 1
    Dan Says:

    What part of that is “garbage.” That looks like an entirely reasonable example of why selfishness makes sense for certain behaviors, so if it is garbage, then I’m curious – is it garbage that we not share the intimacy with our spouses with others?

    I don’t know about you, but I tend to think that monogamy is a good thing.

  2. 2
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Do you even understand what selfish means in that context?

  3. 3
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Ps Would you mind clarifying what you THINK Dawkins is trying to say in that excerpt?

  4. 4
    Yeti Says:

    If he had read more than that single sentence out of context, perhaps he could understand. But, seriously, I think he would rather stab his own eyes out than read a book by Dawkins in its entirety.
    He has read one book and that must be enough for anyone!

  5. 5
    angryxtian Says:

    If you can’t understand one simple sentence, your educators are failing you miserally, and you should take yourself somewhere you can gt a qaulity education. It’s really th most basic reading comprehension and if you can’t understand this its no onder you gt so much else rong.

  6. 6
    angryxtian Says:

    Clearly, Dan, th garbage is the notion that the institution of monogamy itself and ven marriage is somehow “selfish.” I’m not sure why that bothers you?

  7. 7
    Dan Says:

    Are you sure that you know what “selfish” is? Or what “context” means?

    Personally, I have every intention of being selfish with my wife, and not sharing her with others. You’re welcome to do whatever you wish though – it’s a free country.

  8. 8
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    No, the point is that “selfish” in this context does not mean that it’s socially or morally selfish to not share sex partners, it is referring to our “selfish genes”; Dawkins is talking about how our genes – which are selfish and only care about themselves surviving and reproducing – program us to not share sex partners because doing so does not further the reproduction of our own genes and could also further the reproduction of someone else’s genes.

    Sex partners are valuable “resources” because whatever person has one will surely further the survival/reproduction of his own genes, and selfish genes program us to keep those partners to ourselves so only OUR genes can reproduce and survive.

    Angryxtian has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.

  9. 9
    Dan Says:

    Angryxtian has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.

    Indeed, that’s painfully obvious, which is why I was trying to make my point simply and in small words. Giving the benefit of the doubt however, I find that when I’m angry, I don’t think so clearly either.

  10. 10
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    I also don’t think clearly when I’m looking for things to be angry about, like this guy.

  11. 11
    angryxtian Says:

    > “Personally, I have every intention of being selfish with my wife, and not sharing her with others.”

    Then you agre with me fully.

  12. 12
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    So, angryxtian, you still don’t understand that he isn’t saying that monogamy is selfish, that this is a reference to our biological/chemical make-up?

  13. 13
    Dan Says:

    “Then you agree with me fully.”

    About The Selfish Gene being “garbage”? No I do not agree with you at all.

  14. 14
    angryxtian Says:

    You don’t agree with me, now? I wish you’d make up your mind. So now you’re saying you DON’T plan to be “selfish” with your wife anymore, and now you DO plann to share her. And all of this just to defy God’ s law bcause you want to annoy Christians.

  15. 15
    Dan Says:

    No, I plan on being “selfish” with my wife.

    The trouble is that you don’t realize that you agree with Dawkins. Or do you now?

    Defy “God’s law”? What the heck are you talking about?

  16. 16
    Dan Says:

    Off-topic, I think it’s ironic that you use ““Smart” Athiests Say We’re Ignorant, Huh?” as your byline. Taking a look around your various posts, it does appear that you’re not very knowledgeable about anything here, really.

  17. 17
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    lol I like Dan, he’s going on my blogroll.

    Look, angryxtian, your cherry-picked quote from The Selfish Gene was not condeming monogamy, it was describing our chemical make-ups, you just took it the wrong way because you know almost nothing about science.

    You probably think evolution says we used to be monkeys, don’t you?

    Dan isn’t suddenly disagreeing with you – he’s saying that he and his wife will be monogamous, but he also realizes that this quote of yours isn’t condemning monogamy, so he doesn’t agree with your misinterpretation of it.

  18. 18
    Dan Says:

    Chillin – Thanks!

  19. 19
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    No problem, Dan. You seem like a cool guy.

    So, angryxtian, congratulations on completely destroying that little sliver of credibility you still had.

    I was afraid I’d have to take a stab at it.

  20. 20
    angryxtian Says:

    What your saying is cirquelar talk both of you.

    So how’s that polygamy going there Dannyboy? You feel unselfish yet? Hope you don’t get a VD.

  21. 21
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Tell me how it’s circular talk. Now.

    Our point is that you don’t know what Dawkins is talking about in context and are twisting his words to meet your disgusting ends.

  22. 22
    Dan Says:

    Hey Angry,
    Did you let all that anger short-circuit your brain? Chillin tried to explain it real simple-like for you, in a way that’s impossible for you to misunderstand. And you still don’t get it.

    You’re running this blog perfect for an Ignorant, Angry Christian. Way to go.

  23. 23
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Thanks for pointing that out, Dan. I think he just stopped reading anything that contradicts his supposed authority.

  24. 24
    Dan Says:

    Yes, it’s this impression I get that for many Christians, casual ignorance doesn’t cut it. They are determined to remain ignorant – which kind of makes sense when you consider that there are people nowadays (Dawkins being a prominent example) who are pointing out that the world is 4.5 billion years old, and other facts of natural history that are in direct contradiction to their deeply held beliefs. They feel that they have to chose between what is emotionally salient to them, or facts. And they choose delusions over facts every time.

    I’ll make it easy for you. Just repeat after me: “Dawkins was right in suggesting that some selfish behavior is good, such as monogamy.”

  25. 25
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    I do not remember where I read this, but it went something like “Theists have holy books and science has evidence; if the evidence contradicts the holy books, then the theists think it’s the EVIDENCE that should be thrown out.”

    That’s a good summary sentence. I think I’ll repeat it myself.
    “Dawkins was right in suggesting that some selfish behavior is good, such as monogamy.”

  26. 26
    angryxtian Says:

    Dawkins wasn’t right about nothing at all. Not a think.

    Selfish is a moral word. Tell me how it makes any sence at all outside the moral context. you can’t.

  27. 27
    Dan Says:

    Angry Christian,
    Have you actually read The Selfish Gene, or did you just flip to a page and pick out something that you didn’t understand (not having read the rest of the book) to criticize?

    Because Dawkins answers your question quite nicely in the first and second chapters of the book.

  28. 28
    Dan Says:

    More specifically, for how selfishness makes sense outside of a moral context, see page 2 where Dawkins explains what he means by selfish elements, and page 3 where he points out that he is NOT making suggestions for moral behavior, just arguing for one explanation of how altruism works.

    But reading the book before commenting on it would be good in general. I recommend that you do that.

  29. 29
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Look, Frank, I already told you quite clearly 3 times what selfish means in context.

  30. 30
    Jeff Says:

    Some 50 years ago a guy like Dawkins would have been dragged out in the street and shot.

  31. 31
    Dan Says:

    Nietzsche was hated even more, longer ago than that – Nothing happened to him. So I’m pretty sure that Dawkins would have been just fine 50 years ago.

  32. 32
    chillinatthecabstand Says:

    lol Dawkins was BORN 50 years ago. Maybe 60.

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: