NationStates Jolt Archive

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

No more than believing there is no God, if that cheapens life at all.

Naturellemont.

After all, If we have no purpose then why not go on a killing spree by the Pick 'n' Mix in Woolworths?:D

if he had been religious, he would have said that knowing that the body is just a shell and that he was releasing his victims to go to heaven made it easier for him to kill.

he was crazy. he would have latched on to any reason why it was OK to kill and eat people.

In a way it does.
But you could look at it and say, well after i die i will rest forever and not have to worry about anything that seems like a better idea than saying life has no meaning.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we should take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that?

No.

Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

Evolution doesn't necessarily rule out indirect divine Creation, purpose, or an afterlife (although it is evidence against it) so none of this makes sense. If you want to discuss whether Atheism cheapens life (and compared to which theistic belief) then that's another question.

EDIT: I should probably point out that most sects of Judaism teach that nearly all people end up in the same place eventually, with the exception of only a very few of the most evil people who simply cease to exist.

Life's pretty worthless anyways.

Naturellemont.

After all, If we have no purpose then why not go on a killing spree by the Pick 'n' Mix in Woolworths?:D

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but I do find it worrying that so many religious people claim that, if they didn't believe in their particular deity, then they'd cheerfully rob, rape and kill on a whim. It's also very amusing when these same people claim that Atheists are immoral...

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

No, why would it? For one, evolution does not disprove god.

Of course not.

I would argue that human life being just 'the audition' for eternity cheapens the value of your life, especially when such onus is put on telling the guy you believe responsible for it how cool you think he is. It allows the people you believe speaks for him to adjust your compass for you and convince you that the big guy prefers you over all the others, who, incidentally, you can totally kill because he said it was okay.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we should take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

Seems to me that it's all a process of rationalization. Some maniacs are very willing to kill and die because of a belief in some mystical afterlife where they will be rewarded.

There are also people with no such faith who feel that this being the only life we know makes it all the more valuable.

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but I do find it worrying that so many religious people claim that, if they didn't believe in their particular deity, then they'd cheerfully rob, rape and kill on a whim. It's also very amusing when these same people claim that Atheists are immoral...

Well, if there is no purpose to humanity, is there any ethical reason to avoid murder. After all, they can't have an effect if there's no purpose to their existence.

*decides to go to Woolworths with a Whacking spade and a Hand Grenade*

No.



Evolution doesn't necessarily rule out indirect divine Creation, purpose, or an afterlife (although it is evidence against it) so none of this makes sense. If you want to discuss whether Atheism cheapens life (and compared to which theistic belief) then that's another question.

EDIT: I should probably point out that most sects of Judaism teach that nearly all people end up in the same place eventually, with the exception of only a very few of the most evil people who simply cease to exist.

I think I've got internet debate tunnel vision, I forgot that even the Catholic Church, the slowest moving body on earth (they pardoned Galileo in my life time) accepts evolution...so I erroneously equated 'evolution' with 'atheism.' Though I think that was Dahlmer's clumsy association. But then, I agree with Ashmoria, he's nuts-it could have been the color chartreuse that was his excuse for killing people...

I think I've got internet debate tunnel vision, I forgot that even the Catholic Church, the slowest moving body on earth (they pardoned Galileo in my life time) accepts evolution...so I erroneously equated 'evolution' with 'atheism.' Though I think that was Dahlmer's clumsy association. But then, I agree with Ashmoria, he's nuts-it could have been the color chartreuse that was his excuse for killing people...

Well, Ratzinger does seem to have flirted with Intelligent Design recently, and he sacked the Vatican astronomer who denounced Creationism as 'a kind of Paganism'.

I'd rather life be meaningless. I'm not part of anyone's purpose, if I was I would intentionally break away from that path.

I'll gladly accept that the world and universe will go on without me.

The human race needs to stop glorifying itself. We're an animal, a bit more developed and conscious than others, but just as cruel as anything else in nature. And one day, we're going to all kill each other and something will take our place.

Evolution doesn't cheapen life. It just explains how it changes and works.
How would it cheapen it?

Belief in god doesn't enrich life. It makes you toe the line for fear of retibution.

Well, if there is no purpose to humanity, is there any ethical reason to avoid murder. After all, they can't have an effect if there's no purpose to their existence.

*decides to go to Woolworths with a Whacking spade and a Hand Grenade*

Firstly, you're proving my point. If the only thing stopping you from killing innocent people if a fear of divine retribution then you need to speak to a psychiatrist, I'm not joking.

Secondly, you're bandying the word 'purpose' around without any explanation of what you mean by it or why this particular purpose leads to killing being wrong.

Thirdly, all but a few people have something called 'empathy'. If you don't then you've got some serious problems.

Fourthly, even if we were forced to base our ethics on nothing but selfish pragmatism then killing would still be a bad idea.

And lastly, as the Bible (I'm assuming you're a Christian) is crammed full with cases of people being divinely mandated to kill and commit genocide I'd say it's Abrahamic religions which cheapen life.

Well, if there is no purpose to humanity, is there any ethical reason to avoid murder. After all, they can't have an effect if there's no purpose to their existence.

*decides to go to Woolworths with a Whacking spade and a Hand Grenade*

So you only refrain from murder because you think that humans have no purpose? So would you feel free to kill someone whose life had no purpose? Someone in a deep coma perhaps, or possibly someone very old.

The human race needs to stop glorifying itself. We're an animal, a bit more developed and conscious than others, but just as cruel as anything else in nature. And one day, we're going to all kill each other and something will take our place.

Being senient creatures does place us far above most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Considering that humans have been around for a fraction of the time other species have, we're deserve to pat oursleves on the back for the things we've accomplished where other animals failed with their head-start.

And I relish that day where we all kill each other (I can imagine the slowing of time and the doomday music playing in the background), but its doubtful that it will happen. For an entire species to die out, it has to be unable to adapt. Humans are just too able to adapt to any environment to die out entirely.

Well, if there is no purpose to humanity, is there any ethical reason to avoid murder. After all, they can't have an effect if there's no purpose to their existence.

*decides to go to Woolworths with a Whacking spade and a Hand Grenade*

the late mr dahmer is an excellent example of why lack of an afterlife doesnt make murder (and cannibalism) a good idea.

he was convicted of multiple murders in a state that has no death penalty. the lifer who did him in less than 2 years after his conviction didnt even have a day added to his sentence.

maybe mr dahmer should have used a bit more self control.

So you only refrain from murder because you think that humans have no purpose? So would you feel free to kill someone whose life had no purpose? Someone in a deep coma perhaps, or possibly someone very old.

All lives have purpose, be it Educational, Civilisational, Political etc.

Therefore no killing for me.

Anyway, I could never kill someone else. I should hate to cut short someone's life. Think of all they'd miss.

:rolleyes:

All lives have purpose, be it Educational, Civilisational, Political etc.

Therefore no killing for me.

Anyway, I could never kill someone else. I should hate to cut short someone's life. Think of all they'd miss.
What purpose does someone being kept alive by life support have?
It would cheapen life if it were true.

:rolleyes:

It would cheapen life if it were true.

I'm impressed: in just eight words you've managed to make not one, but two completely wrong statements.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

It would cheapen life if it were true.

What purpose does someone being kept alive by life support have?


:rolleyes:

To teach a little more of Comas etc and their possible cures, for the Benefit of Humanity.

Firstly how do you define cheapen life? Make it easier? Harder? More pointless? Answer that then people can actually start answering the question properly rather than using the age old theological arguments. Its a fact any argument science comes up with, religion finds a counter argument and vice versa. Religion and science, when it comes to "proof" for both theres virtually nothing - Religion lacks hard evidence and science cant actually prove anything - just say somethings either very likely or not.

So the premise that everyone shares the same kind of afterlife despite how good they were or evil they were doesn't cheapen life? So when this idea demoralizes people and causes them to become apathetic towards other people it doesn't cheapen life?

Also as a beleiver in the supernatural I beleive that good people would either rest in peace or go to heaven and the bad people would be tormented in some way, shape or form in their afterlife.

i would not have guessed that that was what you meant by "It would cheapen life if it were true."

additionally, agenda07 would you please back up your blank statements. Its becoming annoying

If you use the quote function to point out my 'blank statements' then maybe I will...

additionally, agenda07 would you please back up your blank statements. Its becoming annoying

These threads sure to sperate the men from the boys. And by "men" I mean logical, free thinking human beings and by "boys" I mean complete morons incapable of independent thought based on facts and logic.



EDIT: Note, to any femanist who just read my post, I do not in any way mean to imply only men are capale of logical free thought. I am simply using an old phrase and then twisting some words to insult anyone who still somehow thinks evolution is a myth or cheapens life.

I only add this edit note because I dont want Bottle to come to my house and smother me with my pillow in my sleep :p

I'm impressed: in just eight words you've managed to make not one, but two completely wrong statements.

So the premise that everyone shares the same kind of afterlife despite how good they were or evil they were doesn't cheapen life? So when this idea demoralizes people and causes them to become apathetic towards other people it doesn't cheapen life?

Also as a beleiver in the supernatural I beleive that good people would either rest in peace or go to heaven and the bad people would be tormented in some way, shape or form in their afterlife.

To answer the big question, evolution doesn't cheapen life, if we accept our morals as a trait we evolved over the generations then believing in evolution shouldn't demoralize the populace or become an excuse for dehumanizing crimes.

These threads sure to sperate the men from the boys. And by "men" I mean thinking human beings and by "boys" I mean complete morons incapable of independent thought based on facts and logic.

What on earth does one mean?

additionally, agenda07 would you please back up your blank statements. Its becoming annoying

He consitantly backs up his statements with logic and proof where it exists. Because his logic and proof conflict with your archaic dark ages world view and you choose to ignore themk is no fault of his.

You know what else is becoming annoying? Christians making statements like "Evolution requires just as much faith a religion" and "Evolution cheapens life".

So the premise that everyone shares the same kind of afterlife despite how good they were or evil they were doesn't cheapen life? So when this idea demoralizes people and causes them to become apathetic towards other people it doesn't cheapen life?

None of this follows from Evolution being true. If you were referring to another part of Soviestan's post then I apologise. :)

EDIT: Note, to any femanist who just read my post, I do not in any way mean to imply only men are capale of logical free thought. I am simply using an old phrase and then twisting some words to insult anyone who still somehow thinks evolution is a myth or cheapens life.

I only add this edit note because I dont want Bottle to come to my house and smother me with my pillow in my sleep :p

You spelt feminist incorrectly. And in one post, please PROVE evolution is real and can never ever have a shadow of doubt against it. Thankyou.

You spelt feminist incorrectly. And in one post, please PROVE evolution is real and can never ever have a shadow of doubt against it. Thankyou.

I refuse to believe anything which cannot be easily proven in one internet forum post.

:rolleyes:

And you are a fool to include logic and proof in the same sentence. Logic never = proof

You spelt feminist incorrectly. And in one post, please PROVE evolution is real and can never ever have a shadow of doubt against it. Thankyou.


In one post, please PROVE anything any religion says is remotely credible.



And I see that despite people explaining it to you several times, you still not only do not understand evolution, but science as a whole.

And you are a fool to include logic and proof in the same sentence. Logic never = proof


Logical thinking leads to proof.


I would say youre the fool child.

You couldnt be more wrong I am afraid.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

No, it's the profoundly dumb idea that if we aren't given some purpose by nature to do, then we must have no purpose at all that cheapens life. What he's arguing is that if evolution exists, then there must be no natural purpose to human existence. The assumption he carries with it is that humans cannot define their own purpose, or that if they did this would be valueless. This is ridiculous. If I become a hero through my actions, if I through long years of training and diligence become a man like Atticus Finch, is this in any way lessened by the fact that nature didn't specifically define when I was born that I would be a heroic man? I would say that the exact opposite is true: that my choices, and the fact that I could have chosen otherwise but didn't, in fact elevate my heroism to something even more worthy.

But that is of course the problem, in that if we suggest that we are who we choose to be, and we can be a hero or a monster, then it suggests that Jeffrey is in some sense culpable for choosing to be what he was. Dahmer is apparently just sane enough to realize this and latches onto the idea that it was out of his hands the entire time. I tend to think anyone saying "I have no choice" is really justifying a choice he's already made.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

No. The simple fact is we ARE here as a result of evolutionary processes. There is no God and thus believing that we have special meaning because of one is lying to ourselves.

That doesn't mean life has no meaning though. It simply means we have to create our own meaning, and personally, I like that idea a whole lot better.

No. The simple fact is we ARE here as a result of evolutionary processes. There is no God and thus believing that we have special meaning because of one is lying to ourselves.

That doesn't mean life has no meaning though. It simply means we have to create our own meaning, and personally, I like that idea a whole lot better.

Prove it

You couldnt be more wrong I am afraid.



Im afraid that Im actually correct. Just because Christians tend to come up with some ubsurd "proof" for their imaginary friend in the sky using massive logical leaps does not mean that conclusions cannot be reached based on logic.


I dont think you truly understand what the words logic or proof mean. Look em up kid.

To teach a little more of Comas etc and their possible cures, for the Benefit of Humanity.
And how is this purpose lessened or removed by evolution?
you seem to think that the second one has logic regarding a subject they immediately know the answer. It is logic to assume the bus I want to catch will come down the road, but not to my knowledge all the bus drivers are on strike so a bus never comes. My "knowledge" of a bus will come because ive caught one every other day for the last two years fails me. Scientists and people such as yourselfs will never be able to climb that block. I am afraid, this is a block God can lift....

God could have told you about the bus driver's strike? I seriously doubt it. Your god only tends to speak to the insane these days, and they don't often need to get the bus to work since they're unemployed.
Why bother give evidence when all it can do is NOTHING but make mistakes.
Or you know, lend credence to something.
Assumptions will make an ass-(out of)-u+me =)
And presumptions will put us both in the oval office.

Prove it

Prove otherwise.


There is an abundence of evidence we have shown you in other threads pointing to us being here by evolution. I have yet to see you offer any counter evidence.


Oh, thats right, there really isnt any credible counter evidence.

you seem to think that the second one has logic regarding a subject they immediately know the answer. It is logic to assume the bus I want to catch will come down the road, but not to my knowledge all the bus drivers are on strike so a bus never comes. My "knowledge" of a bus will come because ive caught one every other day for the last two years fails me. Scientists and people such as yourselfs will never be able to climb that block. I am afraid, this is a block God can lift....

I'm not sure. Evolution wouldn't inherently do so, it would take a lot more than that. Also, there are plenty of arguments to be made that evolution makes life worthwhile

If (and it's a big 'if') life had no purpose, then would it have a point?

Aren't the two basically synonymous?

And how is this purpose lessened or removed by evolution?


Because It could not be taught. People only learn when there is purpose.

Why bother give evidence when all it can do is NOTHING but make mistakes. Assumptions will make an ass-(out of)-u+me =)

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God? How do you even know I truly believe in a God? Assuming? All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way

lol

god does not have a RIGHT to exist. either he exists or he doesnt.

you seem to think that the second one has logic regarding a subject they immediately know the answer. It is logic to assume the bus I want to catch will come down the road, but not to my knowledge all the bus drivers are on strike so a bus never comes. My "knowledge" of a bus will come because ive caught one every other day for the last two years fails me. Scientists and people such as yourselfs will never be able to climb that block. I am afraid, this is a block God can lift....

You do realise that Philosophy of Science and Epistemology have both moved on quite a bit from Hume, no?

The whole point of science since Karl Popper has been to ignore the Problem of Induction by introducing falsifiability: rather than worrying that the Sun will not rise tommorow, they make sure that their theories will be altered in the event of the Sun not rising tomorrow.

From a more Epistemological perspective, it's reasonable to adopt an inductive heuristic even if we're not certain it'll work. Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a way of determining the state of natural laws in the future with certainty: maybe the method in question is extrapolation from past events (induction), tarot reading, gutting fish, or a divine voice. If any of these methods is consistently effective then induction will expand to include it (because if gutting fish has always been right in the past, induction will assume that it will be true in the future). Therefore if there's any way of predicting the future then Induction will work, and if there's no way of predicting future events then it doesn't matter what method you use.

So induction can be justified without needing to invoke the supernatural (the Classical notion of God actually destroys the whole basis of induction as he's said to interfere with the natural course of events through miracles).

You spelt feminist incorrectly. And in one post, please PROVE evolution is real and can never ever have a shadow of doubt against it. Thankyou.

Right after you prove your existence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God?
I don't. But you referred to him/her/it as God, which generally refers to the Chrisstian or Jewish god.
How do you even know I truly believe in a God? Assuming?
Concluding based on the evidence.
All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way

No, but there is evidence for evolution and none for any god.

I'm not sure. Evolution wouldn't inherently do so, it would take a lot more than that. Also, there are plenty of arguments to be made that evolution makes life worthwhile

So you only refrain from murder because you think that humans have no purpose? So would you feel free to kill someone whose life had no purpose? Someone in a deep coma perhaps, or possibly someone very old.If (and it's a big 'if') life had no purpose, then would it have a point?

So the premise that everyone shares the same kind of afterlife despite how good they were or evil they were doesn't cheapen life? So when this idea demoralizes people and causes them to become apathetic towards other people it doesn't cheapen life? Isn't that what Christianity is? "You cannot get into Heaven by good deeds alone" or some such thing.

You spelt feminist incorrectly. And in one post, please PROVE evolution is real and can never ever have a shadow of doubt against it. Thankyou.Um...science doesn't prove things, it disproves things.

Scientists and people such as yourselfs will never be able to climb that block. I am afraid, this is a block God can lift....



See that? Thats called a variable. Science does account for them.


Seriously, prove to me the existance of God is credible. Its easy for Christians (I use Christians because thats what we deal wih on these boards most) to make all these claims and then point at their holy book. Give me some proof outside of the Bible, because using the Bible as proof is circular reasoning.

And how is this purpose lessened or removed by evolution?


God could have told you about the bus driver's strike? I seriously doubt it. Your god only tends to speak to the insane these days, and they don't often need to get the bus to work since they're unemployed.

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God? How do you even know I truly believe in a God? Assuming? All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God?

You have your OWN god? Do you keep it in your pocket or on your nightstand?

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God? How do you even know I truly believe in a God? Assuming? All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way

Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean there isn't evidence.

Suppose two people are found at the scene of a murder: one of them is soaked in blood, is holding the murder weapon, and proudly declares that they 'killed the bastard'. We can't prove that he did it, but does that mean that the other man is just as likely to have been the murderer? Presumably at any murder trial the defending lawyer could stand up and say "there's no proof that my client did it, so it's just as likely to have been George Bush/Michael Jackson/Frodo Baggins (after all, you can't prove that Frodo doesn't exist, so according to you it's fifty:fifty).

Evolution has (literally) mountains of proof. Creationism has a book of dubious provenance.

See that? Thats called a variable. Science does account for them.


Seriously, prove to me the existance of God is credible. Its easy for Christians (I use Christians because thats what we deal wih on these boards most) to make all these claims and then point at their holy book. Give me some proof outside of the Bible, because using the Bible as proof is circular reasoning.

Well the fact the human race has simply survived, for what 4 million years? is good enough for me. I am truly surprised that we havent been either wiped out or wiped ourselves out. E.g massive true "World wars", meteors etc

Science observes evidence through the five senses to make assumptions and conclusions about the world around us. The first premise is, and always will be utterly flawed though, I am afraid. The simple "observe" cant even be proved - we cant trust our senses (see my signature). Then the evidence can lie or be unreliable. And then assumptions always makes an ass out of you and me. And the conclusion is never certain. Thats why my faith in science is limited

So you're going to just ignore the fact that science works and has worked for a very very long time, and instead focus on the fact that there is a possibility(a very small one that gets smaller every day that science continues to exist) that it's all wrong?

Why exactly?

And if you think the Bible is a ridiculous book to refer to in argument, then at least we agree on something *rolls eyes*

Science observes evidence through the five senses to make assumptions and conclusions about the world around us. The first premise is, and always will be utterly flawed though, I am afraid. The simple "observe" cant even be proved - we cant trust our senses (see my signature). Then the evidence can lie or be unreliable. And then assumptions always makes an ass out of you and me. And the conclusion is never certain. Thats why my faith in science is limited

There's nothing in your signature to justify the claim that "We can't trust our senses". Kindly elaborate.

All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way


*sigh* No, but one arguement has a large amount of credible evidence, the other doesnt.


This is of course assuming we are not using "evidence" as synominous with "proof".



You really, really dont understand how science works.

Well the fact the human race has simply survived, for what 4 million years? is good enough for me. I am truly surprised that we havent been either wiped out or wiped ourselves out. E.g massive true "World wars", meteors etc




Really? Considering God says the world is going to end, Id say that we've been aound for 4 million years + is a point against God.


Thats not evidence. Try again.

This is why I wonder why people discredit religion then put all their faiths and hopes into science. Its no different to religion. It will faulter eventually, as religion has, you will all see some day

Prove it.

Science observes evidence through the five senses to make assumptions and conclusions about the world around us. The first premise is, and always will be utterly flawed though, I am afraid. The simple "observe" cant even be proved - we cant trust our senses (see my signature). Then the evidence can lie or be unreliable. And then assumptions always makes an ass out of you and me. And the conclusion is never certain. Thats why my faith in science is limited

This is why I wonder why people discredit religion then put all their faiths and hopes into science. Its no different to religion. It will faulter eventually, as religion has, you will all see some day

the marvelous advances in technology is a good reason to put faith in science. why not go with what works?

Dont you people get it? HOW HAS SCIENCE WORKED???? If you mean prove something, try me. What has it proven? For certain - without a doubt

Don't you see the irony of using a computer to claim that science doesn't work?

Dont you people get it? HOW HAS SCIENCE WORKED???? If you mean prove something, try me. What has it proven? For certain - without a doubt

it has proven that man can fly. in an airplane.

it has proven that bacteria cause diseases and has provided cures for those diseases.

This is why I wonder why people discredit religion then put all their faiths and hopes into science. Its no different to religion. It will faulter eventually, as religion has, you will all see some day

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

...so religion is the answer to it all?
I mean seriously, you're talking about a nutter who tortured and killed animals, then graduated to torturing and murdering men and children, raping them while alive and dead and eating some of them, who thought his problem was that some people believed in evolution and not in a God who created the universe?

Well.... science would tell you he was a sick man, mentally ill, that there were chemical imbalances or defects in his brain....

I think I'll just go with "evil fuck who tried to excuse his evil fuckishness with some idiotic ramblings."

Dont you people get it? HOW HAS SCIENCE WORKED????
See the computer you're sitting in front of? It took years and years of scientific research to establish the principles it operates on, and further years of engineering to put those principles into practice. Every time you press the a button on your keyboard and the appropriate letter appears in the text box you are providing evidence that the science behind your computer it correct.
If you mean prove something, try me. What has it proven? For certain - without a doubt

Science does not prove, it only disproves.

Science observes evidence through the five senses to make assumptions and conclusions about the world around us. The first premise is, and always will be utterly flawed though, I am afraid. The simple "observe" cant even be proved - we cant trust our senses (see my signature). Then the evidence can lie or be unreliable. And then assumptions always makes an ass out of you and me. And the conclusion is never certain. Thats why my faith in science is limited



How do you know the translation of the Bible youre reading is accuate at all? How do you know in the original Bible, right before Jesus died he didnt say "Fuck please dont kill me this is all a big joke!!!!!!"?

Also, I dont know where you get the assumption we cannot trust our five senses very far. You do realize also that the observations made through science are all based on patterns right? And through peer review? You realize that means that every single scientist who looks at or conducts a study has to have his senses consitantly fuck up in the exact same way roughly 100 times each?

Thats a near statistical impossibility. Sure, its slightly possible, but its also slightly possible that Im going to suddenly grow wings and fly around the room through some rapid genetic mutation.

This is why I wonder why people discredit religion then put all their faiths and hopes into science.



Because science has show it WORKS and that its conclusions are at the core correct. Sure, Newtonian physics were flawed, but their core was accurate, gravity exists.

This is why intellegent people put more stock in science than religion, and this is the last time Im going to say it. Because scientific conclusions have a substantial amount of credible evidence backing their claims up. Religion has a 2000+ year old book.


That is why.

So you're going to just ignore the fact that science works and has worked for a very very long time, and instead focus on the fact that there is a possibility(a very small one that gets smaller every day that science continues to exist) that it's all wrong?

Why exactly?

Dont you people get it? HOW HAS SCIENCE WORKED???? If you mean prove something, try me. What has it proven? For certain - without a doubt

Oh good old reliable science tends to conveniently forget this line. And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says. You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality. And drop the whole Bible thing, since when was I defending it? I openly said the Bible is a pointless book

Oh for heaven's sake, if you're going to hold a bloody stupid opinion then at least have the decency to be consistent: if you don't trust science then turn of your computer. If you reply to this thread again then we'll know you're just trolling and you don't really believe what you're saying.

Oh good old reliable science tends to conveniently forget this line.
So how did it get there in the first place?
And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says.
You appear to be mistaken about what science says. Science does not say "This is how the universe works", science says "Of all the ways of the universe working that we could think of, this is the one that we can't currently show to be wrong".
You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality.
Neither I nor anyone else is trying to do so.
And your still completely failing to mention something science has proven

And you're continuing to ignore the fact that SCIENCE DOES NOT FUCKING PROVE THINGS.

Dont you people get it? HOW HAS SCIENCE WORKED???? If you mean prove something, try me. What has it proven? For certain - without a doubt




Oh my sweet merciful God.


You see that thing youre typing and reading this message on? THAT IS DONE THROUGH SCIENCE.


Your willful ignorance is getting very tiresome.

How do you know the translation of the Bible youre reading is accuate at all? How do you know in the original Bible, right before Jesus died he didnt say "Fuck please dont kill me this is all a big joke!!!!!!"?

Also, I dont know where you get the assumption we cannot trust our five senses very far. You do realize also that the observations made through science are all based on patterns right? And through peer review? You realize that means that every single scientist who looks at or conducts a study has to have his senses consitantly fuck up in the exact same way roughly 100 times each?

Thats a near statistical impossibility. Sure, its slightly possible, but its also slightly possible that Im going to suddenly grow wings and fly around the room through some rapid genetic mutation.


Oh good old reliable science tends to conveniently forget this line. And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says. You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality. And drop the whole Bible thing, since when was I defending it? I openly said the Bible is a pointless book

Okay then, when you are either horribly stoned or drunk. You hallucinate an elephant walking down the road. To a person who is perfectly sober, that elephant is in fact a car. Yet you SEE an elephant. Which is real?

You have to take an example the senses being adversely affected by drugs to justify your claim that they aren't reliable? What an interesting way to concede.

And naive realists are the people I pity more than any other. Blissfully wondering through life trusting their senses

How do you live your life differently? Would you stand in front of an oncoming train, happy in the knowledge that a 'naive realist' would have trusted their senses and got out of the way by now?

Okay then, when you are either horribly stoned or drunk. You hallucinate an elephant walking down the road. To a person who is perfectly sober, that elephant is in fact a car. Yet you SEE an elephant. Which is real?

So the sober person who sees a car can trust his senses for no particular reason in this hypothetical situation?

And your still completely failing to mention something science has proven

And naive realists are the people I pity more than any other. Blissfully wondering through life trusting their senses

I don't pity people who claim to disdain science while continuing to use its fruits, I laugh at them. If you don't believe in science then turn off the damn computer!

Oh good old reliable science tends to conveniently forget this line. And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says. You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality. And drop the whole Bible thing, since when was I defending it? I openly said the Bible is a pointless book

Prove I cannot trust my senses.


Right now. You keep using this ficticious claim as the crux of your arguement, and frankly I find it a dubious claim.

And people wonder why I think all Philosophy students should be obliged to take at least some classes in science...

But thats not a counter argument. That is merely evidence. My argument is indefeatable, simply for the fact that an opposite parralel to what we take as "reality" does exist.
Prove the existence of this parallel reality.
When your stoned is what you see the real world?
You see the same thing you see when sober, your brain simply misinterprets it.
For all we know it could be. Perhaps blind people arent blind at all, perhaps we who "see" are all blind. Perhaps blind people are the lucky few who see the "real" world. Theres no disproving it

Blind people, by definition, cannot see anything.

And your still completely failing to mention something science has proven


You dont seem to get science doesnt prove. To prove would mean its conclusions cannot be ammended when further evidence is gained through new technological achievement.


Again, cut the crap. You either cannot read or are being willfully ignorant.

Prove I cannot trust my senses.


Right now. You keep using this ficticious claim as the crux of your arguement, and frankly I find it a dubious claim.

Okay then, when you are either horribly stoned or drunk. You hallucinate an elephant walking down the road. To a person who is perfectly sober, that elephant is in fact a car. Yet you SEE an elephant. Which is real?

And naive realists are the people I pity more than any other. Blissfully wondering through life trusting their senses

Okay then, when you are either horribly stoned or drunk. You hallucinate an elephant walking down the road. To a person who is perfectly sober, that elephant is in fact a car. Yet you SEE an elephant. Which is real?


Ok, well, if Im stoned or drunk, there is a substance affecting my brain that is causing me to hallucinate. Its called a variable.


However, when I am stone sober and there is no mind alltering substance around or in my body, why cant I trust my senses?


Scientists dont do their work stoned or drunk. So I can trust their senses.

And naive realists are the people I pity more than any other. Blissfully wondering through life trusting their senses

Dont pity me. I understand the way the world and the organisms in it work.



Who is more naive, one who trusts his senses because there is ample reason to, or one who believes in a big imaginary omnipotent being that is inherantly good, created everything, is guiding the universe through history, and cares very much about each and every single person on the planet?


Again, one has a great deal of credible evidence, one has a 2000+ year old book.

This isnt real. This forum is merely an image. The real world is hidden. Somewhere

Prove it.

But thats not a counter argument. That is merely evidence. My argument is indefeatable, simply for the fact that an opposite parralel to what we take as "reality" does exist. When your stoned is what you see the real world? For all we know it could be. Perhaps blind people arent blind at all, perhaps we who "see" are all blind. Perhaps blind people are the lucky few who see the "real" world. Theres no disproving it

Dont pity me. I understand the way the world and the organisms in it work.



Who is more naive, one who trusts his senses because there is ample reason to, or one who believes in a big imaginary ominoptent being that is inherantly good, created everything, is guiding the universe through history, and cares very much about each and every single person on the planet?


Again, one has a great deal of credible evidence, one has a 2000+ year old book.

I know how miserable people like you can feel sometimes. The "real" world does stink... And again, since when have I actually said I believe in some omnipotent (laughs) God? Assuming again? Good old science

I know how miserable people like you can feel sometimes. The "real" world does stink... And again, since when have I actually said I believe in some omnipotent (laughs) God? Assuming again? Good old science




My life is actually quite good, thank you.

Ok, well, if Im stoned or drunk, there is a substance affecting my brain that is causing me to hallucinate. Its called a variable.
However, when I am stone sober and there is no mind alltering substance around or in my body, why cant I trust my senses?
Scientists dont do their work stoned or drunk. So I can trust their senses.

Ah how not to trust your senses, well they can be decieved with visual illusions, e.g. put a pen in water it looks like it bends when in fact it doesn't, so your vision is decieved.
Or how do you know if when you're asleep or when you're awake? in your dreams you take everything as real, in awakeness you take everything to be true. (Descartes spoke at length at how much he didn't trust his senses, i had to read his meditations and i found his writing incredibly annoying to read, he keeps using "I" and doesn't like full stops).

Or mirrors can trick you, i mean look at some magic tricks, there your senses can decieve you.
Or if you're in a desert and it's hot, you see a mirage in the desert, when in fact there's nothing there at all your senses tricked you there too.

Or for someone who hears voices in their head and think they're real, their senses are decieving them.
Sometimes your senses can overload, sometimes you pass out with pain (which is one of your senses), or your hands can go numb if you hold a piece of ice for too long, to the point where you lose sensation in your hands, thus your senses can be overridden.
Plenty of instances where your sense experience can trick you into thinking one thing.

But thats not a counter argument. That is merely evidence. My argument is indefeatable, simply for the fact that an opposite parralel to what we take as "reality" does exist. When your stoned is what you see the real world? For all we know it could be. Perhaps blind people arent blind at all, perhaps we who "see" are all blind. Perhaps blind people are the lucky few who see the "real" world. Theres no disproving it


No, your arguement is not indefeatable. You dont understand that you cannot just ignore variables when making a claim. Another way in which you are ignorant.

Mine is too, I enjoy leading it, or being lead, whichever is real, it doesnt affect me so I dont question it. I just distrust my senses. This isnt real. This forum is merely an image. The real world is hidden. Somewhere

No, your arguement is not indefeatable. You dont understand that you cannot just ignore variables when making a claim. Another way in which you are ignorant.

No it really is indefeatable. How do you honestly prove what we see is real? It cannot be done. Philosophers have tried to prove that for hundreds of years and failed I am afraid.

Mine is too, I enjoy leading it, or being lead, whichever is real, it doesnt affect me so I dont question it. I just distrust my senses. This isnt real. This forum is merely an image. The real world is hidden. Somewhere



We call what you have a dellusion. Believing something that is illogical and against all evidence.

You hae yet to show you have a good reason to distrust your senses on a day to day basis.


But youre just trolling now. Youve been offered ample reasons why you are wrong, you are just remaining willfully ignorant.

Oh good old reliable science tends to conveniently forget this line. And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says. You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality. And drop the whole Bible thing, since when was I defending it? I openly said the Bible is a pointless book
Ok, 'science' is not one person or a monolithic institution.

Scientists know they cannot trust there own senses...like to measure the temperature of water they do not stick there finger in and say "The water is 23.4C", they have a thermometer to measure it.

Oh so I should just give in? Break like a wave on rock? A rock of science, built on lies and assumption. I dont think so. I will NEVER believe my senses,
So you'll stay put in front of an oncoming train, because you can't be sure it's real?
what someone tells me, what a book tells me,
What book did you read all this in?
or what science can tell me. We will all fight, wars will endure over these words, then when all is lost you will realise that science was ONE MORE LIE.
A lie that is allowing you to spread your nonsense to many many other people. Just like everything else in life.
Including philosophy?
Judas had his day, I will have mine....
You'll hang yourself from a tree?

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie

Why do you listen to Caliban if you can't trust your sense of hearing?

No it really is indefeatable. How do you honestly prove what we see is real? It cannot be done. Philosophers have tried to prove that for hundreds of years and failed I am afraid.



Ok, if you choose to distrust what you see when you have no reason to, thats your call. You have no good reason to, but yet you choose to anyway. There is a word for people like you...

No está hecha la miel para la boca del burro.

Oh so I should just give in? Break like a wave on rock? A rock of science, built on lies and assumption. I dont think so. I will NEVER believe my senses, what someone tells me, what a book tells me, or what science can tell me. We will all fight, wars will endure over these words, then when all is lost you will realise that science was ONE MORE LIE. Just like everything else in life. Judas had his day, I will have mine....

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie

Take the red pill, Neo!

No, why would it? For one, evolution does not disprove god.
It certainly doesn’t disprove a ‘First-Cause’ god, one of the Deist variety, but I think it could be argued that certain aspects of evolution make a hard case for the existence of an all-powerful, all-good god that views humanity as he pinnacle of its creation.

Or at least, gives him have a lot of explaining to do.


And the very sad thing is, you people have fallen into the trap of believing what science says.
There’s no ‘trap’ there, and the only sad thing is that you fail to recognise that empirical science is just that: scientific enquiry into our empirically observable surroundings.

Complaining that science could be wrong because we can’t 100% trust our senses is as useless and unproductive as complaining that mathematics could be wrong because an evil daemon could be messing up my arithmetic.

The mathematical and scientific frameworks aren’t there to question whether or not our senses can be trusted; that’s the job of epistemological philosophy.

You cannot trust your senses! What you see could be a lie, you can NEVER prove senses = reality.
And? What does it matter? The sceptic’s challenge is an interesting one, but one we shouldn’t be frightened of.

I see a cup of tea in front of me, and desire to drink it. I know, deep down, that an evil daemon or mad scientist could be deceiving me totally. But that doesn’t really bother me. I can’t remember taking any hallucinogen recently, I feel pretty normal and my actions seem to be interacting with the environment fine.

*sips tea*

Sure, I could get all panicky and start wailing that I can’t trust my senses, but then I wouldn’t enjoy my tea as much.

And naive realists are the people I pity more than any other. Blissfully wondering through life trusting their senses
You don’t trust your senses most of the time?

How are you typing your posts or viewing the net? How do you cross the road? How do you eat, wash, walk, etc?

Oh so I should just give in? Break like a wave on rock? A rock of science, built on lies and assumption. I dont think so. I will NEVER believe my senses, what someone tells me, what a book tells me, or what science can tell me. We will all fight, wars will endure over these words, then when all is lost you will realise that science was ONE MORE LIE. Just like everything else in life. Judas had his day, I will have mine....

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie

Oh so I should just give in? Break like a wave on rock? A rock of science, built on lies and assumption. I dont think so. I will NEVER believe my senses, what someone tells me, what a book tells me, or what science can tell me. We will all fight, wars will endure over these words, then when all is lost you will realise that science was ONE MORE LIE. Just like everything else in life. Judas had his day, I will have mine....

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie

Speaking as a student of Philosophy you're talking rubbish. You claim to doubt everything, but as Hume put it:

You propose then, Philo, said Cleanthes, to erect religious faith on philosophical scepticism; and you think, that if certainty or evidence be expelled from every other subject of enquiry, it will all retire to these theological doctrines, and there acquire a superior force and authority. Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. And this consideration, Demea, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humourous sect of the sceptics. If they be thoroughly in earnest, they will not long trouble the world with their doubts, cavils, and disputes: if they be only in jest, they are, perhaps, bad railers; but can never be very dangerous, either to the state, to philosophy, or to religion.

If you really believe the nonsense you're spouting then get off the internet.

You don’t trust your senses most of the time?

How are you typing your posts or viewing the net? How do you cross the road? How do you eat, wash, walk, etc?

Hygiene is just another lie that the scientists tell the naive realists, dontcha know.

You claim to doubt everything, but as Hume put it...
Leave it to the Great Infidel to put him in his place. :p

Oh so I should just give in? Break like a wave on rock? A rock of science, built on lies and assumption. I dont think so. I will NEVER believe my senses, what someone tells me, what a book tells me, or what science can tell me. We will all fight, wars will endure over these words, then when all is lost you will realise that science was ONE MORE LIE. Just like everything else in life. Judas had his day, I will have mine....

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie

Are you a sceptic?
No science is useful, but it's not infallible, some forms of philosophy can have dangerous consequences.

So what? why not enjoy yourself while your senses still trick you? who cares, i mean if everything is a lie, then it must be true somewhere, for a lie to exist it has to be in a real environment you must be real somewhere, this is what science can help find too.
Besides although there are some good sceptical arguments, it collapses in on itself. "there is no such thing as absolute truth" means the statement fails it's own criteria, if the statement is true then it's lying, if it's false then there is such a thing as absolute truth.
As another poster said, read some of Hume's work, he really made some good arguments for empiricism.

Leave it to the Great Infidel to put him in his place. :p

Indeed. I find it rather amusing that, for all his pseudo-intellectual pretensions, NA doesn't seem to know very much about the guy who came up with the whole 'Problem of Induction' thing. Besides, I never miss an opportunity to quote Hume. :):D

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy

Caliban - One More Lie


Thats utter nonsense. In many ways science is a branch of philosophy.

Maybe. It depends on what you value in life.

But, regardless, evolution is still true, whatever its negative (or positive) consequences.

Thats utter nonsense. In many ways science is a branch of philosophy.

While Science may have originated from Philosophy, and many great scientists have been influenced by Philosophy, I don't think Science can be seen as a branch of it any more, except in the most generalised sense of Philosophy as 'love of knowledge'.

I will NEVER believe my senses
You just did when you typed that sentence, when you moved you mouse, when you clicked on ‘Submit Post’, and a countless other actions you’ve done today.

Science will always faulter in the face of philosophy
You talk as if the two were at war, which is much mistaken.

Philosophy can question science in general and the scientific method in particular, but a huge amount of science influences and informs a huge amount of philosophy. See the current exciting topic of the Philosophy of Mind; or for more classical takes on how science influences philosophy, read Descartes’ Discourse on the Method or Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

Prove I cannot trust my senses.


Hell, for all his talk about proof I'm still waiting for him to prove his own existence.

Prove I cannot trust my senses.
That’s pretty easy; I can point you to any hallucination, misreading of a word, mishearing a sound, etc., to show that our sense can’t be trusted all the time.

To claim otherwise would be a little foolish, I think.

No it really is indefeatable. How do you honestly prove what we see is real? It cannot be done. Philosophers have tried to prove that for hundreds of years and failed I am afraid.

go stand in the middle of the road. reality will hit you like a mack truck.

You just did when you typed that sentence, when you moved you mouse, when you clicked on ‘Submit Post’, and a countless other actions you’ve done today.


You talk as if the two were at war, which is much mistaken.

Philosophy can question science in general and the scientific method in particular, but a huge amount of science influences and informs a huge amount of philosophy. See the current exciting topic of the Philosophy of Mind; or for more classical takes on how science influences philosophy, read Descartes’ Discourse on the Method or Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

He'l have fun with Descartes, did you know that's where the term 'think tank' came from? because he locked himself in his room for 6 days basically.
I mean after i've read it what he's trying to explain is quite straightforward, but the way he says it can be very repetitive and backward E.g.
Some years ago i noticed how many false things i had accepted as true in my childhood, and how doubtful were the things that i subsequently built on them and therefore that, once in a lifetime, everything should be completely overturned and i should begin again from the most basic foundations if i ever wished to establish anything firm and durable in the sciences. But that task seemed enormous, and i waited to reach such a mature age that no more appropriate age for learning would follow. Thus i waited so long that, from now on, i could be blamed if i wasted in further deliberation whatever time remains for me to begin the project. Therefore today i approprietly cleared my mind of all cares and arranged for myself some time free from interruption. I am alone and, at long last, i will devote myself seriously and freely to this general overturning of my beliefs.
This was from First Meditation "Things which can be called into doubt".

It doesn't cheapen life simply because there is no way to prove that god doesn't exists (maybe he is the creator of evolution, after all). Killing is one of the things I wouldn't do just in case there was a god and an afterlife. Recently, I've changed ideas on god and stuff, but since I still can't prove there is no god, well, you know, maybe it's the bad idea to commit the worst sin.

Notwithstanding the ridiculous lack of logic behind killing, that is.

Edit: I don't know if killing is the worst sin, really, but I do know it's pretty bad in most religions.

No, but the belief that you can burn a dozen innocents alive, ask a priest for forgiveness, and reach heaven does.

It certainly doesn’t disprove a ‘First-Cause’ god, one of the Deist variety, but I think it could be argued that certain aspects of evolution make a hard case for the existence of an all-powerful, all-good god that views humanity as he pinnacle of its creation.

:confused:

Excuse me but how do you know about MY God? How do you even know I truly believe in a God? Assuming? All I am saying is that God has just as much right to exist as does evolution - there is no "proof" either way
But there is plenty of evidence for evolution.
This is why I wonder why people discredit religion then put all their faiths and hopes into science. Its no different to religion. It will faulter eventually, as religion has, you will all see some day
The computer you are posting with was built with science. How can you possibly ignore the inconsistency of denouncing science while using a computer on the internet?

And your still completely failing to mention something science has proven
Well, that could be because you're an idiot who refuses to listen when somebody explains that science doesn't prove things, it just finds that it's likely, given current evidence, for things to be the case. But science has accumulated vast evidence in favor of things like Evolution, gravity, and germ theory.

No it really is indefeatable. How do you honestly prove what we see is real? It cannot be done. Philosophers have tried to prove that for hundreds of years and failed I am afraid.

Okay, say what we see is a massive simulation. That could be the case, and we can't disprove it. Then what science does is reveals the rules of that simulation, that we call the Universe.

But I have to ask you (and if you ignore this, then your intellectual dishonesty will be made all the more obvious.):

When you get sick, do you go to the doctor or take medicine? Or do you instead go for bloodletting or some other "cure?" If you go for modern medicine, why? If science is a lie, then medicine doesn't work.

You clearly use a computer. Why? If science is a lie, then your computer shouldn't be able to run.

Have you ever driven a car? Flown in an aeroplane? Those were made with science, so why do you trust them to work?

When it gets dark, do you turn on the lights? Why? If science is a lie, then the lightbulb shouldn't work either!

You use so many products of the scientific method. Products that can't work unless the scientific method is valid. How do you explain this inconsistency?

If you cannot explain it, then your beliefs are self-contradictory and therefore wrong.

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator. Every school shooter. All believe in evolution and concluded either

A: they were superior and needed to wipe out the inferior or

B: life is pointless and if there's no point to life, I may as well choose to die my way and since my life doesn't matter, no one else's does either.

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe. You have no significance whatsoever. Nothing you do matters in the long term. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing. you and a monkey and a worm and a rock are all equal. If you want to succeed, the only way is through conquest and control. If you lose, it means you are inferior and have no future.

Regarding evidence for evolution,

1. The theory was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm. Now we know that the cell is a highly complex mechanism that we hardly understand at all. DNA is a very complex molecule, capable of storing vast quantities of information. It has been mapped, but we know almost nothing about what each segment does. Furthermore, the epigenome, which activates the sections of the DNA to tell a cell what it will be is not understood in the least. This came about by pure chance? Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe for more information - he's a biochemistry professor and not an evangelical creationist layman. He's as credible as they come.

2. Nowhere on earth does the "geologic column" exist as it is presented in textbooks. Layers are missing or even out of order anywhere you look. Furthermore, circular reasoning is used to date the rocks and fossils: They date each other according to a predetermined chart. Not scientific. scientists were recently shocked to discover red blood cells and soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of questioning the charts and the supposed age of the fossil (established through theory rather than the scientific method) they questioned everything they knew about chemistry and fossilization (which can be and has been tested thoroughly in laboratories). No one dates the fossils by any chemical method without consulting the official charts and any results that are outside the expected range are thrown out as errors.

3. The fossil record: All "missing links" between apes and humans have been shown to be 100% human, 100% extinct simian, or 100% fraud. There aren't any missing links anywhere, and the fossil record shows no gradual transitions anywhere. Every fossil can be classified as a member of a distinct species. Oddly enough, there are many

4. Observed evolution: Every nutation created by scientists under perfect laboratory conditions has proven harmful. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. No change has ever been observed in any species that would change it into another species. the only evidence is,"well, if we evolved, we have to assume that it's possible to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

5. Scientific errors: Any evidence that calls into question any aspect of the theory of evolution is immediately disregarded without question. this is not scientific, but dogmatic. To raise points such as those above will result in people shouting me down as some crazed mystic who won't see the truth, no matter what questions or evidence I bring to the table. Is it scientific to assume that any theory is true when it has never been observed, only conjectured?

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator.

Oh noes! Not the the "Hitler was a socialist" stance again.

Evolution is a concept. Only human arrogance and greed can cheapen life.

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator. Every school shooter. All believe in evolution and concluded either

A: they were superior and needed to wipe out the inferior or

B: life is pointless and if there's no point to life, I may as well choose to die my way and since my life doesn't matter, no one else's does either.

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe. You have no significance whatsoever. Nothing you do matters in the long term. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing. you and a monkey and a worm and a rock are all equal. If you want to succeed, the only way is through conquest and control. If you lose, it means you are inferior and have no future.

Prove they all supported evolution.

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator. Every school shooter. All believe in evolution and concluded either

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe. You have no significance whatsoever. Nothing you do matters in the long term. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing. you and a monkey and a worm and a rock are all equal. If you want to succeed, the only way is through conquest and control. If you lose, it means you are inferior and have no future.

Regarding evidence for evolution,

1. The theory was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm. Now we know that the cell is a highly complex mechanism that we hardly understand at all. DNA is a very complex molecule, capable of storing vast quantities of information. It has been mapped, but we know almost nothing about what each segment does. Furthermore, the epigenome, which activates the sections of the DNA to tell a cell what it will be is not understood in the least. This came about by pure chance? Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe for more information - he's a biochemistry professor and not an evangelical creationist layman. He's as credible as they come.

2. Nowhere on earth does the "geologic column" exist as it is presented in textbooks. Layers are missing or even out of order anywhere you look. Furthermore, circular reasoning is used to date the rocks and fossils: They date each other according to a predetermined chart. Not scientific. scientists were recently shocked to discover red blood cells and soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of questioning the charts and the supposed age of the fossil (established through theory rather than the scientific method) they questioned everything they knew about chemistry and fossilization (which can be and has been tested thoroughly in laboratories). No one dates the fossils by any chemical method without consulting the official charts and any results that are outside the expected range are thrown out as errors.

3. The fossil record: All "missing links" between apes and humans have been shown to be 100% human, 100% extinct simian, or 100% fraud. There aren't any missing links anywhere, and the fossil record shows no gradual transitions anywhere. Every fossil can be classified as a member of a distinct species. Oddly enough, there are many

4. Observed evolution: Every nutation created by scientists under perfect laboratory conditions has proven harmful. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. No change has ever been observed in any species that would change it into another species. the only evidence is,"well, if we evolved, we have to assume that it's possible to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

5. Scientific errors: Any evidence that calls into question any aspect of the theory of evolution is immediately disregarded without question. this is not scientific, but dogmatic. To raise points such as those above will result in people shouting me down as some crazed mystic who won't see the truth, no matter what questions or evidence I bring to the table. Is it scientific to assume that any theory is true when it has never been observed, only conjectured?

First of all, Hitler was christian... why else would a totalitarian dictator have reich-bishops?

Second, the section I highlighted in bold is a perfect example of why religion even continues to exist. Your desire to be better than everything else in the universe is driving your continued belief in an imaginary friend that thinks you are more special than all the other things he didn't create... and you say this immediately after saying that hitler and stalin tried to wipe out the inferior... that almost smacks of hypocrisy.

It also looks like you haven't taken a biology class in quite some time. I think your use of "we"must be in the royal sense and not including the scientific community because "they" are doing a pretty good job of figuring out exactly what the cell does. They are even starting to figure out the "junk" DNA that was initially thought to be a safeguard against replication errors and the like.

I'm pretty sure the age of things and fossil records and the like are pretty well accepted as well. Even without your geologic column, there is C-14 dating, something to do with volcanos and the earth's magnetic north pole (I can't explain this fully - we barely touched on it in biology and I'm not done with physics), and the racemization of amino acids. You see, all amino acids have a stereogenic center on the carbon that holds the "R" group (the group that differs in the amino acids. In all life forms, this stereogenic center has the same configuration - but after the organism dies racemization occurs so that a mixture of enantiomers (diastereomers if there is more than one stereogenic center) are formed. The degree of racemization is a pretty good method of determining age.

As for your mutations, look up MRSA. It may not be good for us, but the bacteria sure is surviving. There are also drug-resistant strains of TB that didn't exist before.

Take some actual science classes that aren't offered at Bob Jones University then see if your eyes don't open a little.

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe.

That's right. We aren't.

You have no significance whatsoever.

Not to the universe, no... but, well, deal with it. Truth is truth.

We may nevertheless have significance to ourselves and to others.

Nothing you do matters in the long term. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing.

Oh, well. Nothing we can do about that.

It's interesting how often the implications of something being true are brought up as evidence against it being true.

It's very... human. :)

Obviously, the title of this thread points to that, "Does evolution cheapen life?" - if evolution is true then life is life and there's nothing the facts do to change its value.

Indeed.

I do not, as it happens, think that evolution tells us very much of significance about the value of human life... but even if it did, we would still be stuck with it.

In cases like that--and even if evolution isn't one, they do exist elsewhere--the best you can do is stare it in the eye and deal with it as best you can.

That's right. We aren't.


It's interesting how often the implications of something being true are brought up as evidence against it being true.

Obviously, the title of this thread points to that, "Does evolution cheapen life?" - if evolution is true then life is life and there's nothing the facts do to change its value.

Often when I've challenged one of the most oft-repeated slices of silliness seen on these here forums, that wealth = hard work, the response has been something along the lines of "communism/socialism doesn't work therefore this can't be true". In fact, I remember Neu Leonstein saying he couldn't accept a philosophy other than his current one that that leads him to libertarianism because otherwise, to him, life would be meaningless.

This isn't particularly - or at all - relevant, I just wanted to articulate some thoughts that have accumulated whilst using NSG over the past few months.

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator. Every school shooter. All believe in evolution and concluded either

A: they were superior and needed to wipe out the inferior or

B: life is pointless and if there's no point to life, I may as well choose to die my way and since my life doesn't matter, no one else's does either.

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe. You have no significance whatsoever. Nothing you do matters in the long term. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing. you and a monkey and a worm and a rock are all equal. If you want to succeed, the only way is through conquest and control. If you lose, it means you are inferior and have no future.

Fail.

1) Stalin believed in Lamarkism, not Darwinian Evolution. Please try to be honest.

2) To say that Darwinian evolution has moral implications (that is, that you should be ruthless and selfish or whatever, because of "survival of the fittest") is like saying that gravity says that we shouldn't fly aeroplanes.

3) Actually, school shootings are generally because the given person got really angry and snapped-- it's not a matter of trying to improve the gene pool; it's a matter of wanting to kill people they hate.

4) Darwinism doesn't imply Social Darwinism. This is a failure of a massive level.

5) Plenty of evil people have believed in God-- especially the Christian God that I assume you believe in. Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning accused witches at the stake? Those things were all done by devout believers. Does this mean that religion implies that there is no purpose to life?

Essentially, you fail. Hard. You make the ET video game look like an epic win.

Oh noes! Not the the "Hitler was a socialist" stance again.

nazi = national socialist. hello?

nazi = national socialist. hello?

Yeah, so what? Your lack of knowledge is amazing, 'socialism' is a vast and near undefinable concept these days, if your trying to make a link between German Socialism and Marxism, your quite mistaken, in fact in the Communist Manifesto Marx denounced German Socialism, the intellectual forerunner of Naziism. Please read this:


While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths”, all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.

And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

Nationalism, anti-communism, crude subjectivism etc etc, sounds like Naziism to me.

nazi = national socialist. hello?

"National socialism" is not socialism, though certain aspects of its rhetoric were deliberately designed to appeal to anti-capitalist sentiment.

When in power, the Nazis did intervene heavily in the economy, but not in a very socialist way. The means of production were held in private hands and the profits kept on flowing to the top.

Indeed, large portions of the German upper class welcomed the Nazis as, at worst, a lesser evil bulwark against left-wing radicalism that would bring stability and protect their wealth.

So believing that humans evolved due to material conditions (natural reasons), rather than supernatural reasons, cheapens life?

Religion itself degrades people to nothing, we are told that we are literally nothing to this 'God'. You want the justification for slavery, genocide, war, the subjugation of women and all atrocities, look no further than the Old Testament.

Nothing like giving people the worst traits imaginable, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness.

"National socialism" is not socialism, though certain aspects of its rhetoric were deliberately designed to appeal to anti-capitalist sentiment.

When in power, the Nazis did intervene heavily in the economy, but not in a very socialist way. The means of production were held in private hands and the profits kept on flowing to the top.
Yeah, I quoted what Marx said about German Socialism above. The only people who had property expropriated under Hitler were Jews, and Hitler killed off all the anti-capitalist elements in the infamous purge. Naziism came to back on the power of the petty bourgeois fearful of proletarian revolution in Germany.

1) Stalin believed in Lamarkism, not Darwinian Evolution. Please try to be honest.
...what's Lamarkism? This is the first I've heard of it.

2) To say that Darwinian evolution has moral implications (that is, that you should be ruthless and selfish or whatever, because of "survival of the fittest") is like saying that gravity says that we shouldn't fly aeroplanes.

Right. It's a misunderstanding of the scientific theory. It has no implication on our moral beliefs whatsoever except that which we choose to perceive.

3) Actually, school shootings are generally because the given person got really angry and snapped-- it's not a matter of trying to improve the gene pool; it's a matter of wanting to kill people they hate.

Again, very true. There are plenty of ways we could decrease these but that would go off the main topic.

4) Darwinism doesn't imply Social Darwinism. This is a failure of a massive level.

Right again. Social Darwinism was created by the rich elite and others with similar viewpoints shortly after Darwinism first became known as an excuse to continue persecuting even as more and more evidence against such persecution having a factual basis or even being a good idea for society continued to mount.

5) Plenty of evil people have believed in God-- especially the Christian God that I assume you believe in. Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning accused witches at the stake? Those things were all done by devout believers. Does this mean that religion implies that there is no purpose to life?

I question your use of the word evil. You use it as though evil were something more than a concept. For an atheist, that's a bit hypocritical. (The action, not you.)

Essentially, you fail. Hard. You make the ET video game look like an epic win.
Now that was uncalled for. Shame on you. :p

Cheapen it compared to what ? A legion of beings that are vastly superior to us, of which one created us all in a mere 7 days of its infinite existence ?
This life being only a transit station ?

I would say the contrary... ;)

...what's Lamarkism? This is the first I've heard of it.

You have never been in an evolution debate on these forums before :o ?

You have never been in an evolution debate on these forums before :o ?
Many times, actually. I've never heard the term though.
Lamarckian evolution, a concept that preceded Darwin. Rather than muddle the definition up myself, I'll quote wikipedia:

"It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring."
Oh, that. I've heard of it before, just not by that name.

...what's Lamarkism? This is the first I've heard of it.

Lamarcksim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism), or Lamarckian Evolution, is basically the idea that you pass on acquired characteristics. So, for example, if you work out a lot, that makes your kids stronger.
<snipping out a lot of agreement and such>

I question your use of the word evil. You use it as though evil were something more than a concept. For an atheist, that's a bit hypocritical. (The action, not you.)

Well, it's just a concept, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Though, I suppose the word "evil" often has connotations of being against some divine mandate; perhaps I should have used another word. "Cruel," perhaps?


Now that was uncalled for. Shame on you. :p

Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but I've always wanted to use that comparison. :D

...what's Lamarkism? This is the first I've heard of it.

Lamarckian evolution, a concept that preceded Darwin. Rather than muddle the definition up myself, I'll quote wikipedia:

"It proposed that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring."

Well, it's just a concept, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Though, I suppose the word "evil" often has connotations of being against some divine mandate; perhaps I should have used another word. "Cruel," perhaps?


Something like that. I know how you meant it, but I just figured I'd point it out so you'd be more careful in how you use the term.

Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but I've always wanted to use that comparison. :D
Fair enough.

Actually more often than not capitalism and indeed Nazism was justified by an extreme view of social Darwinism which said that the 'strong' (wealthy, powerful, better race etc) should rule and the 'weak' should perish.

Actually more often than not capitalism and indeed Nazism was justified by an extreme view of social Darwinism which said that the 'strong' (wealthy, powerful, better race etc) should rule and the 'weak' should perish.

Of course, none of them took this to the logical extreme: What happens when all of the "weak" have perished? Do the strong then fight amongst themselves? When does it stop?

No.

Communism cheapens life by replacing human dignity with class identity and human freedom with never-ending, universal serfdom.

That arguably cheapens persons. It however might in fact promote the biological fact of life.

Which of course leads us to the question which definition of "life" the OP wants us to use. The anti-evolution crowd after all tends to identify itself as pro-life - and the life in that context is just the biological.

No.

Communism cheapens life by replacing human dignity with class identity and human freedom with never-ending, universal serfdom.

No.

Communism cheapens life by replacing human dignity with class identity and human freedom with never-ending, universal serfdom.

Please, your words offend my eyes. Go back to reading Hopper or something, I doubt many want to read your never ending tirades. 'Freedom' is the freedom to exploit others. True freedom can only come through abolition of class relations, but simply a continual reconstitution of them.

Human dignity can only exist when workers have full control over the means of production which they work, and when social parasitism is ended.

New Granada, do you own productive capital yourself, do you earn your income through capital gains extraction? If not then what is your material incentive to defend such a system. Your essentially defending the property of a tiny group of the population, why is that exactly?

Tongass, like you, are simply prone to believing the intellectual outgrowth of bourgeois property in the form of libertarian propaganda. I feel sorry for you.

That arguably cheapens persons. It however might in fact promote the biological fact of life.

Which of course leads us to the question which definition of "life" the OP wants us to use. The anti-evolution crowd after all tends to identify itself as pro-life - and the life in that context is just the biological.
I believe his argument ultimately comes down to a religious, philosophical or ideological criticism of materialism. I personally have no patient for people who use wild unsubstantiated abstractions as an argument, rather than concrete fact.

Fact, humans are animals, oh wait did I offend your moralistic sensibilities;)

Fact, humans are animals, oh wait did I offend your moralistic sensibilities;)

No, but some pigs were offended due to being compared to us ;)

If anything it makes life more astonishing, and makes god (at least the form I believe in) much more impressive.

Nothing has done more to destroy human dignity, human life, and the human spirit than communism.

I loathe libertarianism. There is a world of difference between being socially responsible and being a communist.

It is no accident that China and Russia are utter cesspools of selfish materialism nowadays, it is a result of the harm done to their cultures by years of communism.

Communists have proven in every instance that they would kill or imprison someone like me, in every case that they plunder my property and rob me of the chance to improve myself through my labor and unequal faculties.

They would kill you too, eventually.

Again, more emotion-appeals based on subjective historical revisionism, propaganda and rhetoric. Again, I come back to my previous question, why do you defend the productive property that you yourself do not even have? Seems a little strange that you defend a system which benefits (not you) but a tiny minority. Strange.

Please, your words offend my eyes. Go back to reading Hopper or something, I doubt many want to read your never ending tirades. 'Freedom' is the freedom to exploit others. True freedom can only come through abolition of class relations, but simply a continual reconstitution of them.

Human dignity can only exist when workers have full control over the means of production which they work, and when social parasitism is ended.

New Granada, do you own productive capital yourself, do you earn your income through capital gains extraction? If not then what is your material incentive to defend such a system. Your essentially defending the property of a tiny group of the population, why is that exactly?

Tongass, like you, are simply prone to believing the intellectual outgrowth of bourgeois property in the form of libertarian propaganda. I feel sorry for you.

Nothing has done more to destroy human dignity, human life, and the human spirit than communism.

I loathe libertarianism. There is a world of difference between being socially responsible and being a communist.

It is no accident that China and Russia are utter cesspools of selfish materialism nowadays, it is a result of the harm done to their cultures by years of communism.

Communists have proven in every instance that they would kill or imprison someone like me, in every case that they plunder my property and rob me of the chance to improve myself through my labor and unequal faculties.

They would kill you too, eventually.

Tongass, like you, are simply prone to believing the intellectual outgrowth of bourgeois property in the form of libertarian propaganda. I feel sorry for you.
Whoa whoa I didn't post in this thread, and I ain't reading the whole thing.

I will say to the title topic -

Evolution doesn't cheapen life. Evolution IS life, or rather, life is that which evolves. More aptly put, evolution is the defining property of life. Life would be a meaningless word without evolution.

Evolution doesn't cheapen life. Evolution IS life, or rather, life is that which evolves. More aptly put, evolution is the defining property of life. Life would be a meaningless word without evolution.

True. Would it not be horrid if your kids were identical to you in every aspect ?

Again, more emotion-appeals based on subjective historical revisionism, propaganda and rhetoric. Again, I come back to my previous question, why do you defend the productive property that you yourself do not even have? Seems a little strange that you defend a system which benefits (not you) but a tiny minority. Strange.

Because one is right, and the other is wrong.

Incidentally, everyone has a stake in keeping communism out of his home country, because under communism everyone suffers, not just the wealthy.

Because one is right, and the other is wrong.

Incidentally, everyone has a stake in keeping communism out of his home country, because under communism everyone suffers, not just the wealthy.
More of the same, New Granada, don't you have anything more other than this nonsensical diatribe?

More emotion based propaganda and McCarthyist-like rhetoric, please go and get some self-criticism and stop thinking in right-wing talking-point binary.

Again, more emotion-appeals based on subjective historical revisionism, propaganda and rhetoric. Again, I come back to my previous question, why do you defend the productive property that you yourself do not even have? Seems a little strange that you defend a system which benefits (not you) but a tiny minority. Strange.

I am not rich. But if there were a marxist revolution tomorrow, I would probably end up killed by the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Belief cheapens life.

Belief cheapens life.

Your mom cheapens life.

Belief cheapens life.
Never thought I'd agree with you (on any subject bar Israel), but to clarify I'd change belief to ideology or faith. Although belief strikes me as a conscious decision someone makes, so in that vein you could be consciously ignorant.

I am not rich. But if there were a marxist revolution tomorrow, I would probably end up killed by the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
Same thing happens to violent revolutionaries who try revolution against the current 'dictatorship of the bourgeois', same same, but honestly friend your consciously putting yourself on the wrong side of the fence, I am not appealing to emotion but just to your material incentive here.

Same thing happens to violent revolutionaries who try revolution against the current 'dictatorship of the bourgeois', same same, but honestly friend your consciously putting yourself on the wrong side of the fence, I am not appealing to emotion but just to your material incentive here.

My dad was a manager (though, due to working with longshore workers, some of the people he was managing made more money than him by far), and I am going to college. That makes me "bourgeois" so to speak. Therefore, if past communist revolutions are any example, I would be killed.

And don't call me "friend" sarcastically.

Never thought I'd agree with you (on any subject bar Israel), but to clarify I'd change belief to ideology or faith. Although belief strikes me as a conscious decision someone makes, so in that vein you could be consciously ignorant.Is belief a choice?

Is belief a choice?
No. Belief is merely the natural extension of what is known to be true to the individual based on material environment. These experiences can be subjective in the case of children being indoctrinated by parents in religion, but exposure to reality, information and free critical thinking usually creates an reasonably objective method. I say objective method and not objective per say because no one can be wholly objective given limited knowledge, but dedication to a method of being objective is a step forward.

My dad was a manager (though, due to working with longshore workers, some of the people he was managing made more money than him by far), and I am going to college. That makes me "bourgeois" so to speak. Therefore, if past communist revolutions are any example, I would be killed.

And don't call me "friend" sarcastically.
How does your dad being a petty-bourgeois make you bourgeois? I assume you get your subsistence and income from wage-labor, yes? Your dad is not a bourgeois proper, he owns no productive capacity, he merely receives a wage/salary for maintaining the bourgeois (proper) property in the workplace, thus petty-bourgeois like shop-keepers, artisans, managers etc.

How does your dad being a petty-bourgeois make you bourgeois? I assume you get your subsistence and income from wage-labor, yes? Your dad is not a bourgeois proper, he owns no productive capacity, he merely receives a wage/salary for maintaining the bourgeois (proper) property in the workplace, thus petty-bourgeois like shop-keepers, artisans, managers etc.

I lived off his income for the first 19 years of my life and now live off some wages I earned, some of my mother's wages and some of the money my dad saved from his salary but never got to use.

Believe me, to anyone who doesn't have as rosy a view of communist revolutions as you evidently do, it is clear that I'd be at risk for being lined up against the wall and shot for not being poor enough.

I lived off his income for the first 19 years of my life and now live off some wages I earned, some of my mother's wages and some of the money my dad saved from his salary but never got to use.

Believe me, to anyone who doesn't have as rosy a view of communist revolutions as you evidently do, it is clear that I'd be at risk for being lined up against the wall and shot for not being poor enough.

I am really failing to see what your getting at with this whole getting killed thing.

not only no, it does not cheapen life, but if anything, just the opposite. the narrowness fanatics would impose on our perciptions and, if they could, which they can't, it just laughs at them when they try, the natural, nearly if not entirely infinite diversity, of a very very VERY big universe, THAT would/does cheapen life.

no if anything, the complexity and diversity of existence which evolution makes possible, which no single mind could synthasize by hand and intentionally, no matter how all powerful, gives us the gratification to explore. one of the very few things that makes life so precious and infinitely for many, and even for those less fortunate, least potentially, rewarding.

=^^=
.../\...

More of the same, New Granada, don't you have anything more other than this nonsensical diatribe?

More emotion based propaganda and McCarthyist-like rhetoric, please go and get some self-criticism and stop thinking in right-wing talking-point binary.

The countless tens of millions killed, lives ruined, futures destroyed, souls crushed and cultures trashed by communist depravity speaks more loudly than anything I, or anyone else, could ever say on the topic.

Facts are not emotions, but they do inspire emotions in people with functioning consciences, and the facts regarding the horror of communism should inspire everyone with the emotion of indignation and anger at the thought of the same crimes being repeated again, after there is no excuse not to know better.

The countless tens of millions killed, lives ruined, futures destroyed, souls crushed and cultures trashed by communist depravity speaks more loudly than anything I, or anyone else, could ever say on the topic.

While I agree that communism as implemented sofar has killed lots of people directly - capitalism destroyed just as many lives and cultures indirectly. Probably vastly more even.

So... what system should we use ? Neither seems to be good.

While I agree that communism as implemented sofar has killed lots of people directly - capitalism destroyed just as many lives indirectly.That's probably because capitalism has been far more widely used.

That's probably because capitalism has been far more widely used.

Not really. Forcing third world countries to abandon their social structures in favour of international capitalism has been a disaster. The old model of "foreign aid" has done far more harm than good.

Microcredit otoh, which is also capitalistic in nature, seems more promising. So perhaps capitalism can still redeem itself.

nazi = national socialist. hello?

By that logic East Germany was a democracy.

Belief cheapens life.

I agree.

I tend to think that one should naturally believe in what is self-evident to that person. Therefore, if one has to actively choose to believe something, they are admitting its faslehood.

Belief, as most people understand it, to me means self-deception.

Belief cheapens life.

Placing humans on the same level as cows cheapens (human) life.

Placing humans on the same level as cows cheapens (human) life.

Why ? Prime beef is expensive.

Why ? Prime beef is expensive.

Do you have any idea how much a quality human kidney pie costs these days?

Do you have any idea how much a quality human kidney pie costs these days?

One bullet ;)

Placing humans on the same level as cows cheapens (human) life.

Oh great, more emotional moralistic drivel, please good sir spare us from your tirades as well as your denial of biological fact.

One bullet ;)

Yeah, but you need to hire some gang members, you have to spend the hours waiting in a dark alley, then you need to get the ice bath ready, all the transportation costs...

*runs*

Oh great, more emotional moralistic drivel, please good sir spare us from your tirades as well as your denial of biological fact.

I am fully aware that humans are animals. However, considering UB has described leather lampshades as horrifying whilst lampshades made out of the skin of holocaust victims are 'exotic', I find his talk of the cheapening of life one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on NSG.

BTW, 'Humans are not equal to other animals' =/= 'Humans are not animals'

That's probably because capitalism has been far more widely used.

Millions of slaves used by Britain to industrialize, most of whom died. Third world exploitation, imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists and communists, genocides, massacres and so on.

70 million Indians during the colonization of the Americas, 10 million due to slavery, 10 million due to World War I, 50 million due to World War II, 3 million due to the Vietnam War, and 1 million due to the Biafra War.

In Mozambique, Renamo, organized by the CIA and the security services of South Africa, has massacred and starved 900,000 villagers since 1980.

Also in Angola the right-wing militantly capitalist Unita, also openly financed and supported by the CIA and South Africa, killed more than one million Angolans during the civil war against the MPLA nationalist government. After having lost the 1992 elections, Savimbi, the CIA man, took up his destructive war yet again.

`The Angolan tragedy threatens the life of 3 million people .... Savimbi refused to accept the government's electoral victory of 129 seats against 91 and has plunged Angola yet again in a ferocious conflict that has taken another 100,000 lives (in the last twelve months).'

Intellectual dishonestly lies at the heart of the defense of capitalism.

Yeah, but you need to hire some gang members, you have to spend the hours waiting in a dark alley, then you need to get the ice bath ready, all the transportation costs...

That is why one needs volume. Expansion. The more kidneys you harvest, the cheaper they will get.

The countless tens of millions killed, lives ruined, futures destroyed, souls crushed and cultures trashed by communist depravity speaks more loudly than anything I, or anyone else, could ever say on the topic.

Facts are not emotions, but they do inspire emotions in people with functioning consciences, and the facts regarding the horror of communism should inspire everyone with the emotion of indignation and anger at the thought of the same crimes being repeated again, after there is no excuse not to know better.
You are victim of the lies spread by anti-communism, in fact your a good example of it, your emotional reactions are just what they wanted. You continue to spew incessant diatribe from crypto-fascist such as Conquest, Solzhenitsyn etc.

Yeah, but you need to hire some gang members, you have to spend the hours waiting in a dark alley, then you need to get the ice bath ready, all the transportation costs...

*runs*



I am fully aware that humans are animals. However, considering UB has described leather lampshades as horrifying whilst lampshades made out of the skin of holocaust victims are 'exotic', I find his talk of the cheapening of life one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on NSG.

BTW, 'Humans are not equal to other animals' =/= 'Humans are not animals'

You know that thing that boils up inside you every time UB says something you don't like? That urging feeling of self-righteousness and anger, that's called a conscious, and I find it distracting.

You know that thing that boils up inside you every time UB says something you don't like? That urging feeling of self-righteousness and anger, that's called a conscious, and I find it distracting.

Did you mean 'conscience' or 'consciousness'? Either way, it is something that functional human beings generally have.

Did you mean 'conscience' or 'consciousness'? Either way, it is something that functional human beings generally have.

Actually it was a joke, but never mind.

Actually it was a joke, but never mind.

Ah, all right.

No, if anything evolution shows that we were very lucky to have evolved, and in comparison CREATIONISM cheapens life.

And what Ashmoria said. Dahmer would've latched onto any excuse he could.

No, but the belief that you can burn a dozen innocents alive, ask a priest for forgiveness, and reach heaven does.

Two components of that, really....
You must be TRULY sorry, and not paying lip service to it... (and like The Shadow, God knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, if you believe it....)
and.... the priest is not OBLIGATED to give forgiveness. He can if he thinks you're truly repenting, or he can refuse.


Two pretty big ifs.

Andaras, given that this thread is NOT on POLITICAL systems of belief but rather on evolution vs. a belief in God, could you get back on topic and stop pounding the drum for communism?

Regarding evidence for evolution,

1. The theory was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm. Now we know that the cell is a highly complex mechanism that we hardly understand at all. DNA is a very complex molecule, capable of storing vast quantities of information. It has been mapped, but we know almost nothing about what each segment does. Furthermore, the epigenome, which activates the sections of the DNA to tell a cell what it will be is not understood in the least. This came about by pure chance? Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe for more information - he's a biochemistry professor and not an evangelical creationist layman. He's as credible as they come.

Three points here:

Firstly, whoever told you that scientists in the time of Darwin thought that the cell was 'a blob of protoplasm' is either an idiot, a damn liar or both. The scientists of the day had access to microscopes and knew that there were smaller components within the cell, even if they didn't know what the parts were or did.

Secondly, nobody claims that the cell came about by 'pure chance' This is a strawman, and again the person who told you that this is what Evolution states is an idiot or a liar. The modern cell isn't even close to the original, simple precursors of life which formed through abiogenesis.

Thirdly, Behe's so credible that his own department have taken the unprecedented step of disowning him by placing an official statement regarding Intelligent Design (http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm) on their website. :rolleyes: You are aware that Behe admitted under oath that, in order for Intelligent Design Creationism to be classed as science, science would have to include Astrology, no?

2. Nowhere on earth does the "geologic column" exist as it is presented in textbooks. Layers are missing or even out of order anywhere you look.

More lies. Complete natural occurences of the Geological Column can be found in numerous locations around the world, including the Williston Basin, North Dakota, and the Bonaparte Basin, Australia.

Uniformitarian Geology doesn't require that the whole geological column will be found everywhere, as there's no reason to expect deposition to be uniform over billions of years. It's enough to note that there's a clear pattern in the order of strata, which is confirmed by radio isotope dating.

Furthermore, circular reasoning is used to date the rocks and fossils: They date each other according to a predetermined chart. Not scientific.

More lies. Fossils are used to date strata simply because evolutionary/uniformitarian predictions are so good. There are lots of distinguishing characteristics to different strata (the Cretaceous is chalk-rich for example, which is where it gets its name from ('creta'='chalk' in Latin)), but because different fossils are consistently found in each layer of strata they're used as a good rule of thumb.

Here's something for you to think about: why is it even possible to catergorise geological layers in accordance with evolutionary progression if Evolution didn't take place? Why do you never find humans and dinosaurs in the same strata, why is no grass pollen found in strata of the Jurassic period or before, but is found in every single layer afterwards?

scientists were recently shocked to discover red blood cells and soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil.

No, they found found what could possibly be the remnants of organic tissue. Their paper emphasises the tentativeness of their findings, I suggest you read it.

Instead of questioning the charts and the supposed age of the fossil (established through theory rather than the scientific method) they questioned everything they knew about chemistry and fossilization (which can be and has been tested thoroughly in laboratories).

This is utterly delusional: it's Creationists who want to deny the whole of Chemistry and Palaeontology by dismissing their dating methods.

No one dates the fossils by any chemical method without consulting the official charts and any results that are outside the expected range are thrown out as errors.

This isn't just a lie, it's slander. Present evidence for your baseless slurs.

Look, it's clear that you don't have a clue about the process for determining dates via radio-isotopes so I'll try to explain:

Different radio-isotopes have different half-lives (the time it takes for half of the isotope to degrade). An isotope's upper limit for accurate dating tends to be around ten times its half life (so C14 can be used to date anything up to around 50-60 thousand years); the lower limit is harder to work out, but suffice to say that extremely long half-lives (in the billions of years) are useless for dating relatively recent things.

Now, it is entirely possible to take a sample to a laboratory (or more likely several laboratories) and say "I've no idea how old this is, please run all your tests on it". If you did this then by compiling all the results and looking for a convergence (as the age-ranges for different isotopes overlap considerably) you could determine how old it is.

The problem with this is that it takes a lot of money. Scientists don't have money to burn at the best of times, and they're not going to waste their money on using C14 dating on a piece of Precambrian strata because the results will be useless, so instead they give the lab an idea of which age ranges it'll fit into.

3. The fossil record: All "missing links" between apes and humans have been shown to be 100% human, 100% extinct simian, or 100% fraud. There aren't any missing links anywhere, and the fossil record shows no gradual transitions anywhere. Every fossil can be classified as a member of a distinct species. Oddly enough, there are many

Bullshit. You've never actually looked at any of these fossils have you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Here's a clear transitional sequence, with a modern chimpanzee skull at the beginning and a modern human skull at the end for comparitive purposes. Where is the break between '100% human' and '100% ape'? I'll give you a clue: several Creationist 'scientists' have attempted the challenge and they've all come up with different answers. Evolution predicts that there's no clear line between species, but Creationists have no excuse.

4. Observed evolution: Every nutation created by scientists under perfect laboratory conditions has proven harmful. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. No change has ever been observed in any species that would change it into another species. the only evidence is,"well, if we evolved, we have to assume that it's possible to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here."

Don't you check your sources at all? Where are you finding all this rubbish. The majority of mutations are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial. Off the top of my head, a bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon and fish near the artic circle evolved the ability to produce a kind of biological anti-freeze.

You're also failing to realise that whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is dependent on the environment: a mutation for white fur rather than brown fur would be beneficial in the Arctic, but a liability in the English countryside for example.

5. Scientific errors: Any evidence that calls into question any aspect of the theory of evolution is immediately disregarded without question. this is not scientific, but dogmatic. To raise points such as those above will result in people shouting me down as some crazed mystic who won't see the truth, no matter what questions or evidence I bring to the table. Is it scientific to assume that any theory is true when it has never been observed, only conjectured?

Evolution has been observed on numerous occaisons. The reason you're being shouted down is because you're parroting the same old tired lies and distortions which Creationists have been spewing out for years in lieu of doing any real science.

how can truth cheapen anything?

"The Bible is the direct, exact, perfectly and literally true word of God" versus "The Bible is a collection of contradictory works by different human authors, a great deal of which appears to be false"?

For a more innocuous example, "What, that only looks like gold?"

Hitler. Pol Pot. Stalin. Every other socialist or communist dictator. Every school shooter. All believe in evolution and concluded either
1. Choose body cavity
2. Insert fallacious Reductio ad Hitlerum argument.
3. ?????
4. PROFIT!

A: they were superior and needed to wipe out the inferior or

B: life is pointless and if there's no point to life, I may as well choose to die my way and since my life doesn't matter, no one else's does either.
Which is vastly worse than crazy people who thought God wanted them to kill everyone, or space aliens, or Tupac. :rolleyes:

If life is the result of random chemical interactions, you are no more important than anything else in the universe.
And?
You have no significance whatsoever.
I do to other people. Well, I think I do. I know that certain other people are have significance to me.
Nothing you do matters in the long term.
If I kill someone just before they stumble across a glorious anti-cancer vaccine, this will ultimately have no affect on anyone's life? Man, you crazy. There is nothing beyond this life but, well, nothing.
And this is worse than the alternative because......?
you and a monkey and a worm and a rock are all equal. If you want to succeed, the only way is through conquest and control. If you lose, it means you are inferior and have no future.
Or I can succeed through cooperation and hard work. You know, like the vast majority of people do. Hell, like the vast majority of social animals.

Regarding evidence for evolution,

1. The theory was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm. Now....
The theory has been changed to take into account new information and evidence, just like all scientific theories.

2. Nowhere on earth does the "geologic column" exist as it is presented in textbooks. Layers are missing or even out of order anywhere you look. Furthermore, circular reasoning is used to date the rocks and fossils: They date each other according to a predetermined chart. Not scientific.
Source.
scientists were recently shocked to discover red blood cells and soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of questioning the charts and the supposed age of the fossil (established through theory rather than the scientific method) they questioned everything they knew about chemistry and fossilization (which can be and has been tested thoroughly in laboratories). No one dates the fossils by any chemical method without consulting the official charts and any results that are outside the expected range are thrown out as errors.
Source.

3. The fossil record: All "missing links" between apes and humans have been shown to be 100% human, 100% extinct simian, or 100% fraud. There aren't any missing links anywhere, and the fossil record shows no gradual transitions anywhere. Every fossil can be classified as a member of a distinct species. Oddly enough, there are many
Source.

4. Observed evolution: Every nutation created by scientists under perfect laboratory conditions has proven harmful. No beneficial mutation has ever been observed. No change has ever been observed in any species that would change it into another species. the only evidence is,"well, if we evolved, we have to assume that it's possible to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here."
Source.

5. Scientific errors: Any evidence that calls into question any aspect of the theory of evolution is immediately disregarded without question. this is not scientific, but dogmatic. To raise points such as those above will result in people shouting me down as some crazed mystic who won't see the truth, no matter what questions or evidence I bring to the table. Is it scientific to assume that any theory is true when it has never been observed, only conjectured?
Do you ever back up your claims when you make them? Again, source.
Your mom cheapens life.

Oooooh, burn.

"The Bible is the direct, exact, perfectly and literally true word of God" versus "The Bible is a collection of contradictory works by different human authors, a great deal of which appears to be false"?

For a more innocuous example, "What, that only looks like gold?"

Of course, when you think about it, gold actually is quite use- and worthless.
Excellent analogy in other words ;)

how can truth cheapen anything?

Of course, when you think about it, gold actually is quite use- and worthless.
Excellent analogy in other words ;)

Completely untrue. Gold is one of the single BEST electrical conductors we have available to us. It's got a higher conductivity than copper.

how can truth cheapen anything?By revealing that your rolex isn't real?

Completely untrue. Gold is one of the single BEST electrical conductors we have available to us. It's got a higher conductivity than copper.

Let me rephrase that:
"The gold lying in vaults or twinkling on your finger is quite use- and worthless."

You are right - plenty of applications for it in electronics.

Let me rephrase that:
"The gold lying in vaults or twinkling on your finger is quite use- and worthless."

You are right - plenty of applications for it in electronics.

Agreed, then. As an "oooh shiny" it's quite worthless, but then you could make the same argument about diamonds that aren't used in glass-cutting and similar industrial applications.

Agreed, then. As an "oooh shiny" it's quite worthless, but then you could make the same argument about diamonds that aren't used in glass-cutting and similar industrial applications.

But diamonds make women fall in love with you!

1. The theory was developed when a cell was thought to be no more than a blob of protoplasm.

wrong (http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/16/darwin_and_the_cell_not_just_p/)

And Behe is anything but credible, one of the center points in his book 'the edge of evolution' was easily debunked (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/it_just_gets_worse_for_behe.php). If you want more just search that site for "Behe" or "discovery institute".

If you really want to be religious at least just use it what it was meant for, as a guide for spirituality and morality, instead of using it to get to know stuff about nature, where real science is more suited.

:confused:

If an all-knowing, all-loving god who’s greatest creation is humanity exists, and it used evolution to get to this juncture, does evolution ‘stop’?

What about those things (bacterium, etc.) that have evolved to specifically prey on humans?

Why muck around with evolution when a miracle creation would be so much easier?

In the best creation, why have vestigial organs and behaviours?

In the best creation, why have such things as a respiratory and digestive systems sharing the same intake?

Although these above don’t prove there is no all-knowing, all-loving god in the vein of the Christian’s, it gives it a lot of explaining to do.

Completely untrue. Gold is one of the single BEST electrical conductors we have available to us. It's got a higher conductivity than copper.

Heh, reminds me of a time when I was talking to a girl on the 'National Society for Gifted and Talented Youth' webforum (I only applied so I could put it on my university application ;)). I explained to her that Gold was an excellent conductor, and her response was "If it's so great, why don't they use it in all electrical circuits instead of copper?"

I logged off and never returned. :p

wrong (http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/16/darwin_and_the_cell_not_just_p/)

And Behe is anything but credible, one of the center points in his book 'the edge of evolution' was easily debunked (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/it_just_gets_worse_for_behe.php). If you want more just search that site for "Behe" or "discovery institute".

Nice link.

Of course, when you think about it, gold actually is quite use- and worthless.
Excellent analogy in other words ;)

Not true. Gold has quite a number of useful applications for the creation of computers and other technologies that utilize circuit boards.

Sadly we cannot say the same about the Bible.

Not true. Gold has quite a number of useful applications for the creation of computers and other technologies that utilize circuit boards.

Sadly we cannot say the same about the Bible.

Sure we can. Nothing prevents us from saying things that are blatantly untrue.

Sure we can. Nothing prevents us from saying things that are blatantly untrue.

Well, yes, but I was talking about facts, not untruths.

Heh, reminds me of a time when I was talking to a girl on the 'National Society for Gifted and Talented Youth' webforum (I only applied so I could put it on my university application ;)). I explained to her that Gold was an excellent conductor, and her response was "If it's so great, why don't they use it in all electrical circuits instead of copper?"

I logged off and never returned. :p

I'd have responded that the reason was similar to why there were so many idiots on that webforum, just like her: We have to pick quantity over quality for practical reasons. :D

Well, yes, but I was talking about facts, not untruths.

Technically, a fact is any definitive statement. It doesn't have to be true.

Yes evolution 'cheapens life' along with a whole load of other things, such as, the size of the universe, the history on a geological scale of our planet, chemistry (ie atoms and all) etc, etc.... yes it cheapens life. Unfortunately, it's also the truth. Our lives mean nothing, except to us and a couple hundred other humans who will also soon be gone. A few humans mean a lot to a much larger number of people, sometimes even for thousands of years (major scientific discoveries, people who significantly effect history) however, as the human race is in itself insignificant, their significance is still small on a universal view.

Yes evolution 'cheapens life' along with a whole load of other things, such as, the size of the universe, the history on a geological scale of our planet, chemistry (ie atoms and all) etc, etc.... yes it cheapens life. Unfortunately, it's also the truth. Our lives mean nothing, except to us and a couple hundred other humans who will also soon be gone. A few humans mean a lot to a much larger number of people, sometimes even for thousands of years (major scientific discoveries, people who significantly effect history) however, as the human race is in itself insignificant, their significance is still small on a universal view.


You seem to be knowingly ignoring the possibility that all this was meant to be a beautiful scenery to humans.

You seem to be knowingly ignoring the possibility that all this was meant to be a beautiful scenery to humans.

Yes, but he's also ignoring the possibility that you're just a scripting program spewing out the usual drivel.

Completely untrue. Gold is one of the single BEST electrical conductors we have available to us. It's got a higher conductivity than copper.

This, my friend, is an outright lie. Gold has a rho of 0,023, while copper has one of 0,0175.
But gold is a precious metal and thus have other qualities that makes it preferable to copper in several instances.
Silver, however, is made of pure win in terms of conductivity (0.016 rho, baby!).

[/derail]

Yes, but he's also ignoring the possibility that you're just a scripting program spewing out the usual drivel.

I guess I'm touchéed

This, my friend, is an outright lie. Gold has a rho of 0,023, while copper has one of 0,0175.
But gold is a precious metal and thus have other qualities that makes it preferable to copper in several instances.
Silver, however, is made of pure win in terms of conductivity (0.016 rho, baby!).

[/derail]

Thanks.

Thanks.

My pleasure.

You seem to be knowingly ignoring the possibility that all this was meant to be a beautiful scenery to humans.

You seem to be ignoring the extent of the universe. Our insignificance is what disproves a God. faint microwave radiation as evidence of the big bang- this is just scenery for humans? the extinction of 99% of life on earth, quite a few times over (can't remember exact figures).... just scenery for humans? Oh yeh, it's beautiful knowing that everything here was completely arbitarily wiped out millions of years ago... I'm glad God made that happen so I could look at the evidence from the event now!!
'all this was meant to be a beautiful scenery to humans' seems to me to either be an incredibly self centred world view, or way too much desperation to believe in God despite knowledge of the evidence... similar to 'the earth is the centre of the universe'... everyone likes to believe they're important. Try and see through the essential human inclination towards selfishness.

You seem to be ignoring the extent of the universe. Our insignificance is what disproves a God. faint microwave radiation as evidence of the big bang- this is just scenery for humans? the extinction of 99% of life on earth, quite a few times over (can't remember exact figures).... just scenery for humans? Oh yeh, it's beautiful knowing that everything here was completely arbitarily wiped out millions of years ago... I'm glad God made that happen so I could look at the evidence from the event now!!
'all this was meant to be a beautiful scenery to humans' seems to me to either be an incredibly self centred world view, or way too much desperation to believe in God despite knowledge of the evidence... similar to 'the earth is the centre of the universe'... everyone likes to believe they're important. Try and see through the essential human inclination towards selfishness.

I don't see what's wrong with that...And you still speak of "insignificance", while I say you don't have a clue wether or not we really are. All you're saying is "We're insignificant because our world is REALLY big and old". Or did I misunderstand?

Edit: Clarifying...

Not really. Forcing third world countries to abandon their social structures in favour of international capitalism has been a disaster. The old model of "foreign aid" has done far more harm than good.A disaster to be sure, but a universally-repeated one that results from the widespread adaptation of capitalism.

Millions of slaves used by Britain to industrialize, most of whom died. Third world exploitation, imperialist, colonialist and counter-revolutionary wars, repressions of workers and trade unionists and communists, genocides, massacres and so on.

70 million Indians during the colonization of the Americas, 10 million due to slavery, 10 million due to World War I, 50 million due to World War II, 3 million due to the Vietnam War, and 1 million due to the Biafra War.

In Mozambique, Renamo, organized by the CIA and the security services of South Africa, has massacred and starved 900,000 villagers since 1980.

Also in Angola the right-wing militantly capitalist Unita, also openly financed and supported by the CIA and South Africa, killed more than one million Angolans during the civil war against the MPLA nationalist government. After having lost the 1992 elections, Savimbi, the CIA man, took up his destructive war yet again.

`The Angolan tragedy threatens the life of 3 million people .... Savimbi refused to accept the government's electoral victory of 129 seats against 91 and has plunged Angola yet again in a ferocious conflict that has taken another 100,000 lives (in the last twelve months).'
Exactly. Far more widely used than communism.

Now what does this have to do with evolution?

Technically, a fact is any definitive statement. It doesn't have to be true.

That's not true. A fact has to actually be true. Hence the meaning of "factual."

Yes evolution 'cheapens life' along with a whole load of other things, such as, the size of the universe, the history on a geological scale of our planet, chemistry (ie atoms and all) etc, etc.... yes it cheapens life. Unfortunately, it's also the truth. Our lives mean nothing, except to us and a couple hundred other humans who will also soon be gone. A few humans mean a lot to a much larger number of people, sometimes even for thousands of years (major scientific discoveries, people who significantly effect history) however, as the human race is in itself insignificant, their significance is still small on a universal view.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

I don't see what's wrong with that...And you still speak of "insignificance", while I say you don't have a clue wether or not we really are. All you're saying is "We're insignificant because our world is REALLY big and old". Or did I misunderstand?

Edit: Clarifying...

What I'm saying is, that we are insignificant in terms of what we matter to. We matter to a few hundred people. To the rest of the universe, we have little to no effect.
To the entire subatomic world, we mean nothing.
To the universe at large, we are a tiny speck on a tiny speck on a tiny speck.
to our planet, we are largly irrevant- mother nature has visited far greater destruction than anything we could do with global warming, even with nuclear winter. (not saying enviromental issues don't matter, but they only matter to Humans- NOT to 'nature' itself). Evolutionary wise, humans are a totally insignificant achievement of evolution, so far.
Basically, I'm not saying we're insignificant 'just' because our surroundings are big/old. I'm saying it because of how much differance we make to it- effectively, none. This 'God' changes our status from 'total irrelevancy' to 'the purpose of the entire universe and all of it's history'. Don't you think that if this were the whole purpose of the universe, it would be more apparent?
Of course it seems like we're important- from our point of view. From a termites point of view, the mound it helps build is significant to the world at large. To the tree which it is built beneath, which remembers the flat land that was before, and which sees it worn away to nothing again, ......
And please don't tell me you believe in the 'scientific' disproofs of evolution/the age of our world/general stuff about the size/age of the universe...

What I'm saying is, that we are insignificant in terms of what we matter to. We matter to a few hundred people. To the rest of the universe, we have little to no effect.
To the entire subatomic world, we mean nothing.
To the universe at large, we are a tiny speck on a tiny speck on a tiny speck.
to our planet, we are largly irrevant- mother nature has visited far greater destruction than anything we could do with global warming, even with nuclear winter. (not saying enviromental issues don't matter, but they only matter to Humans- NOT to 'nature' itself). Evolutionary wise, humans are a totally insignificant achievement of evolution, so far.
Basically, I'm not saying we're insignificant 'just' because our surroundings are big/old. I'm saying it because of how much differance we make to it- effectively, none. This 'God' changes our status from 'total irrelevancy' to 'the purpose of the entire universe and all of it's history'. Don't you think that if this were the whole purpose of the universe, it would be more apparent?
Of course it seems like we're important- from our point of view. From a termites point of view, the mound it helps build is significant to the world at large. To the tree which it is built beneath, which remembers the flat land that was before, and which sees it worn away to nothing again, ......
And please don't tell me you believe in the 'scientific' disproofs of evolution/the age of our world/general stuff about the size/age of the universe...

For your information, I don't really believe anything other than actual science. Anyways, I still think your argument makes no sense IF the universe was built solely for us, which it may be...If it was, then we are the most significant beings in the universe, and it means nothing without us in it. Unless you can prove that the universe was built for no specific reason, then you can't say we're NECESSARILY unsignificant in it.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

Awesome coincidence that i caught this show on the Discovery Channel today, called "Dinosaurs Return to Life" that had some really impressive footage.
Can't say it cheapens life at all to me.

I am really failing to see what your getting at with this whole getting killed thing.

Then you obviously don't know much about revolutions.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?


For Dahmer I guess it did. Thats the thing though, when you ask you question, you ask use to asign a vaule on life, such values can only come subjectivly, and so we can only asnwer that question from with the sphere of our own experiances.

Do I find that evoltion cheapens life? No, do you?

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?


For Dahmer I guess it did. Thats the thing though, when you ask you question, you ask use to asign a vaule on life, such values can only come subjectivly, and so we can only asnwer that question from with the sphere of our own experiances.

Do I find that evoltion cheapens life? No, do you?

Does giving media exposure to serial killers so they can spout their deranged nonsense cheapen human life? Yes.

It's inevitable that as science replaces what was once in the domain of religion, that those who cling to religion will resist, inevitably all that was sacred will become mundane, and all the more real. Of course those who like ignorance will protest this, but ultimately they cannot comprehend the unrelenting march of modernity.

It's inevitable that as science replaces what was once in the domain of religion, that those who cling to religion will resist, inevitably all that was sacred will become mundane, and all the more real. Of course those who like ignorance will protest this.

Heheh you're funny.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that?

Nope.

Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life?

Nope.


Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?
Would life mean more if it turned out that, instead of having your physical and mental being shaped by the most fundamental physical forces over the course of millions and millions of years, you were simply created as you are, instantaneously, by some omnipotent being? If, instead of your form being shaped by the very requirements of nature itself, it was the whim of a Creator Being who wanted to make stuff look like him?

Would your life mean more if, instead of being an individual who perceives and creates a unique future for yourself and invests it with a unique purpose unlike any other, you were yet another clay-shaped drone built to worship an unworthy, petty deity?

If you need a Creator to feel that you're a "special sacred creation," then you probably would answer yes. Yet another reason why religious indoctrination is a form of abuse.

Would life mean more if it turned out that, instead of having your physical and mental being shaped by the most fundamental physical forces over the course of millions and millions of years, you were simply created as you are, instantaneously, by some omnipotent being? If, instead of your form being shaped by the very requirements of nature itself, it was the whim of a Creator Being who wanted to make stuff look like him?

Would your life mean more if, instead of being an individual who perceives and creates a unique future for yourself and invests it with a unique purpose unlike any other, you were yet another clay-shaped drone built to worship an unworthy, petty deity?

If you need a Creator to feel that you're a "special sacred creation," then you probably would answer yes. Yet another reason why religious indoctrination is a form of abuse.

That would actually be a little boring. The universe is a pretty majestic place, and while our place in it may be small, the fact that its there, and that hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution have made it possible for us to truly appreciate our place in it, is probably the clearest indication that our lives mean something. Not in the grand schemes of some quasi-dimensional dictator, but to us, as fellow humans.

The notion that all of this just happened, that some sky fairy snapped his fingers and *poof* here we were, is more than a little dull by comparison.

Also, you've got a TG.

I'd have responded that the reason was similar to why there were so many idiots on that webforum, just like her: We have to pick quantity over quality for practical reasons. :D

Nice. Sadly all comments were pre-moderated to stop mean people like you and I from intimidating the 'gifted and talented' youths. :p

Nice. Sadly all comments were pre-moderated to stop mean people like you and I from intimidating the 'gifted and talented' youths. :p

Which is precisely what's wrong with them.

I watching the interview with Jeffery Dahmer earlier in it he mentioned he felt evolution cheapens life and in a weird way him believing in it led to him killing. Now I know we shouldn't take cues from psychopaths but is there something to that? Is the idea that we aren't here for any special reason, that we are simply animals and that when we die nothing happens and the best people and the worst, most sadistic end up in the same place, does that cheapen life? Would life mean more if we were special sacred creations that are here for a purpose?

If you're scrounging from comments by Jeffrey Dahmer for topics, you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

Does there have to be a reason for everything? And if there's no reason for some things, does that automatically make them worthless?

I actually think that organized religion cheapens life. If you look at the history of religion, it says nothing so much as die for your faith, kill for your faith and make someone else die for your faith. I'd say that makes life pretty cheap.

life is cheap anyway. all you need is two horny adults (male and female) and you've got even more life, oh how wonderful it all is.

What about Buddhism, that doesn't really involve the whole killing thing now, at least i don't think it does.

life is cheap anyway. all you need is two horny adults (male and female) and you've got even more life, oh how wonderful it all is.

What about Buddhism, that doesn't really involve the whole killing thing now, at least i don't think it does.

I'm looking at it from a strictly Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective (well maybe with a little Thuggee thrown in, I always did like the the Thuggee).

(Damn time warp)!

I actually think that organized religion cheapens life. If you look at the history of religion, it says nothing so much as die for your faith, kill for your faith and make someone else die for your faith. I'd say that makes life pretty cheap.

I actually think that organized religion cheapens life. If you look at the history of religion, it says nothing so much as die for your faith, kill for your faith and make someone else die for your faith. I'd say that makes life pretty cheap.

Utterly, unabashedly seconded. *bows*

I personally think that life is sacred, and it has the meaning that we as individuals choose to give it regardless of external influence. A person can live with or without faith, and still have meaning. Evolution is not a measure of quality of existence, but merely a circumstance by which we got here. It doesn't really matter to me if I arrived by accident or by act of Supreme Being. Even if it is the latter, and in the JudeoChristian sense we are given free will to choose, then our destiny is still in our own hands. If its all predetermined, then we might as well make the most of it and enjoy what we have.

Of course I could be wrong and Evolution really does cheapen life. In which case, it should be banned.

Evolution doesn't cheapen life one bit. I mean bacteria sounds so much cooler then you know believing in God and the fact that a form of purely energetic soul lives inside you. And of course the Big Bang theory makes so much sense: we're moving towards chaos, so naturally order explains things. I mean order and chaos are one, and the missing link was found! It's Bush!

Ok, sarcasm aside, yeah the belief that one has no soul and no afterlife reduces life to the state of money, which of course means that your life is worth your amount of life insurance, keep in mind the ever-declining value of the dollar. I refuse to believe in Atheism, that all of the great thinkers who belonged to a religion were wrong and that our Founding Fathers were wrong. However, if that guy would've read the Bible, but of course Americans would read Playboy instead of the Bible or the Constitution; think you're different? What're the twelve commandments (Ten from the Old Testament, Two from the New Testament), any normal Christian could name them easily? What's the Universal Commandment given to us by Christ? What're the Seven Articles about? What's the most important branch of Congress? What're the 4 Freedoms of the First Amendment? Yeah, exactly, can't name them, can you? Don't Google it, you're only cheating yourself. Anyways if that guy would've read the Bible, he would know two things: Thou Shalt Not Murder and Only God can Decide when a Spirit can leave the body. So both of his arguments in a Biblical Sense are wrong, deadwrong.

If Organized Religion cheapens life, why did the Church make so many advances? You know, Elementary Schools were invented by the Church. Most of the greatest scientists came from the Church. Most reformers were religious. Organized religion only becomes the problem when it becomes the state or is used by the state.

Religion, speech, assembly, and petition, IIRC.

Actually, could have sworn there were five, press being the fifth.

Edit: Yep, it's five. I'd pity you if I didn't find this so hilarious.