i heard about a surprising experience in class last week. so some english teacher decided to ask all of the students in class, what they believe as of religion. everyone out the class says jesus, god all that stuff. one kid makes a JOKE about being atheist. that realllly fuckin surprised me. The class fucking laughed at the idea of a kid being atheist. sad fuckin day when i heard that.
GOD'S NUMBERS
- Thread starter Music Nfluenced
- Start date
Because different organisms exist, therefore everything must have evolved? (hint: the answer is no)
You got it. Give a round of applause, everyone.
Yes, non-human and human animals both do four basic things: eat, sleep, mate and defend. What distinguishes humans is their capacity to understand the transcendental nature of self, the Absolute, and the relationship between the two.
You got it. Give a round of applause, everyone.
Yes, non-human and human animals both do four basic things: eat, sleep, mate and defend. What distinguishes humans is their capacity to understand the transcendental nature of self, the Absolute, and the relationship between the two.
Evolution does not apply to them in so far as the idea that they evolved from primates. Anatomically modern humans and these human-like primates coexisted in ancient times. The insignificant percentage of excavated earth is hardly of any accord, not to mention that "anomalous" evidence contradicting current human origin theories is more common than purported. There is too much bias and speculation going on. People really want the naturalist explanation for everything so much that they will fight tooth and nail; they will interpret everything as evidence for some evolution. It is quite pathetic.
It is interesting to ask the question why people are so unwilling to accept evolution and reject their superstitions
Sure, religion being a very stable meme (quote: "my second master" Dawkins) is part of the explanation, but it's not the whole story
The statement "I don't want to be an animal" provides a lot of insight into the problem and I think it is not just the egoistic desire to consider yourslef something more significant than the other species that plays a huge role here.
Once you realize evolution is real and there is no such thing as a "transcedental soul" you become just a biochemical machine whose sole purpose is to replicate its genes as much as possible (what in fact everyone of us is). It takes a considerable intelectual leap forward to accept the theory of evolution, even if only because it requires some effort to study the evidence and convince yourself the theory is true.
Where all the hostility towards evolution comes from is the fact that after you realize you are only molecules and nothing else life loses its purpose. It doesn't lose its purpose for scientists and people of high inteligence as most of them have found it in studying life and the universe and how we happened to be here and ask these questions. But for the average person working 9-to-5 for all his life, who is born and dies without ever achieving anything significant and meanigful in his life, the thought must be really offensive.
Somehow it turns out that USA has the highest percentage of people turned into 9-to-5 working robots and it also has the highest percentage of believers and people who reject evolution among all Western countries. I have reasons to think these observations are causally related. Whether it is intentional or it is a natural reaction of people is an open question
Sure, religion being a very stable meme (quote: "my second master" Dawkins) is part of the explanation, but it's not the whole story
The statement "I don't want to be an animal" provides a lot of insight into the problem and I think it is not just the egoistic desire to consider yourslef something more significant than the other species that plays a huge role here.
Once you realize evolution is real and there is no such thing as a "transcedental soul" you become just a biochemical machine whose sole purpose is to replicate its genes as much as possible (what in fact everyone of us is). It takes a considerable intelectual leap forward to accept the theory of evolution, even if only because it requires some effort to study the evidence and convince yourself the theory is true.
Where all the hostility towards evolution comes from is the fact that after you realize you are only molecules and nothing else life loses its purpose. It doesn't lose its purpose for scientists and people of high inteligence as most of them have found it in studying life and the universe and how we happened to be here and ask these questions. But for the average person working 9-to-5 for all his life, who is born and dies without ever achieving anything significant and meanigful in his life, the thought must be really offensive.
Somehow it turns out that USA has the highest percentage of people turned into 9-to-5 working robots and it also has the highest percentage of believers and people who reject evolution among all Western countries. I have reasons to think these observations are causally related. Whether it is intentional or it is a natural reaction of people is an open question
Your endeavors are frustrated and so you have decided to base your knowledge around the negation of the living entity. Just as you can blame transcendentalists for giving an emotional response (your allude to a "purpose"), we can accuse you for the same. Though in the end, we account for everything to a much greater extent than you ever can. That also frustrates you.
No. The "hostility" comes from how evolutionists treat those who do not accept evolution as the end-all/be-all explanation for everything. You are the one who has more reason to be inappropriately emotional here.
No. The "hostility" comes from how evolutionists treat those who do not accept evolution as the end-all/be-all explanation for everything. You are the one who has more reason to be inappropriately emotional here.
really?
again, we're dealing with the issue of being uneducated and uninformed
the whole hostility comes from anti-evolutionists and it didn't start yesterday or 3 months ago (check the Scopes trial, if you don't believe me)
the reason why the scientific community launched an attack against religion and anti-evolutionists is because they started messing up with scientists who were quietly and peacefully doing their research until idiots like you came and fucked up public education, stem-cell research and cloning
again, we're dealing with the issue of being uneducated and uninformed
the whole hostility comes from anti-evolutionists and it didn't start yesterday or 3 months ago (check the Scopes trial, if you don't believe me)
the reason why the scientific community launched an attack against religion and anti-evolutionists is because they started messing up with scientists who were quietly and peacefully doing their research until idiots like you came and fucked up public education, stem-cell research and cloning
So since you are contesting my statement I must logically conclude that you agree that just because we see a variety of animals, this does not mean that they all evolved from one.
No detractions. I already explained the distinction between humans and other creatures.
I can play your game. Yes, God made the mammals unique in comparison to fish (and vice versa). This is all of little value in comparison to the distinction of humans, which is the capacity to understand what is self, what is Absolute and the relationship between the two. I am not arguing that since something is unique, therefore it must not have evolved. I am arguing that although humans carry animal propensities, they have something (of value) that distinguishes them from other creatures.
No detractions. I already explained the distinction between humans and other creatures.
I can play your game. Yes, God made the mammals unique in comparison to fish (and vice versa). This is all of little value in comparison to the distinction of humans, which is the capacity to understand what is self, what is Absolute and the relationship between the two. I am not arguing that since something is unique, therefore it must not have evolved. I am arguing that although humans carry animal propensities, they have something (of value) that distinguishes them from other creatures.
Let me rephrase your statement: What distinguishes humans from other animals is their arrogance, the belief in their superiority based on some illusory concept of 'trancendental nature of self', or 'the absolute'. Their one-eyed, unwavering anthropocentric view of nature which invokes embarassment at the mere thought of sharing evolutionary descendants with great apes.
Humans can write extremely convincing fictional novels, such as 2001 a space odyssey and 1984 - something that apes cannot do. In fact, these stories are quite similar to the one that's playing out in your mind re: 'trancendental nature of self' and 'the absolute'. Paradoxical, that.
Humans can write extremely convincing fictional novels, such as 2001 a space odyssey and 1984 - something that apes cannot do. In fact, these stories are quite similar to the one that's playing out in your mind re: 'trancendental nature of self' and 'the absolute'. Paradoxical, that.
I shall thus argue that, although cheetah's carry animal propensities, they have something (of value) that distinguishes them from other creatures.
Sounds strange, doesn't it? Why is that?
Because in my case, I'm constructing a barrier between the speed of a cheetah and that of other animals. The cheetah, being the fastest land animal on the planet, is superior when it comes to acceleration and raw speed - thus setting them apart from all other animals.
In your example, you simply replaced 'speed' with 'intelligence'. Other animals are intelligent, even one as anthropocentrically inclined as yourself can't deny that. However, we are more intelligent then all of the animals - and based on this, you construct your unbreakable barrier between 'us' and 'them', setting us apart, making us special and raising us to something more 'God-like' and less 'animal-like'. Why is this?
btw, please don't reply with 'because we understand the transcendental nature of self, the Absolute, and the relationship between the two' - who's to say that animals don't have imaginations too?
Sounds strange, doesn't it? Why is that?
Because in my case, I'm constructing a barrier between the speed of a cheetah and that of other animals. The cheetah, being the fastest land animal on the planet, is superior when it comes to acceleration and raw speed - thus setting them apart from all other animals.
In your example, you simply replaced 'speed' with 'intelligence'. Other animals are intelligent, even one as anthropocentrically inclined as yourself can't deny that. However, we are more intelligent then all of the animals - and based on this, you construct your unbreakable barrier between 'us' and 'them', setting us apart, making us special and raising us to something more 'God-like' and less 'animal-like'. Why is this?
btw, please don't reply with 'because we understand the transcendental nature of self, the Absolute, and the relationship between the two' - who's to say that animals don't have imaginations too?