 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-12-2011 12:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> I answered that in a previous post. the last common ancestor of humans
>> and monkeys was by definition a monkey.
>
> What do you mean "by definition"?
>
monkeys are the clade of simians except humans*, the last common
ancestor was not a human, hence a monkey.
*) in the dutch interpretation where apes are monkeys**. internationally
monkeys are the clade of simians except apes. if you follow that
definition, the last common ancestor of humans and monkeys was the last
common ancestor of monkeys and apes. again that was a monkey because it
was not an ape.
**) it is one of those occasions where language influences scientific
classification.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Of course, all of this is transparently a question of certain people NOT
> LIKING a theory, and wanting to make people stop saying it's true. They
> don't actually care about the truth, only what makes them happy. As if
> truth can be influenced by what you believe.
What I find amusing is that, in its core, creationists dislike the theory
of evolution for one single reason: Because it establishes that humans were
not created as-is, but evolved from ape-like creatures. That's it, that's
the whole objection.
However, rather than attack this specific claim, they want to discredit
*everything* about evolution, and everything even remotely related to it,
no matter how simple or self-evident. Some creationist pseudodocumentaries
go so far as to, for example, try to discredit the notion that the
environment determines the color of butterflies, even though there's nothing
odd or unbelievable about it (if a butterfly blends with the background, it's
less visible and hence predators will miss it more easily; and color is
something that can be easily demonstrated to be hereditary). It doesn't matter
how easy it is to understand, if it's somehow related to evolution, it must
be false.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/30/2011 9:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Of course, all of this is transparently a question of certain people NOT
>> LIKING a theory, and wanting to make people stop saying it's true. They
>> don't actually care about the truth, only what makes them happy. As if
>> truth can be influenced by what you believe.
>
> What I find amusing is that, in its core, creationists dislike the theory
> of evolution for one single reason: Because it establishes that humans were
> not created as-is, but evolved from ape-like creatures. That's it, that's
> the whole objection.
>
Its not so odd, when you consider that they have, and do, attack other
sciences, on the grounds that it denies the age of the world, according
to them, or what they imagine the Bible says about anything. Evolution
was supposed to be the "wedge" to break everything else. However, due to
how bloody ignorant these people are about *everything*, it ended up
being the equivalent of attacking the strongest wall of a castle, using
sponges, in the theory that the whole castle will simply fall apart, if
you manage to breach it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Its not so odd, when you consider that they have, and do, attack other
> sciences, on the grounds that it denies the age of the world, according
> to them, or what they imagine the Bible says about anything. Evolution
> was supposed to be the "wedge" to break everything else. However, due to
> how bloody ignorant these people are about *everything*, it ended up
> being the equivalent of attacking the strongest wall of a castle, using
> sponges, in the theory that the whole castle will simply fall apart, if
> you manage to breach it.
Speaking of which, it also amuses me how so many creationists seem to
think that if they can discredit Charles Darwin's personality, they will
somehow cast doubt on the theory of evolution. They will resort to dirty
tactics such as claiming that Darwin was a racist (which according to his
writings he really wasn't; basically the opposite), his father was a racist
and so on.
It might not be immediately apparent (at least to a sane person) why they
think this tactic could work. After all, even if Darwin was the most horrible
person in the world, how does that affect the theory or evolution? A
scientific theory is evaluated by its own merits, not by who came up with
it first.
The explanation seems to be that religious people have this notion that
"revelations" are as good as the "prophets" that deliver them. If the prophet
himself is somehow objectionable, then his message is objectionable too.
Hence if you discredit the prophet, you discredit the message.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/31/2011 2:51 AM, Warp wrote:
> The explanation seems to be that religious people have this notion that
> "revelations" are as good as the "prophets" that deliver them. If the prophet
> himself is somehow objectionable, then his message is objectionable too.
> Hence if you discredit the prophet, you discredit the message.
>
Yeah, that is pretty much it. That people had worked out some bits
before, that a lot of people, including some of the worst of them,
didn't like his version, precisely because there was no hierarchy of
ascent to it, etc., doesn't matter. That he was wrong about a mess of
stuff, and had no explanation for some of the other ideas, doesn't
matter. We say Darwin, so they assume Darwinism, and thus, *he* lies at
the center of the whole thing. Its kind of like if they objected to
Newton, so ignored Einstein, because they figured all the stuff they
don't like about gravity could be solved by attacking only Newton, and
not *every single person since*, never mind before.
But, I have kind of wondered about the rise of idiocy. It didn't seem to
exist in my parents generation. Penn pegged it in this video, I think:
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/30/penn-jillette-an-atheists-g.html
Basically, prior to the need for the true nuts of religion to band
together, they where scared to death of each other. You didn't dare say
you where a protestant during an election, without risking every
Catholic, and Baptist, and who knows who ever else, probably throwing
their vote at someone else instead. So, they took something that never
really existed, not really even when it was founded, and made Christian
a magic word. If you are one, it doesn't matter any more what you
disagree about, even if the disagreement is so serious that you might be
shooting each other, instead of suggesting shooting gays, or Muslims,
instead. It only matters that you belong to one of the thousands of
variations, and the one you are in happens to be part of the 50% willing
to go along with insane shit, or the 10% that actually believe
completely contradictory, and mutually exclusive, crazy shit. Against
the rest of the world, you fall under the magic, never before there,
tent, called "Christian". They can, in effect, blow each other to shit
over whether magic underwear, magic crackers, or magic bath water, is
more important, after they are done shitting on everyone else over the
"bigger" things.
We where better off where there was mutual fear between them, in some
respects. In other ways, blatant, and constant, insanity is weakening
their numbers, and if, as in the 1950, your "denomination" still
mattered, Atheism would, as Penn says, outnumber the membership of
*every* individual religious cult out there. Its only their redefinition
of their magic word, which not one bloody one of them actually thinks
means the same thing at all, that makes them a majority.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> We where better off where there was mutual fear between them, in some
> respects. In other ways, blatant, and constant, insanity is weakening
> their numbers, and if, as in the 1950, your "denomination" still
> mattered, Atheism would, as Penn says, outnumber the membership of
> *every* individual religious cult out there. Its only their redefinition
> of their magic word, which not one bloody one of them actually thinks
> means the same thing at all, that makes them a majority.
Then there are those Americans who seriously claim that "freedom of
religion" means that you can freely be a catholic, pentecostal, baptist,
and so on, but it does not mean you can be an atheist. (For some reason they
never mention other religions such as islam, hinduism or buddhism.)
And these are not only some dumb individuals in their homes saying this.
I have seen video clips of people saying this on TV. And it was not a joke
or parody.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 3:48 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> We where better off where there was mutual fear between them, in some
>> respects. In other ways, blatant, and constant, insanity is weakening
>> their numbers, and if, as in the 1950, your "denomination" still
>> mattered, Atheism would, as Penn says, outnumber the membership of
>> *every* individual religious cult out there. Its only their redefinition
>> of their magic word, which not one bloody one of them actually thinks
>> means the same thing at all, that makes them a majority.
>
> Then there are those Americans who seriously claim that "freedom of
> religion" means that you can freely be a catholic, pentecostal, baptist,
> and so on, but it does not mean you can be an atheist. (For some reason they
> never mention other religions such as islam, hinduism or buddhism.)
>
> And these are not only some dumb individuals in their homes saying this.
> I have seen video clips of people saying this on TV. And it was not a joke
> or parody.
>
Yep. The thing being that, not that long ago, they would have said the
same thing about each other. There was a poll some time back which
basically placed the trustworthiness of rapists higher than that of
atheists...
And, they will mention Buddhists, sometimes, only, I think they
understand what those are about as well as they understand evolution.
lol Buddhist is, in a sense, atheism that never gave up the
supernatural, as far as many of its fundamental concepts, including
trying to understand the world, not trusting what someone claims is
true, without evidence, etc. They just include, "It feels like its true,
or makes me happy.", as a valid criteria for testing an ideas validity,
which lets in everything from ghosts, to fantasy creatures, and
mythological events, to "enlightenment", and "ascension".
Which makes the fact that, when some 'Christian' has to pick some other
religion to be nice to, they pick Buddhists, hilarious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Yep. The thing being that, not that long ago, they would have said the
> same thing about each other. There was a poll some time back which
> basically placed the trustworthiness of rapists higher than that of
> atheists...
I wonder at what point atheists became the big monsters. I'm assuming
it was somewhere around when communists stopped being so scary.
> And, they will mention Buddhists, sometimes, only, I think they
> understand what those are about as well as they understand evolution.
> lol Buddhist is, in a sense, atheism that never gave up the
> supernatural
By the strict definition of atheism, buddhists are atheists. That's
because they don't believe in any gods (in the theistic sense). AFAIK
in buddhism the question of where the universe and life came from is
irrelevant, and one shouldn't bother oneself with such inconsequential
questions.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I wonder at what point atheists became the big monsters. I'm assuming
> it was somewhere around when communists stopped being so scary.
It may have been when communists *started* being so scary--during the McCarthy
era (the 1950s), when we Americans started stamping "In God We Trust" all over
everything. I've run across people whose argument against atheism is that
communism doesn't work. In their minds, all atheists are communists. Stalin
and Mao and Pol Pot were evil monsters, therefore all atheists are evil
monsters.
_________________
If you apply the identical reasoning to Hitler, Torquemada, Anders Behring
Breivik, Cho Seung-Hui, and Andrea Yates, it surely follows that all Christians
are evil monsters. Alas, Christian logic doesn't work that way. Since Hitler
was a monster, he must surely have been an atheist. This piece of backward
reasoning is so slick that most Christians aren't aware that they're doing it.
(And the pope reinforces this ignorance when he lies through his teeth about the
Germany of his youth.) Now, having ASSumed that Hitler was an atheist we can
see that all atheists are evil monsters. As for the others, they weren't True
Christians(TM). It's confirmation bias and circular reasoning at their most
intransigent.
It must be noted that Christian scriptures teach that atheists are
evil--specifically, Psalm 14, Psalm 53, and Romans 1. This might explain why
some people (who'll believe an old book before they'll believe evidence) will
trust a rapist before they'll trust an atheist who has never harmed anyone.
There's also the "totally depraved" theology of original sin that we need to be
scared of a god to keep us in line.
Then there's the misunderstanding that evolution instructs us to be mean to each
other. (It is never noticed that natural selection is no more "godless" than
any other scientific theory.) It doesn't help that apologists are teaching the
lie that Hitler and Stalin based their policies on evolution.
I've also heard the nonsensical proposition that atheists believe themselves to
be God (or greater than God), and therefore feel justified in setting themselves
up as "God" over others' lives. A case of projection, I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/2/2012 7:53 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Yep. The thing being that, not that long ago, they would have said the
>> same thing about each other. There was a poll some time back which
>> basically placed the trustworthiness of rapists higher than that of
>> atheists...
>
> I wonder at what point atheists became the big monsters. I'm assuming
> it was somewhere around when communists stopped being so scary.
>
Generally, they equate them. All the time, even back when communists
where the "biggie". The reason being, unfortunately, that to appose the
church, you have to either a) pick one that will support your tyranny,
or b) appose all of them. Its gotten.. slightly more complicated to pick
the first one, so... by definition, if you want to be a dictator, the
easiest way to do so is to also claim you think they should all be banned.
So, its understandable that, now that its hard to find a communist
threat, atheists get nailed instead. But, as someone pointed out, with
respect to their own view on the matter, and which I agree with, the
goal of atheists isn't necessarily to get rid of religion, or conquer
anyone. The main goal is to be made irrelevant, and so long as wackos
insist that stupid shit, that doesn't work, contradicts reality, etc.,
especially claims about gods, persist, apposing such nonsense isn't
irrelevant.
However, if everyone gave up on gods, most would still be skeptics.
>> And, they will mention Buddhists, sometimes, only, I think they
>> understand what those are about as well as they understand evolution.
>> lol Buddhist is, in a sense, atheism that never gave up the
>> supernatural
>
> By the strict definition of atheism, buddhists are atheists. That's
> because they don't believe in any gods (in the theistic sense). AFAIK
> in buddhism the question of where the universe and life came from is
> irrelevant, and one shouldn't bother oneself with such inconsequential
> questions.
>
Yeah, but since when have the religious ever used the strict definition
for anything? They even redefine there own words, based on context,
depending on whether its convenient, embarrassing, or fight inducing.
Definitions of what things are, when it comes of faith and spirituality,
are entirely mercurial in their hands, and purely situational.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
