It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm
Because Huxley offered nothing of scientific value, just barked at everyone who disagreed with Darwin and advocated eugenics, doesnt reflect well on his atheist beliefs and as for Mendel, religious crazy scientist who should not be considered because of his faith and his studies don’t really support evolution outside of change within kind
My opinion obviously
A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?
The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic
A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?
The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.
The only difference between humans and less sophisticated animals is an overwhelming abundance of ego. For all the
good it has done us.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Plenty of heathens like you doing a great job, I am not saying christians have the market cornered in kindness and care
In fact I think christians are sometimes less Christian than they espouse, personally I don’t like most Christians and churches so.
originally posted by: sapien82
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic
A naturalist, materialistic interpretation of evolution isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. If humans are just animals, why not just breed us like cows and pigs?
The fact is, humans inherently know we're not just animals and that's why you have outrage at Dawkins comments. We have a higher faculty of self awareness that's separates us from animals.
The only difference between humans and less sophisticated animals is an overwhelming abundance of ego. For all the
good it has done us.
hahah animals less sophisticated , that is as you have suggested is just our own hubris , thinking we are better because we think of our own identity and are aware of our own existence.
To value one living being over another is just nonsense in my opinion.
we need to return to our natural roots if we are to survive as a species, not regress completely , but re-embrace what it means to live in balance with nature.
we have abandonded all of our old traditions for making boys into men , initiation of the youth to adult is missing . We are a species of immature adults .
originally posted by: rom12345
I'm unconvinced that animals bread to be food, slaves or pets represent an improvement in their genetics.
Absolutely TC but I was paraphrasing your choice of identification from the previous post you wrote and identified with
No offence
I wouldn’t have considered an atheist a heathen in its pure term
heath·en
/ˈhēT͟Hən/
noun DEROGATORY
a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.
heathen noun
plural heathens or heathen
Definition of heathen (Entry 2 of 2)
1: an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person
heathen
hea·then
Use heathen in a sentence
noun
The definition of a heathen is someone who does not belong to an accepted religion or is someone who is lacking in morals or principles.
originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neoholographic
Atheism and it's marriage with science will negate the need for eugenics.
Crispr is just the beginning.
Science doesn't care much for ethics or morals, you can't describe them with mathematics unfortunately.
The thing with that assumption is that science still requires one free miracle to explain the universe.
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: neoholographic
It's not the ethics of doing it it's the implications of doing it that stops us going down that path , long may that attitude remain.
It will likely be a thing in the future but hopefully when we are more enlightened as a species.
originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: neoholographic
It's not the ethics of doing it it's the implications of doing it that stops us going down that path , long may that attitude remain.
It will likely be a thing in the future but hopefully when we are more enlightened as a species.
Huh?
Surely the whole point behind the pursuit of eugenics IS to make us more enlightened as a species?
(Shrugs)