The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity

reply to post by melatonin


there something wrong with saggy breasts?
if you don't like warm fuzzies and wishful thinking, you might want to consider avoiding meaningful relationships with children and women

reply to post by undo


Undo, is that not exactly what all hardcore devotees of Darwinism have done; left no room in the cold soulless dark of their protoplasmic ascension over the carcasses of the less fit to enthrone the god of 'self'' in their myopic universe? With such a closed viewpoint of the world with no higher standards or morals then 'what I think', 'what I want' and 'what I believe' what room is there for love and 'warm fuzzies' for anything but themselves? The comment about "saggy breasts" merely illustrates the superficiality of the 'self' enthroned' universe.

reply to post by SGTChas


well for me its even worse. one is saggy and the other is completely missing! i guess i'm too ugly now to procreate. mwahaha. when you get past the hot flashes, menopause is very gooood. ah farewell to midol! i dunno why so many folks are afraid of aging or view it as if it were not a meaningful part of the life cycle once you're past fertile myrtle, that is.. i mean, it has its downsides too, but some real fine perks as well. i admit i miss the missing one, but it's not like my identity or value is tied to a body part (well i kinda need my brain though.. i think it's still there. the way some of these folks talk, you'd think we were an alternate species of human that managed to mature to adulthood without a brain ).

Originally posted by undo
there something wrong with saggy breasts?
if you don't like warm fuzzies and wishful thinking, you might want to consider avoiding meaningful relationships with children and women

Who said I didn't like emotion in personal and social relationships?

You're being obtuse. In fact, rather ridiculous.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


in addition to my other charms, yes?

Okay, want me to bring up the whole, atheism hates women thing and drag out all the statistics? Nah, been there, done that, and it ain't your fault. Just so's ya know, the concept is very anti-female. You may not be, but as a ....philosophy(?) atheism tends to that direction. It can't help but not, since it's a pecking order philosophy and women need artificial equalizers to typically (not always) make the grade.

Anyway, I don't think you're stupid or ridiculous, just confused and that's definitely not your fault.

Originally posted by undo
Okay, want me to bring up the whole, atheism hates women thing and drag out all the statistics? Nah, been there, done that, and it ain't your fault. Just so's ya know, the concept is very anti-female. You may not be, but as a ....philosophy(?) atheism tends to that direction. It can't help but not, since it's a pecking order philosophy and women need artificial equalizers to typically (not always) make the grade.

Anyway, I don't think you're stupid or ridiculous, just confused and that's definitely not your fault.

Aww, thanks. But your blatherings earlier do appear rather ridiculous.

TBH, I'm not even going to go there, I don't expect anything of consequence.

reply to post by melatonin



okay, that was uncalled for, as in unnecessary. i gave you the benefit of the doubt. put the jungian book away. put the darwin book away. put the rest of it away. you are talking to a fellow human being, not a piece of excrement.

Originally posted by undo
okay, that was uncalled for, as in unnecessary. i gave you the benefit of the doubt. put the jungian book away. put the darwin book away. put the rest of it away. you are talking to a fellow human being, not a piece of excrement.

Who said you were a piece of excrement?

Again, you're being obtuse. I'm sorry, but that is my opinion. Since your first reply, you've been attempting to play some silly misogyny card to a comment I made about how reality doesn't conform to our subjective wishful-thinking, mixed with some form of me having to be a cold, emotionless drone by viewing things from a scientific perspective.

If you want to talk fluffy rabbits and the meaning/content of interpersonal relationships, I think BTS has something relevant.

ABE:

What the hell is this?

Originally posted by undo

Reality doesn't conform to your fuzzy feelings and wishful-thinking

Yep, it's anti-female! It hates women, it hates children, it hates emotion, tenderness, compassion. It's a mechanistic, cold-hearted pile of drivel. The whole theory should be drop-kicked into some remote part of the universe where there is no life it can harm!

Reality is misogynist? A mechanistic cold-hearted pile of drivel? Tenderless. Without compassion?

What the hell are you on about?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by melatonin

 

there something wrong with saggy breasts?
if you don't like warm fuzzies and wishful thinking, you might want to consider avoiding meaningful relationships with children and women

Now because I don't think reality conforms to our wishful-thinking I should avoid interpersonal relationships? As a parent with a child and a long-term relationship, that is total crap.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by melatonin

 

in addition to my other charms, yes?

Okay, want me to bring up the whole, atheism hates women thing and drag out all the statistics? Nah, been there, done that, and it ain't your fault. Just so's ya know, the concept is very anti-female. You may not be, but as a ....philosophy(?) atheism tends to that direction. It can't help but not, since it's a pecking order philosophy and women need artificial equalizers to typically (not always) make the grade.

Anyway, I don't think you're stupid or ridiculous, just confused and that's definitely not your fault.

And here we have some blathering about atheism and misogyny.

Not one part of any of your posts actually address my point - reality doesn't conform to what we want to be true. It doesn't care that I, or you, don't like something.

It's just a whole lot of...., umm, something not relevant. And you are just consolidating my opinion - you have nothing of consequence, apart from some ridiculous blatherings about misogyny and my emotional and interpersonal capabilities.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]

the difference is you are not an animal. you're a human being. you have intrinsic value that is not measured by the size of your intellect, your belief system, your bank account, your gender, your age, your race, your political platform, and so on. this is something that darwinism overwrites in the minds of its adherents. it essentially says that nature is cruel and so are people and that's just the way it is, therefore science must be a cruel and callous approach to the same reality. i agree, that may be just the way it is, but we don't have to like it, embrace it, or encourage it in others. we can rise above that circumstance and we should because:

1) it doesn't make enough space for different opinions without assuming the dissenter is automatically an idiot.

2) it models its moral foundation on nature, which simply put is pretty to look at and fun to take care of but lacks the ability to function outside its programming. you don't have that constraint as a human being, even if you think you do.

3) it removes from consideration the immense responsibility men have as the "top of the food chain." as a man, you are responsible (if you are a man) to make sure laws are not created by which those less endowed might be or are abused, regardless of their religion, race, gender, age and so on. darwinism drops the ball totally on this point and that's not good. to solve the problem it hands the woman a gun and says, "DEFEND YOURSELF," rather than insisting that women not be treated like this month's centerfold in hustler. women are not a commodity, they are human beings. sex sells is out of control. you as a man have a responsibilty to assure your natural drives don't supercede the value of other human beings as human beings and not things to be sold, murdered when convenient and so on. your family jewels should not control the world. your brain should.
also in this category is euthanasia, abortion, and several other examples of where the human becomes less than a human and the laws no longer protect them. you drop the ball on that one too. it's damn scary that the planet is getting increasingly more callous about these important issues and that western men in particular, are embracing it, because if they make the laws, the less "hardy" and least able or willing to defend themselves, are sure to be the first in the graveyard. that, frankly, is the stuff of nightmares for those who have just as much a right to walk on this planet as you do.

anyway, i'm tired. if you refute this, be content that you got the last word, cause i'm done debating it. if you don't love your fellow humans because they don't conform to your comfort zone, the ownus is on you. not my fault anymore.

Undo, I'm not some heartless monster.

You seem to be making the same mistakes as some made earlier - the naturalistic fallacy. Just because nature is x, doesn't mean we have to act like x. Just because women tend to die through child-birth doesn't mean we should allow them to. Just because little children can die from viruses, disease, and become blind from little parasites that eat eyeballs doesn't mean we should allow it.

We can act against nature. And we should. But don't deny the facts that nature is like x because you don't like the consequences. We work to act against them when need be.

Humans are social and emotional beings. I know all this very very well, you're not telling me anything I don't know.

For example, humans have an intrinsic tendency to form social ingroups and outgroups very easily. This leads to emotion-based prejudice and intergroup conflict. That's something we know. But we don't just think 'oh well, we have that tendency lets just accept it' or even deny it because it's not fluffy enough. We work to uncover ways of working against it and help foster better social relationships.

That's what science is about. We uncover natural phenomena and, if required, find ways to work against them. Just because science has shown 'nature is red in tooth and claw' (to a degree, as love-in's are also important) doesn't mean we should act like heartless unthinking animals.

I'm just amazed really. I am. I outlined much of this earlier.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Undo, I'm not some heartless monster.


I'm just amazed really. I am. I outlined much of this earlier.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]

Get off her neck mel, you always did come off like a heartless monster. Talk about being amazed. Yeah,, what she said.

Undo IS amazing

- Con

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Conspiriology,

*eyes you suspiciously* When people start saying i'm amazing, i have to check their sanity. You okay?

if you want to see amazing, check out Steven Tyler from Aerosmith singing Amazing Grace, like only he can sing it, in a church in Detroit.




i suppose it's not erm, fair, to assume mel is capable of any of those points i mentioned. just accumulative effect of lots of people believing the same thing, i guess.

Originally posted by undo
Conspiriology,

*eyes you suspiciously* When people start saying i'm amazing, i have to check their sanity. You okay?

i suppose it's not erm, fair, to assume mel is capable of any of those points i mentioned. just accumulative effect of lots of people believing the same thing, i guess.

Ha ha ha yeah, yes I'm ok undo, Thanks for asking but I maintain you really are amazing. Whammy turned me on to you a long time back (when we used to talk eachother) when I had questions about the fallen. I read many of the posts you wrote about the annunaki and the niburu. Was most impressed with the thread where you put incarnate in his place lol. I don't think I have known another member in all of ATS that knows as much as you do on the subject.

I am of the Aerosmith Generation even went to a couple concerts, once in High School and then once in the Navy I went to one in FLA.

Rest assured that uppity attitude you sense from mel, many others do too. I used to call it "Intellectual snobbery" that writers like him and astyanax would display. One I think is just trying to overcompensate for his low self esteem seeing himself as "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" so he developed a fetish using thesaurus and the other is just plane stuck up cheaply enhancing his ego by belittling others.

I think it stems from saying things like this that makes me wanna throw up

That's what science is about. We uncover natural phenomena

The use of the word "WE" and "Science" among Atheists floors me and they all do it. It's like "what are they all scientists?" I'ts so overdone I would have a hard time believing ANY of them are.

While my saying you're amazing is meant to offset some of the negative energy you got from one it is still my opinion nevertheless.

- Con





[edit on 19-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

who's incarnate? where? don't recall that for some reason.

Originally posted by undo
who's incarnate? where? don't recall that for some reason.

Oh he is the one that thinks he is the arc angel Michael incarnate. He writes a lot about one of my worst pet peaves among Christians which is another "group" of people I don't seem to get along with. The subject about the mayan date you had mentioned that 2012 was not the accurate date and was very compelling argument.

I think it's a HUGE mistake for Christians to be speaking about that but it's a free country. It just makes all of us look mighty silly when and if nothing happens that day.

I lean more toward Issac Newtons calculations myself 2060

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology

That's what science is about. We uncover natural phenomena

The use of the word "WE" and "Science" among Atheists floors me and they all do it. It's like "what are they all scientists?" I'ts so overdone I would have a hard time believing ANY of them are.

...

- Con

Yes, con. You have a hard time believing 'ANY of them are', even though many of them are.

Thing is, con, I either am a scientist or I play one on the internet. Amazingly, it doesn't matter as the science which is my area of expertise, either in reality or during my internet role, isn't even biology. Thus, I don't present myself as an expert, and therefore it means nada - and I have stated this many times.

Secondly, even if I was an expert in biology to me it means nothing. I mix with similar people either everyday in reality or in my internet play and we don't play 'argument from authority'. Thus, I will just as likely feel able to pull apart an apparent expert like Behe or anyone else, if the evidence works (like the fantastic Abbie did with Behe).

However, what I do know is that you certainly couldn't even play one on the internet, as you strikingly show that you surf and post whatever you think contradicts the scientific position without really understanding it and how it relates to data and findings.

In the field in which I play a scientist on teh intertubz, we have this thing called the Dunning-Kruger effect, look it up some time, fits you well

Whether you or others think I play one or am one. I don't care. It is essentially meaningless here.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]

does it help my case at all that i was on the president's list and the dean's list in college, when i was going for my medical degree ( i wanted to get gp and then cross train to natural medicine. i was one year away from going for my doctorate). it doesn't make me an expert in evolutionary theory but i know a bit about biology and genetics. i wouldn't say that i could carry on a meaningful conversation on genetics these days, but then i'm getting old (that's my excuse and i'm stickin' with it!) so i've forgotten some of the terminology. that and i was in a coma a few years back. (that's my other excuse and it's the more likely answer).

Originally posted by undo
does it help my case at all that i was on the president's list and the dean's list in college, when i was going for my medical degree ( i wanted to get gp and then cross train to natural medicine. i was one year away from going for my doctorate). it doesn't make me an expert in evolutionary theory but i know a bit about biology and genetics. i wouldn't say that i could carry on a meaningful conversation on genetics these days, but then i'm getting old (that's my excuse and i'm stickin' with it!) so i've forgotten some of the terminology. that and i was in a coma a few years back. (that's my other excuse and it's the more likely answer).

Thank you. That's a little more of a clear and meaningful response

I don't really care about people's qualifications. It's not some sort of label that means 'here lies truth'. Goes for me, for you, and for people like Behe and even Dawkins. People with PhDs/MDs can easily be as wrong as the bin-man (or refuse collector in your lingo) down the road or even con, and vice versa. Although we would expect better understanding with qualifications/experience.

Evidence and the consistency of arguments matter most of all in science. That is primary. We do have parties and love-ins now and again though...

[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]

well i start with history, that and archaeology. and work backwards. and backwards and work forwards. and comparatively analyze the info. cross reference. check original languages. this is stuff the guys who started the enlightenment, which lead to the trashing of most of ancient history, didn't have access to. we have an unqiue position, both in hindsight and available research materials. it could be better and it could be worse, but for sure it's better than it was when they pitched it all out.

so from my perspective, it isn't just the bible or creationism as a biblical teaching that's at stake, it's all of ancient history (most of which actually agrees with each other in more ways than you can imagine unless you diligently study it with the idea in mind of actually finding the answers).

[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
so from my perspective, it isn't just the bible or creationism as a biblical teaching that's at stake, it's all of ancient history (most of which actually agrees with each other in more ways than you can imagine unless you diligently study it with the idea in mind of actually finding the answers).

Aye, I think you mentioned your issues with myth vs history before. TBH, not really of interest to me. Sorry.