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.
peter vlar
reply to post by Grimpachi
That all depends on what you consider a satanist. In LaVeyan Satanism there is no worship of supernatural entities and instead you celebrate individualism.
LaVey claimed "Satanists are born, not made" and that "[Satanists] have a disease called independence that needs to be recognized just like alcoholism."[citation needed] There are progressive and libertarian elements here; diversity is encouraged, everyone is expected to discover his/her own sexuality, chart his own personality, and decide their own ambitions in life. In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered a "Left-Hand Path" religion.
Grimpachi
reply to post by peter vlar
They still use the character of "Satan" and have philosophy and rituals so they are more akin to Christianity than atheism. They even have a bible.edit on 1-12-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
AngryCymraeg
reply to post by SisyphusRide
I fail to see your point. We are just another kind of animal.
Personally I agree with you, people using satanism purely to attack christianity need to become pagan or something else, Theistic satanism is the only real satanism.
hence my coinage "Soft-Satanism" ™
SisyphusRide
reply to post by flyingfish
hollow meaningless empty words which lack composure... the very essence of civilized communication.
you may invoke the invisible man thing all you like, it is of little concern to me. If that is how you view it then so be it... because I blame parenting for individuals (although still unique and conscious) who lack philosophical and out-side of the box skills.
Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide
hence my coinage "Soft-Satanism" ™
Made up terms ehh…
Here’s one you should be familiar with “self-righteous Christian fundamentalist”
Opps those actually exist. You would be able to comprehend that if you lived in reality.
helldiver
kyviecaldges
reply to post by helldiver
The lack of a any pre-cambrian fossils which might explain why the Burgess Shale is so speciose is not absence of evidence. Gould talks about this in Wonderful Life and suggests that up until that point animals were probably soft bodied as the first predators were still to evolve. As soon as the first predators evolved then there was an explosive radiation of forms as predator-prey food chains developed.
That is all speculation.
I can't believe that you buy that crap from Gould.
It is simply another ad hoc hypothesis.
No fossils exists because they were soft bodied.
How can an explosion happen in evolution?
Explain to me the mechanism.
As I said, it makes all recursive algorithms invalid. And if they are invalid, then there goes ALL your evidence other than the fossil record.
Read this:
www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/courses/Greenstein/paleo/Donovan_Lewis.pdf
It's a concise summary of the Burgess Shale biota, see page 3 for details of anomalocaris and the evolution of predators.
kyviecaldges
Please pay attention:
If a mutation, which is totally random in nature as to whether it is beneficial or not, suddenly starts trending toward the beneficial side of things, then they are no longer random.
And you continue to validate the argument for intelligent design without even realizing it.
*Can things that happen simultaneously actually be random and beneficial?
And if they are, then what is the probability that this simultaneously random beneficial event happens just twice, or thrice, or much less the bajillion times that these simultaneously random beneficial events happened during BOTH the Avalon and the Cambrian explosion.
If you understand probability then you know that the probability of the same event recurring decreases exponentially every time it happens.
Yes..........edit on 1/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.
the problem here is that you fail to see how a mutation in a creature may be beneficial in one environment yet detrimental in another. The Kit Fox and the Arctic Fox are genetically identical yet are adapted to very different environments. If forced to switch places neither would survive long in the others natural habitat making the once beneficial mutation a detriment to their survival. Nature doesn't care about algorithms, nature cares about surviving.
If a mutation, which is totally random in nature as to whether it is beneficial or not, suddenly starts trending toward the beneficial side of things, then they are no longer random
And you continue to validate the argument for intelligent design without even realizing it.