Why I'm an Atheist

[Tubby]

And just on the subject of congenital neurological disorders - what could be more indicative of the process of Darwinian natural selection as these? For a human being to fully function as a human being, one requires a human brain. Simple. Can't argue with that. So, what about those who are born with neurological disorders? Why have we always considered such people to be somewhat 'less than human'? Maybe it's because, deep down, we realise that these people are not in fact human in the common sense of the term.

I understand how ugly that sounds, but the Darwinian model is perfectly happy for us to think this way in order to prevent us from allowing such people to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation - hence our tendency to confine them to regimented hospitals (or, more recently, community support centres - which are in fact no less regimented. I know this because I work in one, and my colleauges and I would be horrified to realise that any of the people we supported held romantic ideas about another, and we would do everything we could to discourage it).

Why? Because my colleagues and I are first human, and only second community support workers - no matter how much we would like to think otherwise.

[quadz]

the Darwinian model is perfectly happy for us to think this way

Careful: Is the Darwinian model perfectly happy for us to think of inventing and using contraceptives?

[Tubby]

I'm a fucking Satanist, you retard. My god is not loving to those who do not deserve love. My god is not merciful to those who do not deserve mercy. Not that it matters, which is precisely why I didn't say shit to you about it until now. Go ahead and spout assumptions as if you have one single clue what the hell it means to be me. Just one more opportunity for you to...
or ignore the question.

Focalor, you say you're a Satanist; I respect that as much as I respect any other supernatural belief system.

However, as such, you're still arguing from a platform of 'belief in a higher power': In your case Satan.

That just strengthens my argument against debeting this topic from a philosophical / scientific standpoint: What you can't seem to grasp is that you need to remove yourself entirely from any notions of belief in a supernatural entity (god / buddah / satan) in order to debate this topic effectively.

[Tubby]

the Darwinian model is perfectly happy for us to think this way

Careful: Is the Darwinian model perfectly happy for us to think of inventing and using contraceptives?

Absolutely, Quadz.

You might think of contraceptives as a 'man-made' or 'artificial' product , but consider this:

Nature (whatever that is) made man capable of inventing - and willing to invent - contraceptives. Therefore, can we really call contraceptives 'unnatural'?

You can extend this idea right down to the invention of the nuclear bomb: Nature made man capable of inventing the nuclear bomb, so how can you call the nuclear bomb 'unnatural'?

[|iR|Focalor]

I'm a fucking Satanist, you retard. My god is not loving to those who do not deserve love. My god is not merciful to those who do not deserve mercy. Not that it matters, which is precisely why I didn't say shit to you about it until now. Go ahead and spout assumptions as if you have one single clue what the hell it means to be me. Just one more opportunity for you to...
or ignore the question.

Focalor, you say you're a Satanist; I respect that as much as I respect any other supernatural belief system.

However, as such, you're still arguing from a platform of 'belief in a higher power': In your case Satan.

That just strengthens my argument against debeting this topic from a philosophical / scientific standpoint: What you can't seem to grasp is that you need to remove yourself entirely from any notions of belief in a supernatural entity (god / buddah / satan) in order to debate this topic effectively.

I am not arguing from ANY god damn platform YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. The only god damn thing I've argued is that YOU ARE A STUPID FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. You've proved it over and over again. You've neglected to answer ONE SIMPLE STUPID FUCKING QUESTION even after I held your stupid fucking retarded hand and walked your stupid fucking retarded ass back through it like the stupid fucking retarded retard that you are and deserve to be treated like. Go ahead and admit it already you pea brained stupid fuck. You aren't here to debate shit. You are incapable of debate because you're too fucking stupid to do it.

Go die now.

[Tubby]

I'm a fucking Satanist, you retard. My god is not loving to those who do not deserve love. My god is not merciful to those who do not deserve mercy. Not that it matters, which is precisely why I didn't say shit to you about it until now. Go ahead and spout assumptions as if you have one single clue what the hell it means to be me. Just one more opportunity for you to...
or ignore the question.

Focalor, you say you're a Satanist; I respect that as much as I respect any other supernatural belief system.

However, as such, you're still arguing from a platform of 'belief in a higher power': In your case Satan.

That just strengthens my argument against debeting this topic from a philosophical / scientific standpoint: What you can't seem to grasp is that you need to remove yourself entirely from any notions of belief in a supernatural entity (god / buddah / satan) in order to debate this topic effectively.

I am not arguing from ANY god damn platform YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. The only god damn thing I've argued is that YOU ARE A STUPID FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. You've proved it over and over again. You've neglected to answer ONE SIMPLE STUPID FUCKING QUESTION even after I held your stupid fucking retarded hand and walked your stupid fucking retarded ass back through it like the stupid fucking retarded retard that you are and deserve to be treated like. Go ahead and admit it already you pea brained stupid fuck. You aren't here to debate shit. You are incapable of debate because you're too fucking stupid to do it.

Go die now.

Ok sorry Foc. Can I offer you a nice cup of tea?

Some Prozac, maybe?

[|iR|Focalor]

No, but I sure could use my dick being sucked, you stupid fuck.

[quadz]

the Darwinian model is perfectly happy for us to think this way

Careful: Is the Darwinian model perfectly happy for us to think of inventing and using contraceptives?

Absolutely, Quadz.

Fail. (Again.)

Time to read a book.

We still informally refer to modern evolutionary theory as Darwinian evolution, because Darwin described the big-picture process so accurately.

But Darwin was never able to account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation.  Nor was Darwin ever able to explain the introduction of heritable variations from parents to offspring.

We've spent the past 150 years since Origin of Species was published, accumulating knowledge about how evolution works, including effectively down to the level of information theory of how the process operates genetically.

As a result, we now have explanations for the questions above that Darwin was unable to answer.

And it is precisely these explanations of the evolutionary process at the genetic level which expose your various claims about natural selection as false.  We don't have to wait for our "children" to disprove your claims--you were wrong sixty years ago.

contraceptives ... 'man-made' or 'artificial' ... Nature ... 'unnatural' ... nuclear bomb ... Nature ... unnatural

This is you completely misconstruing and misappropriating the word 'natural' from the term natural selection, stripping it of its meaning, and applying it broadly to "things produced by nature".

Pro tip: Every element in the periodic table is "natural" too, as is every combination and occurrence of said elements anywhere in the observable universe.  It's all "natural", and it has squat to do with natural selection.


A reminder from January 31:

Quadz, I think the principles of natural selection work on every level of the human condition; genetic, social, moral, religious, and so on.

Then please call it something else.  Natural selection in the context of evolution has a specific, gene-centered meaning.  As haunted has attempted to convey to you, many of your examples of "natural selection" are not applicable to genetic evolution.

So when I refer to 'natural selection', I guess I am drawing a longer bow around the concept than those who seek to refute it - I'll admit that, but I believe it completely: There is not one part of any person's life which is not directly influenced by this wider form of natural selection.

Like I said in post #96, it's happening right here and right now, all around us, everywhere.

Again, please call it something else.  What you're talking about is not evolution by natural selection.

It seems you haven't taken the trouble to educate yourself about the mechanisms by which genetic evolution operates.

This has resulted in the sort of 'debate' one is accustomed to having with someone who values faith over evidence (e.g. creationists).  

Since you claim to value scientific evidence, why are you arguing evolution from an unscientific basis?

As I stated in a previous post (#73), I admit that I don't have any 'facts', hence the debate. (Maybe you need to research the word 'debate').

See above.

Again, please read a book.


Regards,

quadz

[l0ckp1ck]

heres a question , say pheromones are real which you can safely say they are, are we made pre programmed to go for a certain type of female or are females pre programmed to go for certain males? or not? what determines this? is it natual selection or has it got something to do with genes? is that were pheromones come in? I have done a bit of research into this and from what i have read these are the things females tend to go for in males...

Power, tall, confident, success, good body, good provider.

but that is just what i have read, but then you see good lookin females fall for short fat ugly guys (no offense tubby) who have not necessarily
 got any of those traits, so does it have to do with pheromones? natual selection?

[Tubby]

Nor was Darwin ever able to explain the introduction of heritable variations from parents to offspring.

Genetic heritability (DNA) and the concept of spontaneous genetic mutation hadn't been established or realised at that time, Quadz.

Also, Darwin was a one-man-band... ffs, what do you expect from the guy?

He was only human. (Not a god)... 

[Tubby]

heres a question , say pheromones are real which you can safely say they are, are we made pre programmed to go for a certain type of female or are females pre programmed to go for certain males? or not? what determines this? is it natual selection or has it got something to do with genes? is that were pheromones come in? I have done a bit of research into this and from what i have read these are the things females tend to go for in males...

Power, tall, confident, success, good body, good provider.

but that is just what i have read, but then you see good lookin females fall for short fat ugly guys (no offense tubby) who have not necessarily
 got any of those traits, so does it have to do with pheromones? natual selection?

Haha Alpha. But i think you'll find that any female who falls for me will do so because of my great wealth of intelligence - my looks notwithstanding      Just kidding.

Either way, it's all about the female finding the best prospect for her genetic inheretance (her children).

In other words, a female will be happy to procreate with an 'ugly' person (me) if it means she will get to produce kids who are likely to have an intellectual advantage over their peers - and who will thus be a big hit with all the other girls & guys who also spend their lunch-break in the library....

As for pheromones etc. that's all conjecture at this stage - although Quadz et al may like to argue otherwise, since they have all the facts.

[quadz]

that's all conjecture at this stage - although Quadz et al may like to argue otherwise, since they have all the facts.

Yeah, imagine how different this thread might be, if these facts were somehow available to everyone, instead of hoarded by a select few!

If only there were some way--I don't know, some kind of technology--by which you could also gain access to this information.

Not a big truck per se, but, maybe a series of some fashioning. . . . Oh well, it's a pipe dream I guess. 


:flipoff:

[haunted]

 

[reaper]

stream of consciousness string of non-sequitirs, unsupported inferences, and straw-men

whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

 

[Whirlingdervish]

If only there were some way--I don't know, some kind of technology--by which you could also gain access to this information.

Not a big truck per se, but, maybe a series of some fashioning. . . . Oh well, it's a pipe dream I guess. 


:flipoff:

Speaking of pipe dreams, I heard there is this amazing series of tubes ... wait.