How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3901  Postby Macdoc » Sep 12, 2019 6:32 pm

you must be a super taster ;)
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15840
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3902  Postby theropod » Sep 13, 2019 2:44 am

...or someone somewhere sometime might take note...

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3903  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 13, 2019 5:34 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators.


JJ, you've set up humans and something external to humans in order to place humans at the center of whatever relations you're postulating. If you don't understand that this assumes your conclusion, then you don't. You're still trying to portray the environment as forcing human evolution. But that's also your conclusion.


Not so complicated Cito, I was identifying the “external relations” for our early hominin ancestors. Then I went on to model how those relations bore on the human creation.

Cito di Pense wrote: Perhaps you could say a few words about how "atheist ideology" is preventing me from seeing the relations the same way you do. The answer I would give you is that there's nothing compelling me to treat the biome as a forcing externality, unless you make an argument specifically showing me how to treat the biome that way, with humans at the center, and everything else external to them. How does "atheist ideology" lead me to leave humans as just a piece of a biome that's evolving? It's "atheist ideology" that doesn't center humans in the world, but that's just an old creationist ploy, severely obfuscated.


Nothing is forcing you, you are just defending a widely held world view. I don’t accept that I’m intent on placing human beings at the centre of the world. Like birds can fly, people can talk. Whereas there are many kinds of birds that can fly, and many other creatures also fly, there is only one species that can talk. That, along with our symbiotic relationship with objects, is creating a crisis for all life, call it the 6th extinction or the Anthropocene, whatever. We had better factor it into our world picture because it goes to human RESPONSIBILITY. But that isn’t what I’m on about here; I’m arguing that the manner in which this human faculty came about, tells us a lot about how the creation works.

Cito di Pense wrote: You've really got only one task, JJ, and that is to persuade me to place humans at the center of the biome. Yes, I would have to become a theist in order to place humans at the center of their existence. What else can you use besides the fact that you and I are humans, but I don't find that particularly persuasive, in and of itself. You need to work smarter, not harder.


Nah, my task is to show how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1095
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3904  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 13, 2019 5:46 am

Hermit wrote:Let's recapitulate in the hope of clearing up your confusion:


I wasn’t confused; you made out that I said TofE "was" Atheist ideology and I should have corrected that earlier.

Hermit wrote:
I pointed out that the theory of evolution is accepted by millions of Christians without damaging their faith, and therefore cannot be regarded as an atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. You countered by asking "What about the missions(sic) of theists who don’t accept TofE?" My reply to that was that as long as millions of Christians have no problems reconciling the theory of evolution with their faith in the existence of a Christian god, you know, the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology", the Christians who do have a problem with it don't matter. Recognising that your objection made no sense you now engage in what can only be termed a Gish gallop, namely this:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The theory of evolution as AR Wallace developed it, was the best available explanation for the palaeontological record. That Darwin had long been developing a very similar theory, but had hesitated to present it, shows how entangled he was, as a more significant social figure, in the controversy the theory would raise in Victorian society. Anyway, Darwin presented the theory very persuasively in Origins. In the decade before publishing Descent, Darwin found a powerful and effective ally in the agnostic TH Huxley, and some opposition from Christians. My argument is that Darwin presented a picture in The Descent of Man, that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, while also incidentally, supporting the male-dominated and imperial-minded British establishment. It’s from then that the influence of atheist ideology on the theory can be observed and traced.


I was trying to explain that the influence of atheist ideology on the human origin story can be observed from OBSERVABLE CHANGE: the change from invoking natural selection, to invoking sexual selection. The smoking gun was Darwin’s editing his original description of sexual selection, to clarify the distinction between external and internal dependencies.
I admit I expressed a bit of grumpiness about the 19th century British establishment.

Hermit wrote:
Darwin's seminal publication was not titled "On the Origin of Life". It was titled "On the Origin of Species", and that is a fundamental fact you keep ignoring.


I know perfectly well the titles of Darwin’s works and really I don’t have the foggiest idea of what you are on about there.

Hermit wrote:
It is true, as you point out, that Darwin's theory presented a picture that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, but again, this does not make his theory an atheist ideology for the same reason I cited before. To wit: As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".


Well, like I said, denominations that express “no problem” with evolution, are losing membership against creationist ones. You cited blow, the Anglican and Catholic churches as pro evolution. Well, consider these membership graphs:

Anglicans: Who “accept” that humans evolved.
Image

Jehovah Witnesses: Who deny evolution.
Image

By the way, although I'm an Anglican, I'm happy that the JWs membership is increasing. God bless them.

Hermit wrote:It is becoming increasingly obvious that you cannot define that thing you label "atheist ideology". You now even deny explicitly that the theory of evolution is not it and retreat into a vague assertion that it might be


The human origin narrative presented through evolution expresses atheist ideology, because it has been indulgently developed by atheists and their fellow-travellers. That’s where you need to go to explore atheist ideology.

Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:...how the human origin story being offered to them in terms of evolution, is laced with what is food for atheists but poison to their belief.

Wow! What is left of the presumed "atheist ideology" now? A poison that Christian fundies perceive, but somehow does not affect the vast majority of members of all mainstream Christian denominations?


Like said, it does affect the members of “mainstream” Christian denominations in that we are losing membership.

Hermit wrote:
Surveys are hard to come by, so I go to the statements of the leaders of the Anglican and the Catholic Church.

When asked "Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?", the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams replied: "Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."


I also think that creationism seriously needs to get up to speed. And part of that lies in understanding, using secular explanations, how atheists have wallowed around in the theory of evolution until it turned into their kind of mud.

Hermit wrote:
Turning to the Catholic Church, it laid out its official view in the papal encyclical "Humani Generis", wherein Pope Pius XII laid out the Catholic Church's accommodation with Darwinian evolution—provided Christians believed the individual soul was not the product of purely material forces, but a direct creation by God.

Between your prevarications and what church leaders actually say about the matter, you don't appear to have a leg to stand on.

I don’t admit that I have prevaricated. Those two statements express quite clearly the strain that established Christian denominations are under, in reaching an “accommodation” with TofE. We need to look more aggressively at what is dished up to us in the name of evolution.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1095
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3905  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 13, 2019 9:29 am

Shall we sing the Correlation Not Causation song, children?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25032
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3906  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 13, 2019 9:37 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators.


JJ, you've set up humans and something external to humans in order to place humans at the center of whatever relations you're postulating. If you don't understand that this assumes your conclusion, then you don't. You're still trying to portray the environment as forcing human evolution. But that's also your conclusion.


Not so complicated Cito


Wouldn't you just love it to be not so complicated, involving, you know, data?

Jayjay4547 wrote:I was identifying the “external relations” for our early hominin ancestors.


Why do you think you've accurately identified anything? What is it, then, to identify a factor?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then I went on to model how those relations bore on the human creation.


So you say.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Nah, my task is to show how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story.


Fuck off with that, JJ. Your task is to connect a theory to the data. How do you think you're doing? There isn't a theory as to how "atheist ideology" has messed up the human origin story. That's your story, and you're sticking with it. Fuck off with that.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Whereas there are many kinds of birds that can fly, and many other creatures also fly, there is only one species that can talk.


Sure, JJ, when you get to define what "talking" is. Fuck off with that. You don't get to define talking. Fuck off with that. Just don't fucking reply to me if you're going to write shit like that. It leads me to think you're stupid or deluded.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That, along with our symbiotic relationship with objects


"Our symbiotic relationship with objects" is also something you just made up. You don't fucking get to make shit up. Fuck off with that.

Jayjay4547 wrote:We had better factor it into our world picture because it goes to human RESPONSIBILITY.


Well, there's your money shot, finally. Moral responsibility. You produced that by making shit up. Fuck off with that. Human moral responsibility is your premise, your Wanklican premise, not your conclusion, so you're missing a few pieces in your demonstration. Fuck off with that.

What convinced you that you were going to set the pace for me? Did you bend some spoons, somewhere? The alternative, of course, is not assuming your conclusion. Moral responsibility for the entire world is something the goat roasters invented. Just fuck off with that.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28508
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3907  Postby Hermit » Sep 13, 2019 11:45 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I wasn’t confused; you made out that I said TofE "was" Atheist ideology and I should have corrected that earlier.

Stop your ducking and diving. Define "atheist ideology" already. Start with "Atheist ideology asserts that ..." and demonstrate that this is an atheist ideology because this assertion is not shared by any theist.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2556
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3908  Postby newolder » Sep 13, 2019 11:58 am

Spearthrower wrote:Shall we sing the Correlation Not Causation song, children?


Song, catchphrase, truism or whatever...

Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6510
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3909  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 13, 2019 12:14 pm

The smoking gun was Darwin’s editing his original description of sexual selection...


Which, of course, never happened because, as usual, JJ simply makes up history to conform to his prejudice.

In normal speech, what actually occurred is that Darwin wrote another essay looking at a specific area in more detail. It in no way edited what he'd previously written, but rather added to it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25032
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3910  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 13, 2019 12:23 pm

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the ... opulation/

219 million Catholics in 1910
Catholic Church expressly acknowledges the fact of evolution in 1950
Number of Catholics today: 1.3 billion
Projection: by 2030 = 1.63 billion Catholics

Therefore, acceptance by churches of the fact of evolution increases church membership. Acknowledging facts arrived at by critical scrutiny of the universe, without the imposition of ignorant ideological preconceptions translated through agenda-driven exegesis of Iron Age folklore, increases trust in religious authorities.


Did I do it right, folks? Do I get a gold star in Creationist Methodology?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25032
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3911  Postby felltoearth » Sep 13, 2019 4:37 pm

Spearthrower wrote:https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/

219 million Catholics in 1910
Catholic Church expressly acknowledges the fact of evolution in 1950
Number of Catholics today: 1.3 billion
Projection: by 2030 = 1.63 billion Catholics

Therefore, acceptance by churches of the fact of evolution increases church membership. Acknowledging facts arrived at by critical scrutiny of the universe, without the imposition of ignorant ideological preconceptions translated through agenda-driven exegesis of Iron Age folklore, increases trust in religious authorities.


Did I do it right, folks? Do I get a gold star in Creationist Methodology?

What about piracy? Does acceptance of evolution increase piracy too?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11790
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3912  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 13, 2019 6:52 pm

felltoearth wrote:
What about piracy? Does acceptance of evolution increase piracy too?



Hold on, let me just make sure I attain the same heady standards JJ applies to alighting on truth.

*flips a coin*

Tails.

So no, no it doesn't. Phew, that could've been sticky for all you atheists, eh? Think about that... imagine if your ideology led inevitably to piracy!

Hold on, the mere fact that the idea now exists and has been formulated into a sentence pretty much lends the notion as much legitimacy as JJ has ever brought to the table, so the fact is you are all pirates.

And it's all because of atheistic perverted evolution, human-exceptionalism-denying, sexual selection, self-created ideology. You should be ashamed. :nono:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25032
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3913  Postby Hermit » Sep 14, 2019 2:26 am

Whoops. Wrong thread.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2556
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3914  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 14, 2019 6:24 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators.


JJ, you've set up humans and something external to humans in order to place humans at the center of whatever relations you're postulating. If you don't understand that this assumes your conclusion, then you don't. You're still trying to portray the environment as forcing human evolution. But that's also your conclusion.


Not so complicated Cito [


Wouldn't you just love it to be not so complicated, involving, you know, data?


Your earlier post, like your reply, had no data itself. I should have said, “Not so circular”. Or even better, “My argument was not circular”.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I was identifying the “external relations” for our early hominin ancestors.


Why do you think you've accurately identified anything? What is it, then, to identify a factor?


To identify means to point to? I pointed to the predators on early hominins, as their main external relation. When they saw a pack of hyena, that drew their attention strongly. I know it would mine, were I the size of a springbok and walking along without a gun.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Then I went on to model how those relations bore on the human creation.


So you say.


Yes, like everything I post. You are free to criticise my model

Cito di Pense wrote:
You've really got only one task, JJ, and that is to persuade me to place humans at the center of the biome.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Nah, my task is to show how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story.


Cito di Pense wrote: Fuck off with that, JJ. Your task is to connect a theory to the data. How do you think you're doing? There isn't a theory as to how "atheist ideology" has messed up the human origin story. That's your story, and you're sticking with it. Fuck off with that.


Twice you have told me what my task is and I have to set you straight. I’m doing quite well at mapping the ways that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin narrative.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Whereas there are many kinds of birds that can fly, and many other creatures also fly, there is only one species that can talk.


Sure, JJ, when you get to define what "talking" is. Fuck off with that. You don't get to define talking. Fuck off with that. Just don't fucking reply to me if you're going to write shit like that. It leads me to think you're stupid or deluded.


If there is another animal that everyone could agree outside of a silly argument, can talk, then present it as “data”. But they are all dumb i.e. non talking.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:That, along with our symbiotic relationship with objects


"Our symbiotic relationship with objects" is also something you just made up. You don't fucking get to make shit up. Fuck off with that.


More swearing. The sight of a human being walking along without any object in company, is very rare while it’s the rule for other animals. And those objects are highly “evolved” themselves. Thanks to our ancestors’ long co-evolution with them. Sounds a lot like symbiosis to me. Let’s call it symbiosis-LIKE relationship and get on with the discussion.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: {(speech and object-symbiosis) is creating a crisis for all life, call it the 6th extinction or the Anthropocene, whatever} We had better factor it into our world picture because it goes to human RESPONSIBILITY.


Well, there's your money shot, finally. Moral responsibility. You produced that by making shit up. Fuck off with that. Human moral responsibility is your premise, your Wanklican premise, not your conclusion, so you're missing a few pieces in your demonstration. Fuck off with that.


Still swearing. I put back the context of my point in curly brackets. Atheists and theists alike express shame that species are dying in the Anthropocene, ascribing that effect to unique human enabling makes for consistency of outlook.

Cito di Pense wrote: What convinced you that you were going to set the pace for me? Did you bend some spoons, somewhere? The alternative, of course, is not assuming your conclusion. Moral responsibility for the entire world is something the goat roasters invented. Just fuck off with that.


Actually my mapping of the influence of atheist ideology on the human origin story is pretty straight forward. It doesn’t involve magic.

I see you haven’t explained what in your view, was the relationship between our deep ancestors and predators like hyena. You are in your imagination depopulating Africa, leaving only the hominins “evolving” away like actors on an empty stage. But really, they lay in the palm of the creator's hands, expressed in those hyena. No hyena, no speech just green ooze lying there waiting for creative structure.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1095
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3915  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 14, 2019 9:26 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:To identify means to point to?


Colloquially?

Jayjay4547 wrote:When they saw a pack of hyena, that drew their attention strongly. I know it would mine, were I the size of a springbok and walking along without a gun.


I don't doubt that it would for you. You're alone in this world, except when you're in church. No hyenas there. At least, not the four-legged species.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see you haven’t explained what in your view, was the relationship between our deep ancestors and predators like hyena.


What is it that makes you think there's a significant predator-prey relation to develop? Your observations of modern humans and modern hyenas? You should go watch some Flintstones cartoons and relax, because your terror of modern hyenas is getting the better of you. Even if you carry a gun whenever you go out, your terror of hyenas is getting the better of you. Are you afraid something is going to bite off your dick? By my estimation, you're too old to do much but wave your hand at your dick. You developed that technique from concocting your theories of human evolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I pointed to the predators on early hominins, as their main external relation.


No, predators are something that obsesses you. You have demonstrated nothing. Pointing to something that obsesses you is not a scientific demonstration.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Twice you have told me what my task is and I have to set you straight.


Fail. Must be that atheist ideology at work.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheists and theists alike express shame that species are dying in the Anthropocene, ascribing that effect to unique human enabling makes for consistency of outlook.


This is actually something that would be fun to chew out. It seems to me the same features you're citing as vouchsafing the survival of early humans has led to humanity's destructive effect on the biosphere. You see the Creator's hand in this and I see.. well... I don't see the human at the center and everything else exogenous to that. Sure, the biosphere, according to you, created humans. Now what? I don't see the dichotomy. Endogenous catastrophes have happened before, most notably at the end of the Permian; You should learn something about that.

You're still trying to inject responsibiliity. Why don't you just cut to the chase? Why doesn't theistic guilt-tripping work on atheists? Because if there's a Creator, the whole show is put on by It. I'd just let go and let God, if I were you.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28508
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3916  Postby Svartalf » Sep 14, 2019 6:36 pm

Macdoc wrote:You CHOOSE to be an outcome ....and irrational.

Sky daddy nonsense adherents are made not born .... :nono:

I might disagree a bit there, sure, I was indoctrinated from a very early age, but I still notice that I took to it like it were normal, and it took long years of reality checks and a massive amount of bible study for me to realize that if there's such a thing as a god, it's an evil turd unworthy of worship anyway.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1331
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3917  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 16, 2019 4:18 am

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see you haven’t explained what in your view, was the relationship between our deep ancestors and predators like hyena.


What is it that makes you think there's a significant predator-prey relation to develop? Your observations of modern humans and modern hyenas?


Your evasive reply shows that in your opinion there wasn’t a significant relationship between our ancestors and predators like hyena. That is my point, that (rightly or wrongly) the atheist ideology drives towards visualising our ancestors “evolving” like actors on an empty stage. You express that position extremely. That makes his forum such a great place for mapping the ideology.

Cito di Pense wrote:
You should go watch some Flintstones cartoons and relax, because your terror of modern hyenas is getting the better of you. Even if you carry a gun whenever you go out, your terror of hyenas is getting the better of you.


I didn’t express a terror of hyena, just that their appearance would naturally have grabbed the attention of an animal the size of Australopithecus, appreciating that they didn’t have guns. If your sneer means anything it is that hyenas would not have grabbed their attention. Fine, that’s exactly what I expected you to think.




Cito di Pense wrote:
Are you afraid something is going to bite off your dick? By my estimation, you're too old to do much but wave your hand at your dick. You developed that technique from concocting your theories of human evolution.


That’s most personally offensive. I actually developed my understanding of the effect of atheist ideology on the human origin story, from attending to what people like you say about human origins.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I pointed to the predators on early hominins, as their main external relation.


No, predators are something that obsesses you. You have demonstrated nothing. Pointing to something that obsesses you is not a scientific demonstration.


The most basic relations of an animal with its environment are about how to eat without being eaten. I admit that symbiotic relations complicate that rule, e.g. that to flourish, grasses need to be eaten (cf Allan Savory) but these imply even more intimate relations.


Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheists and theists alike express shame that species are dying in the Anthropocene, ascribing that effect to unique human enabling makes for consistency of outlook.


This is actually something that would be fun to chew out. It seems to me the same features you're citing as vouchsafing the survival of early humans has led to humanity's destructive effect on the biosphere.


Yes, that the distinctive dual enabling of a symbiotic-like relation with objects, and speech, have led to the current human destructive impact.


Cito di Pense wrote:
You see the Creator's hand in this and I see.. well... I don't see the human at the center and everything else exogenous to that. Sure, the biosphere, according to you, created humans. Now what? I don't see the dichotomy.


If in your presentation only a compulsive old man would see significance in the relationship between our ancestors and predators, then you are seeing the human at the centre of an empty stage. I don’t understand what dichotomy you are referring to.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Endogenous catastrophes have happened before, most notably at the end of the Permian; You should learn something about that.

What I learn from past catastrophes is that the ability on this planet, for creation to continue, has recovered with notable power: see the red curve in this graph which I have put up before:
Image

Cito di Pense wrote:
You're still trying to inject responsibility. Why don't you just cut to the chase? Why doesn't theistic guilt-tripping work on atheists? Because if there's a Creator, the whole show is put on by It. I'd just let go and let God, if I were you.


I know plenty of atheists who feel just as responsible, guilty and worried about the 6th extinction as theists. Some Christian denominations do foreground the principle “God is in charge”, which can imply “just let go”, like you say. Maybe humans are in the same condition as a culture in a petri dish, consuming all the resources then they die. Or maybe the appearance of speech, “the Word” in the mouth and minds of our troublesome species, is a game changer there also. I don’t know, and that radically unpredictable feature of the Creation, together with it’s marvellous products hitherto (cf the movie microcosmos) is the point I want to make now.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1095
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3918  Postby Fenrir » Sep 16, 2019 5:23 am

You're gibbering again JJ.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps evolution is driven by both internal and external forces and that the objects of your disdain, i.e. rapskep posters, are perhaps aware of this and consider your casting their position as entirely about the internal quite ineptly dishonest?


Also this:

...to flourish, grasses need to be eaten (cf Allan Savory)...


Is bullshit.

Still, it isn't terribly surprising that you might be swayed by shysters like Savory.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3387
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3919  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 16, 2019 7:07 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:What is it that makes you think there's a significant predator-prey relation to develop? Your observations of modern humans and modern hyenas?


Your evasive reply shows that in your opinion there wasn’t a significant relationship between our ancestors and predators like hyena. That is my point, that (rightly or wrongly) the atheist ideology drives towards visualising our ancestors “evolving” like actors on an empty stage. You express that position extremely.


I don't, JJ. That's your beef and your bigotry, and (ultimately) merely displays your obsession with atheism. You are now stuck leaving no middle ground between your strawmanning of "atheistic" evolution theory as positing early humans "evolving like actors on an empty stage" and early humans subject to a variety of conditions, only one of which is predators, but along with, and of considerable significance, for example, their sociality (including reproductive strategies) and their diet. You'd say avoiding predators drove sociality, but that's your obsession with predator-prey relations and your myopic rejection of anything that doesn't support your creotard god-bothering. You've had this explained to you multiple times, so I'll leave you to your obsessions and your bigotry on this point. Please understand that the idiotic posturing in which you're engaged isn't enhancing my regard of theists. I've had civil conversations with at least a few theists; your bigotry and obsession makes such an outcome at least unlikely. I don't know what I should do to appease you, except to genuflect to your creationist masturbation fantasy. It can't be that you take yourself so seriously as an evolutionary biologist. Evolutionary biologists, theist or otherwise, would treat you as a caricature of a biologist as which you present yourself.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I didn’t express a terror of hyena, just that their appearance would naturally have grabbed the attention of an animal the size of Australopithecus, appreciating that they didn’t have guns. If your sneer means anything it is that hyenas would not have grabbed their attention.


It's just my opinion, JJ, but I do think you're projecting your own terror onto early humans. Terror by itself is disabling. You know nothing about how frequently early humans confronted predators and what strategies they employed to minimize the danger when they appeared. All you are doing is projecting your own responses onto them, and that's in service, ulitmately, of your (idiosyncratic) theist ideology. You're still stuck being a kind of loner in your obsessions with both predator-prey relations and with atheism in general. I wish I knew why you find atheism so disturbing, because it is such a minority position, but more on that coming up shortly.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s most personally offensive. I actually developed my understanding of the effect of atheist ideology on the human origin story, from attending to what people like you say about human origins.


Your obsession with atheism, unjustified, and your disgust are not useful weapons for you in this debate. Take all the offense you like. You still need to get past your obsessions with atheism and with your idiosyncratic ideas about early human evolution. I don't expect you ever will, and you will just die someday, and your place will be taken by some theistic idiot or other. You don't believe death is the end, though, so I hope you find your beliefs comforting in the face of all the offense you're taking.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The most basic relations of an animal with its environment are about how to eat without being eaten. I admit that symbiotic relations complicate that rule, e.g. that to flourish, grasses need to be eaten (cf Allan Savory) but these imply even more intimate relations.


How to eat without being eaten? Its as if all you can see is eating. To some extent that's right Guess what's going to feed on your corpse when you die. Bacteria, that's what. They win.

That's an idiotic belief, JJ. The most basic relations an animal has with its environment also include strategies for mating and reproducing. Of course, you understand how many species engage in sexual reproduction without their having to talk about it. More opportunity for you to confront this coming right up.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Yes, that the distinctive dual enabling of a symbiotic-like relation with objects, and speech, have led to the current human destructive impact.


Ah, the "humans are special" trope, again. But let's talk about the "destructive impact", shall we?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
You see the Creator's hand in this and I see.. well... I don't see the human at the center and everything else exogenous to that. Sure, the biosphere, according to you, created humans. Now what? I don't see the dichotomy.


If in your presentation only a compulsive old man would see significance in the relationship between our ancestors and predators, then you are seeing the human at the centre of an empty stage. I don’t understand what dichotomy you are referring to.


There's another couple million years of developing that destructive potential. I've already dealt with your "empty stage" idiocy, as have several others. It's very straightforward, JJ. If humans are created, then their destructive potential was created. So your story has to deal with that. Why do you separate speech and tool use from every other characteristic of humans, including their over-active endocrine systems. Sometimes that just leads to being terrified, and sometimes it leads to strong pair bonding and procreation. Each is a factor in producing the destructive effects you're now obsessing about. Atheism is a small minority opinion with which you are personally obsessed; rejection of theism by atheists is hardly the major contributor to the current destructive impact of humans. Perhaps you're terrified that atheism is going to take over, but I strongly doubt that. Many theists are as stuck in their thinking as you are, and arguments with atheists seldom change this.

Jayjay4547 wrote:What I learn from past catastrophes is that the ability on this planet, for creation to continue, has recovered with notable power: see the red curve in this graph which I have put up before:


Creation will continue, regardless, even if it's back to microbes on the deep ocean floor. Somebody should ask you why you think it cannot recover after human activity has done its thing. Well? Do you want to give us some more nonsense about humans as the intended ultimate product of creation?

Jayjay4547 wrote:I know plenty of atheists who feel just as responsible, guilty and worried about the 6th extinction as theists. Some Christian denominations do foreground the principle “God is in charge”, which can imply “just let go”, like you say. Maybe humans are in the same condition as a culture in a petri dish, consuming all the resources then they die. Or maybe the appearance of speech, “the Word” in the mouth and minds of our troublesome species, is a game changer there also. I don’t know, and that radically unpredictable feature of the Creation, together with it’s marvellous products hitherto (cf the movie microcosmos) is the point I want to make now.


Well, after all the words you've written, I can see you've thrown in your lot with the Word. Words, of course, cut both ways, and I can write a lot of them, too, as you see. I'm actually better with words than you are, but that's partly a function of our genetics and partly a function of the environments in which we have operated.

Frankly, JJ, just stow it, because you haven't managed to discover why your rant isn't working. Blame it on ideology, but repeating yourself continues to be ineffective. There are so many game-changers for humans, and your hope that words will work is not borne out. Most of the humans who are despoiling the planet (at least in your view) are theists. Go plead with them to give up whatever priorities they have discovered in a coevolving environment. Atheists are a tiny minority, and so all this noise from you is just your bigotry on display, your resentment of anything that doesn't genuflect to your pet ideology. I think you believe that your ideas will save creation, but that's just a narcissistic fantasy of yours.

I mean, what would help, here? Should I convert to theism, or would it suffice if I simply stopped heaping scorn on idiotic creationist diatribes? How should an atheist make himself believe in a creation story? Or will you soldier on until either 1) every last atheist is converted or 2) you're fucking dead? Let me tell you, JJ, which outcome I think is quite likely for you.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28508
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3920  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 16, 2019 10:51 am

Fenrir wrote:You're gibbering again JJ.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps evolution is driven by both internal and external forces and that the objects of your disdain, i.e. rapskep posters, are perhaps aware of this and consider your casting their position as entirely about the internal quite ineptly dishonest?



Consequent to that, the fact that you have been told dozens of times by multiple people that NO, sexual selection does not mean 'self-created' with ample examples refuting your claim, further, that your rendition is expressly not what anyone here believes, or in fact relevant to anyone else except for you, and that because of all this, it's clearly just you being manipulative, erecting nonsense on our behalf while insistently refusing to acknowledge anything your interlocutor is saying, and therefore, Hanlon's Razor simply cannot apply.

It's not ignorance you're suffering from in this respect, it's dishonesty.

Too many examples of discursive dishonesty, JJ. Are you sure you don't want to leave the Anglican Church and join some frothers somewhere? I expect you'd be most welcome.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25032
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests