THWOTH wrote:I've laid out my reasons why JJ's formulation of a so-called 'atheist ideology' doesn't really hold any kind of water. He's still flinging the empty buckets around though.

This abstract of a book chapter helps us to see why JJ persists in describing "the story of human origins" as having been "messed up" by something he calls "atheist ideology":

Marx's critique of ideology has been among the most influential of his ideas. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud are currently seen as the great debunkers, who taught us never to take words at their face value but always to look behind them for some psychological or social interest they express or some situation that unbeknownst to the agents shape their thoughts and desires. When we refer to a view as an instance of false consciousness – a frequently used term for ideological thinking – we do not simply label it as an error or misperception, a thought that is false to the facts. We suggest that it is falsified and distorted in a systematic way, by causal processes that impede the search for truth. Unlike an accidental mistake, which offers little resistance to correction (beyond the general reluctance to admit error), ideologies are shaped by deep-seated tendencies that help them survive criticism and refutation for a long time.

What are the forces that shape and maintain ideological thinking? The standard and, as it were, official Marxist answer is interest; more specifically, the interest of the ruling class. On this point Marxism deviates from the Freudian conception of false consciousness, according to which it is necessarily the interest of the person himself that distorts his thinking, not that of some other person or class. The central question, which is usually left unresolved by Marxist writers on ideology (including Marx), is how – by what mechanism – the interest of the ruling class is supposed to shape the views of other members of society.

(emphasis mine)

It's pretty clear that JJ's developed a thesis that scientific descriptions of evolution by natural selection constitute a metanarrative into which he's not buying, whose purpose is furthering the interests of some "ruling class" (let's call its members "scientists"). In the case of what Marx called "capitalist commodity fetishism" or similar terms, ideology victimizes people who don't even realize they've adopted the "capitalist" metanarrative. JJ should by now have come to understand that evolution science is not some ideology of which secularists are not aware. He keeps repeating his empty words, however, because for JJ, "atheist ideology" is, instead, the metanarrative JJ's created to account for his being left holding the bag. What a rebel without a cause this guy is.

It turns out that "ideology" is just one more concept JJ cannot understand, another supposed tool he can't wield.

Jayjay4547 wrote:ChatGPT is putting a finer point on it than I could

That's because the point JJ wants to put on it, being all about belief, and not at all about honesty, is that one believes he is sincere. One is not so obliged in any way. There's no issue in determining JJ's honesty or dishonesty. There is no honesty to detect. This would only be dangerous if JJ had any competence in saying what he's attempting to say.

Look what a hash is made of "ideology":

Jayjay4547 wrote:You and other ratskep posts endlessly deny that there is an atheist ideology, but I argue that every human group with an important shared position supports that position with an ideology. The position that there is no god is important, seeing that worship plays a significant role in the behaviour of believers.

Now look at the closing line of what I quoted:

The central question, which is usually left unresolved by Marxist writers on ideology (including Marx), is how – by what mechanism – the interest of the ruling class is supposed to shape the views of other members of society.

Ideology, JJ, is for people who don't know they've adopted an ideology. Some of us are scientifically trained, JJ, and you're manifestly not one of us. Isn't it at all inconvenient for you that this "ideology" you yammer on about should be based on facts, on scientific evidence? The minimal atheist position is that no god has been evidenced. To you, everything is a story. You make no distinction between the kinds of stories you found in the bible and the painstakingly-collected evidence for evolution that fails to show design or creation. You provide nothing that forces an acceptance of your vapid version of creationism.

Thanks for that, Cito.

JJ reads philosophy. He just doesn’t understand it. Have we been arguing with a closeted Marxist all this time?

I expect more responses from JJ similar to Behe’s response on the witness stand at the Dover trial to being presented 58 papers and nine books showing evolutionary development of our immune system when he just clammed up and claimed that wasn’t “enough evidence”.

It’s JJ’s MO. Make shit up, ignore all evidence that contradicts made up shit.

But it's sincerely held and often repeated shit donchaknow.

And that's what counts right, even if your arguments are deceptive and repeatedly debunked strawmen.

Sincerity from a fine upstanding man of god.

That's what built this country. Respect for the frock.


It's particularly galling coming from southern africa.

Cito di Pense wrote:
It's pretty clear that JJ's developed a thesis that scientific descriptions of evolution by natural selection constitute a metanarrative into which he's not buying, whose purpose is furthering the interests of some "ruling class" (let's call its members "scientists"). In the case of what Marx called "capitalist commodity fetishism" or similar terms, ideology victimizes people who don't even realize they've adopted the "capitalist" metanarrative. JJ should by now have come to understand that evolution science is not some ideology of which secularists are not aware. He keeps repeating his empty words, however, because for JJ, "atheist ideology" is, instead, the metanarrative JJ's created to account for his being left holding the bag. What a rebel without a cause this guy is.

Scientists don’t constitute a ruling class although some are contesting for a role as prophets by making out that if everyone does what they propose then a climate catastrophe can be avoided. I’m interested in the group of atheists, which includes many who are not scientists, as well as many who are. Since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, this group has owned the theory of evolution. I mean, atheists have seen the theory of evolution as their tool in their primary interest of fighting theists. This instrumental use of the theory of evolution has driven the market place for human origin stories towards presenting the human being as a god.

Recently I supported that notion by discussing the origin story presented by Milks (2018) and Haidle (2010). The atheist origin story is built by selecting what to include in the story and what to exclude. For example, to include human cognition and agency, while excluding the intelligence and agency of predators. To include the use of spears in hunting, while excluding their use in avoiding being hunted.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:ChatGPT is putting a finer point on it [the relationship between honesty and sincerity] than I could

That's because the point JJ wants to put on it, being all about belief, and not at all about honesty, is that one believes he is sincere. One is not so obliged in any way. There's no issue in determining JJ's honesty or dishonesty. There is no honesty to detect. This would only be dangerous if JJ had any competence in saying what he's attempting to say.

Look what a hash is made of "ideology":

Jayjay4547 wrote:You and other ratskep posts endlessly deny that there is an atheist ideology, but I argue that every human group with an important shared position supports that position with an ideology. The position that there is no god is important, seeing that worship plays a significant role in the behaviour of believers.

Now look at the closing line of what I quoted:

The central question, which is usually left unresolved by Marxist writers on ideology (including Marx), is how – by what mechanism – the interest of the ruling class is supposed to shape the views of other members of society.

Ideology, JJ, is for people who don't know they've adopted an ideology. Some of us are scientifically trained, JJ, and you're manifestly not one of us. Isn't it at all inconvenient for you that this "ideology" you yammer on about should be based on facts, on scientific evidence? The minimal atheist position is that no god has been evidenced. To you, everything is a story. You make no distinction between the kinds of stories you found in the bible and the painstakingly-collected evidence for evolution that fails to show design or creation. You provide nothing that forces an acceptance of your vapid version of creationism.

If as you say, ideologies are for people who don’t know that they have adopted an ideology, then your insistence that atheists don’t have an ideology, is worthless.

Your quote from Elster (2012) The Marxist Critique of ideology is also worthless. It’s obvious that the mechanisms by which the interest of the ruling class shape the views of other members of society include taking ownership of the media, educational institutions, and religious organisations.

I need to handle the apparent contradiction between my saying that scientists aren’t a ruling class, and saying that they own the instruments for shaping ideas. As a strict materialist, Marx discounted the systems of ideas as potent agents in their own right, I mean what Haidle (2010) called “cultural transmission” and Freud called das Über-Ich. Atheist posters on this forum for debunking creationism are then the champions or at least the lackeys of that demi-being.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If as you say, ideologies are for people who don’t know that they have adopted an ideology, then your insistence that atheists don’t have an ideology, is worthless.

It's not as if you're a young-earth creationist, JJ. You accept every fact about evolution that you can't hide from yourself somewhere up your own ass. The only problem you have with what you call "atheist ideology" is the part that doesn't join in with you and say "goddidit".

Jayjay4547 wrote:The atheist origin story is built by selecting what to include in the story and what to exclude.

Yes, JJ. Your incessant whining is that your vapid "goddidit" is excluded. What else do you contend is excluded? All the acres of verbiage and whining you've churned out over all your years in this "discussion" are a pathetic attempt to obfuscate that simple fact. If you insist that your subterfuge is working, you're delusional.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Scientists don’t constitute a ruling class although some are contesting for a role as prophets by making out that if everyone does what they propose then a climate catastrophe can be avoided.

Influencing people's behavior is politics, sociology, psychology, and none of these are sciences, despite what Freud or Marx may have opined. They all collect data but they have too many variables to deal with to develop a working theory. Incidentally I'm not someone who will try to convince you that a climate catastrophe can be avoided merely by urging people to change their behavior. In fact, if you look at the breakdowns of society, you'll see that even the legal structure is shaky. We can't enforce laws if everybody decides to break the law in their own way. Is that why you want us all saying "goddidit"? If you think that will save us, you're delusional.

This brings me to consider what you're doing here as an attempt to urge people to change their behavior. Is it? Or are you just here to insult atheism as some kind of "ideology", when it's only waiting for evidence of deities to join the chorus of "goddidit". If you insist that you're shipping such evidence to your selected audience, you're delusional.

In any event, I've decided that you are, in fact, delusional, so what I write in reply to your bullshit cannot constitute an attempt to reason with you or alter your behavior. I'm at least addressing the same invisible audience you're targeting, pointing out to anyone with a couple of still-functioning brain cells what it is you're up to in this thread and the other turds you've left around the internet: Your solitary, miserable little complaint is that I won't say "goddidit" with you. I'm sure your resentment of that situation is quite sincere.

The_Metatron wrote:Have we been arguing with a closeted Marxist all this time?

It's starting to look that way, isn't it? Remember "Liberation theology"?

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s obvious that the mechanisms by which the interest of the ruling class shape the views of other members of society include taking ownership of the media, educational institutions, and religious organisations.

It's just not obvious what those mechanisms are, at least not to JJ. Emphasis mine. It's as if he's saying that science is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Lumpenproletariat, against their consent. Slaves of the bourgeoisie! JJ's a perfect object lesson in how to enslave oneself. Delusion helps. JJ's problem with science is that it strips all the obfuscatory meat from the bones of delusion, so that the boiling temperature of water at sea level isn't whatever the fuck we decide it is. It's there in my signature line from Elbert Hubbard, just desserts for pie-in-the-sky dweebs.

One of Marxism' grand tenets, as I understand it, is that ideology obscures the true nature of reality™ from us, at least in the case of political economy, our relations to land and capital, and, FFS, other people. Marxism just doesn't get far enough to tell us what those true relations are. Maybe JJ will take a shot at it, and explain that we have to appreciate the cleverness of predators before we advance. If god has put spears in our hands, we must exercise gratitude before we skewer each other.

Any port in a storm, right, JJ? A god-fearing fucking Marxist; what will they think of, next!

Jayjay4547 wrote:I mean, atheists have seen the theory of evolution as their tool in their primary interest of fighting theists. This instrumental use of the theory of evolution has driven the market place for human origin stories towards presenting the human being as a god.

Since atheism is still waiting for evidence of any kind of god, the last words in this diatribe are certified JJibberish. Theists can't answer the question raised by the fact that 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. If theism is true, god creates creatures to destroy them, or else god has no control over the contraption. "Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down!" JJ worships pathetic cosmic incompetence, which I expect he will insist excuses his own.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If as you say, ideologies are for people who don’t know that they have adopted an ideology, then your insistence that atheists don’t have an ideology, is worthless.

It's not as if you're a young-earth creationist, JJ. You accept every fact about evolution that you can't hide from yourself somewhere up your own ass. The only problem you have with what you call "atheist ideology" is the part that doesn't join in with you and say "goddidit".

That’s not a reply to my point.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The atheist origin story is built by selecting what to include in the story and what to exclude.

Yes, JJ. Your incessant whining is that your vapid "goddidit" is excluded. What else do you contend is excluded? All the acres of verbiage and whining you've churned out over all your years in this "discussion" are a pathetic attempt to obfuscate that simple fact. If you insist that your subterfuge is working, you're delusional.

I have never whined about “goddidit” being excluded. You did not consider my examples of the origin story including “human cognition and agency, while excluding the intelligence and agency of predators. To include the use of spears in hunting, while excluding their use in avoiding being hunted”. These are perfectly simple practical issues that can be discussed rationally.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Scientists don’t constitute a ruling class although some are contesting for a role as prophets by making out that if everyone does what they propose then a climate catastrophe can be avoided.

Influencing people's behavior is politics, sociology, psychology, and none of these are sciences, despite what Freud or Marx may have opined. They all collect data but they have too many variables to deal with to develop a working theory. Incidentally I'm not someone who will try to convince you that a climate catastrophe can be avoided merely by urging people to change their behavior. In fact, if you look at the breakdowns of society, you'll see that even the legal structure is shaky. We can't enforce laws if everybody decides to break the law in their own way. Is that why you want us all saying "goddidit"? If you think that will save us, you're delusional.

Sociology and psychology are generally studied and presented in science faculties. An overarching limitation on sociology’s ability to penetrate its subject, could be that the researchers' mindsets are created by the thing they study.

Cito di Pense wrote: This brings me to consider what you're doing here as an attempt to urge people to change their behavior. Is it? Or are you just here to insult atheism as some kind of "ideology", when it's only waiting for evidence of deities to join the chorus of "goddidit". If you insist that you're shipping such evidence to your selected audience, you're delusional.

I came here to explore how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Although that aim has progressed into exploring the atheist human origin story told in the name of evolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote:...
I came here to explore how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Although that aim has progressed into exploring the atheist human origin story told in the name of evolution.

And yet the specifics of this so-called 'atheist ideology' remains entirely opaque, in your own terms, beyond not encompassing myths about the origins of life on Earth told in the name of God.

While Evolution gives us an empirical basis for understanding the adaptation and speciation of all life on Earth it is but a single nail in the coffin of theism's claims and assertions on behalf of the Abrahamic mythological tradition. Other nails include the Problem of Evil, the temporal paradox at the root of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, contemporary cosmology and planetary science, and quantum theory, not to mention the broader epistemological and moral challenges members of the Abrahamic fellowship are patiently reluctant to engage with or address.

What I discern from your contributions to the forum's post count is that you clearly find the explanatory power of Evolution challenging to your religious perspective. I think that's a fair point. However, it also seems to me that your fundamental objection is not to the empiricism or methodologies of Science but to having that perspective challenged in the first place. Consequently, in order to maintain your religious perspective you have avoided meeting the challenge Science poses directly, and instead have placed upon atheists at large the entire responsibility for your personal disquiet; for your spiritual crisis.

It appears then that you have a need to devise and then rely on mechanisms that transfer (or, displace) the negative feelings Evolution inculcates within you onto others; onto atheists and atheism.

Without atheism national challenges to your religious perspective would simply not arise, and yet without the claims, assertions, and insistences of theism atheism would obviously not exist within any rational context. In other words, you need atheists in order to justify both your feelings and your religious perspective - as well as to authorise your resentment at having your views challenged to begin with. This is not a healthy way to live.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I mean, atheists have seen the theory of evolution as their tool in their primary interest of fighting theists.

Complete and utter bollocks.

Our "primary interest" is trying to persuade people like you to understand and apply the proper rules of discourse, which mythology fanboys like you have abusing rampantly for centuries.

This includes presenting proper evidence for your assertions, instead of the apologetic shit sandwiches you've been serving up as a substitute for proper evidence throughout those centuries.

It wouldn't matter one jot if evolutionary biology didn't exist, we would still be able to point to the fact that mythology fanboys have never provided an atom of evidence for any of their cartoon magic men.

You really don't understand basic facts, do you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:This instrumental use of the theory of evolution has driven the market place for human origin stories towards presenting the human being as a god.

Already explained in detail why this blatant piece of projective fabrication on your part os excremental drivel.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The atheist origin story

Tere is no "atheist origin story", this is another of your ex recto fabrications. There is a scientific view of human origins, backed by EVIDENCE. Stop lying.

Jayjay4547 wrote:is built by selecting what to include in the story and what to exclude.

Blatant creationist projection as well as a bare faced lie.

YOU are the one selecting what to exclude in order to prop up your infantile wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors.

Stop lying.

It's almost interesting that JJ never has anything to say about actual evolutionary theory, but about what particular authors have said about evolution or something JJ interprets as being about overarching evolutionary theory.

Any rebuttal via actual data will be retorted at with "but on page 37 Dart says..."

Almost as if authorities are a requirement and science is done via the proclamations of said authorities.

It's very theistic.

Cito di Pense wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Have we been arguing with a closeted Marxist all this time?

It's starting to look that way, isn't it? Remember "Liberation theology"?

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s obvious that the mechanisms by which the interest of the ruling class shape the views of other members of society include taking ownership of the media, educational institutions, and religious organisations.

It's just not obvious what those mechanisms are, at least not to JJ. Emphasis mine. It's as if he's saying that science is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Lumpenproletariat, against their consent. Slaves of the bourgeoisie! JJ's a perfect object lesson in how to enslave oneself. Delusion helps. JJ's problem with science is that it strips all the obfuscatory meat from the bones of delusion, so that the boiling temperature of water at sea level isn't whatever the fuck we decide it is. It's there in my signature line from Elbert Hubbard, just desserts for pie-in-the-sky dweebs.

One of Marxism' grand tenets, as I understand it, is that ideology obscures the true nature of reality™ from us, at least in the case of political economy, our relations to land and capital, and, FFS, other people. Marxism just doesn't get far enough to tell us what those true relations are. Maybe JJ will take a shot at it, and explain that we have to appreciate the cleverness of predators before we advance. If god has put spears in our hands, we must exercise gratitude before we skewer each other.

Any port in a storm, right, JJ? A god-fearing fucking Marxist; what will they think of, next!

I was going to address his “It’s obvious…” crack after I saw it, but you’ve perfectly summed it up better.

A god fearing Marxist.

JJ never stops making the point I made about the value of his Wikipedia education. He reads, he just doesn’t understand.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s not a reply to my point.

That entails giving your description of what an acceptable reply to your point might require. Otherwise, it's just the usual narcissistic preening from you, as if your insubstantial wank-fantasy merits a "substantive" reply, or even more absurdly, politeness. So kindly fuck off from asking for replies that soothe your ego, or else state what other kind of relief you seek.

Jayjay4547 wrote:An overarching limitation on sociology’s ability to penetrate its subject, could be that the researchers' mindsets are created by the thing they study.

I'll bet that when you ask them to get a second opinion, you'll suggest they call upon god.

Jayjay4547 wrote:These are perfectly simple practical issues that can be discussed rationally.

You have yet to remark upon what a substantive discussion of your so-called issues will entail. You can take it for granted that we're not just going to parrot your words back to you. Assuming "human agency" assumes your conclusion. Circular reasoning is circular. Don't take us back into a discussion of free will, or what have you. That's a religious belief system, and we already have plenty of other threads nattering about "free will", or what you call "human agency". Fuck off with agency, whether you want to place it in humans or in non-human predators. And if you're just using the word "agency" to encode "god-given purpose", fuck off with that, too.

If you won't be happy until I accept nonsense like "human agency" as something that exists outside human discourse, well, you just won't be happy and you will continue to claim that I am not replying to your point. Your point is psychological garbage -- "human agency" is the same as theistic "ensoulment"; that is, it's "human exceptionalism", i.e., anthropocentrism, all the way down. That's why you're complaining about what you call "atheist ideology". Quit distributing your religious tracts here; they all get binned.

THWOTH wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:...
I came here to explore how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Although that aim has progressed into exploring the atheist human origin story told in the name of evolution.

And yet the specifics of this so-called 'atheist ideology' remains entirely opaque, in your own terms, beyond not encompassing myths about the origins of life on Earth told in the name of God.

Like I said, the atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at how the human origin story is told in the name of evolution, bearing in mind that since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, evolution has been understood by atheists as a weapon to be used against theists. And the specific feature of that atheist origin story is that mankind created themselves, as ego. I hope that’s specific enough for you.

THWOTH wrote: While Evolution gives us an empirical basis for understanding the adaptation and speciation of all life on Earth it is but a single nail in the coffin of theism's claims and assertions on behalf of the Abrahamic mythological tradition. Other nails include the Problem of Evil, the temporal paradox at the root of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, contemporary cosmology and planetary science, and quantum theory, not to mention the broader epistemological and moral challenges members of the Abrahamic fellowship are patiently reluctant to engage with or address.

I’m only interested here in the human origin story as told in the name of evolution.

THWOTH wrote: What I discern from your contributions to the forum's post count is that you clearly find the explanatory power of Evolution challenging to your religious perspective. I think that's a fair point. However, it also seems to me that your fundamental objection is not to the empiricism or methodologies of Science but to having that perspective challenged in the first place. Consequently, in order to maintain your religious perspective you have avoided meeting the challenge Science poses directly, and instead have placed upon atheists at large the entire responsibility for your personal disquiet; for your spiritual crisis.

I’m not having a spiritual crisis, I’m just exploring a thread that continues to be revelatory for me.

THWOTH wrote: It appears then that you have a need to devise and then rely on mechanisms that transfer (or, displace) the negative feelings Evolution inculcates within you onto others; onto atheists and atheism.

Without atheism challenges to your religious perspective would simply not arise, and yet without the claims, assertions, and insistences of theism atheism would obviously not exist or have any rational context. In other words, you need atheists in order to justify both your feelings and your religious perspective - and to authorise your resentment at having your views challenged to begin with. This is not a healthy way to live.

You impute negative feelings about evolution to me but without any foundation. Without atheism, the human origin story would be much more about the human embeddedness in nature, specifically, in the savanna food chain. And more about the evolution of the spear, and of the Uber-Ich.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If as you say, ideologies are for people who don’t know that they have adopted an ideology, then your insistence that atheists don’t have an ideology, is worthless.

It's not as if you're a young-earth creationist, JJ. You accept every fact about evolution that you can't hide from yourself somewhere up your own ass. The only problem you have with what you call "atheist ideology" is the part that doesn't join in with you and say "goddidit".

That’s not a reply to my point.

That entails giving your description of what an acceptable reply to your point might require. Otherwise, it's just the usual narcissistic preening from you, as if your insubstantial wank-fantasy merits a "substantive" reply, or even more absurdly, politeness. So kindly fuck off from asking for replies that soothe your ego, or else state what other kind of relief you seek.

I restored the context of this exchange to show that instead of replying to my point, you just told me to fuck off, for the zillionth time.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:An overarching limitation on sociology’s ability to penetrate its subject, could be that the researchers' mindsets are created by the thing they study.

I'll bet that when you ask them to get a second opinion, you'll suggest they call upon god.

Nope.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:I have never whined about “goddidit” being excluded. You did not consider my examples of the origin story including “human cognition and agency, while excluding the intelligence and agency of predators. To include the use of spears in hunting, while excluding their use in avoiding being hunted”.These are perfectly simple practical issues that can be discussed rationally.

You have yet to remark upon what a substantive discussion of your so-called issues will entail. You can take it for granted that we're not just going to parrot your words back to you. Assuming "human agency" assumes your conclusion. Circular reasoning is circular. Don't take us back into a discussion of free will, or what have you. That's a religious belief system, and we already have plenty of other threads nattering about "free will", or what you call "human agency". Fuck off with agency, whether you want to place it in humans or in non-human predators. And if you're just using the word "agency" to encode "god-given purpose", fuck off with that, too.

If you won't be happy until I accept nonsense like "human agency" as something that exists outside human discourse, well, you just won't be happy and you will continue to claim that I am not replying to your point. Your point is psychological garbage -- "human agency" is the same as theistic "ensoulment"; that is, it's "human exceptionalism", i.e., anthropocentrism, all the way down. That's why you're complaining about what you call "atheist ideology". Quit distributing your religious tracts here; they all get binned.

If you look above at the human cognition and agency I was referring to, it was by Haidle (2010) in her cognigrams, where she set out how smart Heidelberg man must have been to make and use spears to hunt horses. I don’t have an issue with human agency, but what is more interesting is her neglect of contestation between pre-human agency and the agency of their predators, mediated by spears.

Like I said, the atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at how the human origin story is told in the name of evolution, bearing in mind that since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, evolution has been understood by atheists as a weapon to be used against theists. And the specific feature of that atheist origin story is that mankind created themselves, as ego. I hope that’s specific enough for you.

And like we keep saying, this is complete bullshit which you have been singularly incapable.of supporting.

You keep saying it.

We know what you are saying.

It.

Is.

Bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t have an issue with human agency

I know, but that's why I consider your point of view incoherent. You also yammer a lot about "human embeddedness in nature". Which is it to be, JJ? Agency or embeddedness-in-nature? I mean, JJ, it's not a point of view. It's just an incoherent rant that emerges from your spiritual crisis.

Ultimately, nature always has its own way, far below the level of genetics and evolution. You just haven't seen the end of the story, yet, and simply keep complaining that the story is "messed up". It couldn't be more messed up than you've made it. You hint that the human origin story has a meaning, but seem to be insisting on both agency and embeddedness in nature as serving that meaning, and this is incoherent. That's nothing more than I expect from a theist who fancies himself an intellectual. We occasionally see intellectuals who are theists, and you're trying desperately to emulate them, but you produce only hoo-hah.

Jayjay4547 wrote:you just told me to fuck off, for the zillionth time.

Because, for the zillionth time you've been yammering that the human evolution story is being used as a weapon against theists. You don't say how this works; all you're able to imply is that you feel aggrieved. What remedy do you seek? You can't have it, because your wishes are incoherent. You'd tell the atheists to fuck off, but you imagine that you're polite, and, anyway, you don't have the muscle of the church to deploy in setting the narrative. Your version of theism is authoritarian, JJ. Fuck off with that crap, unless you can tell me what I owe to the human origins narrative (fairy tale) told in the name of theism.

Fenrir wrote:

Like I said, the atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at how the human origin story is told in the name of evolution, bearing in mind that since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, evolution has been understood by atheists as a weapon to be used against theists. And the specific feature of that atheist origin story is that mankind created themselves, as ego. I hope that’s specific enough for you.

And like we keep saying, this is complete bullshit which you have been singularly incapable.of supporting.

You keep saying it.

We know what you are saying.

It.

Is.

Bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Like I said, the atheist ideology

You've already been schooled at length on why this is a duplicitous fiction you pulled out of your arse, and repeatedly. NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is the very ANTITHESIS of an "ideology". You've been schooled on this repeatedly over the eight years or more you've been dumping this duplicitous fiction of yours onto these forums. Learn some FACTS, mythology fanboy, instead of pretending that your wank fantasies constitute fact.

Jayjay4547 wrote:can be mapped by looking at how the human origin story is told in the name of evolution

Evolution is a FACT, mythology fanboy, one that is accompanied by the best supported scientific theory of them all. Stop lying.

Indeed, I'm aware of direct and successful experimental tests of evolution that can be performed in a high school laboratory.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
bearing in min that since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, evolution has been understood by atheists as a weapon to be used against theists.

I explained in detail in a past post, why this is another of your bare faced and suppuratingly gangrenous lies. We don't need evolution to dismiss the fantasies of magic man fetishists, we simply need to recognise that none of them have ever provided an atom of evidence for their assertions, or the assertions of the cretinous pre-scientific mythologies they masturbate over. Just as you've never provided an atom of evidence for your pathetic wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors.

Oh, and in case you never learned this, those of us who paid attention in class, are residing in the 21st century , not the 19th.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And the specific feature of that atheist origin story is that mankind created themselves, as ego.

Another blatant lie and cretinous fabrication you pulled out of your arse. Oh wait, WE were the ones who schooled YOU about the role ecology plays in evolution. Stop lying, mythology fanboy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m only interested here in the human origin story as told in the name of evolution.

Bullshit. What you're really interested in, is lying about the scientific account of human evolution, in order to prop up your infantile wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not having a spiritual crisis, I’m just exploring a thread that continues to be revelatory for me.

Bullshit. You're trying to pass off as fact, a cretinous wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors, and lying about evolution and our views thereof while doing so. You've been exposed as a charlatan and habitual liar repeatedly here, and nothing you've posted is "revelatory" with respect to anything other than your wank fantasising and habitual lying.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You impute negative feelings about evolution to me but without any foundation.

The mere fact that you keep LYING about the scientific account of evolution, and our explicitly stated views here on the subject, in order to try and peddle your infantile wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors, provides ample evidence that you hate with a vengeance, the fact that the world's best scientists have no need for said infantile wank fantasy, and have provided a veritable mountain range of evidence for a proper, rigorous account of human origins, an account you lie about repeatedly. Such as your repeated lie that siad scientific account purportedly consists of your excremental lie about humans "creating themselves", a lie so pathetic and infantile as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.

Oh wait, once again, WE were the ones who schooled YOU on the role ecology plays in evolution,which BY DEFINITION involves interactions with other species. Except for your ridiculous fiction about Australopithecines dealing with other species via your video game warrior wank fantasy. Stop lying, mythology fanboy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Without atheism, the human origin story would be much more about the human embeddedness in nature, specifically, in the savanna food chain.

Stop lying, mythology fanboy. WE were the ones who schooled YOU about the role of ecology in evolution.

Your infantile and habitual lies point to one conclusion, namely that you're butthurt because people with functioning brain cells don't spoon up your feculent and diseased wank fantasy about Australopithecines becoming arms manufacturers and video game warriors, and that the world's scientists don't genuflect before your hubristic and narcissistic vision of yourself as some sort of towering Einstein level genius, when in reality you're an intellectual amoeba, a tinfoil hat bed wetter with less connection to reality than the bacteria in my aquarium gravel.

That's what really boils your piss, mythology fanboy - the refusal of sane people to pander to your clinically significant delusions, or genuflect before the tinselly hologram you've cooked up in the broken television in your head. You lie about scientists, their findings, and the other posters here, as part of your sad, pathetic eight year long toddler strop at not being treated as the ineffable fount of all wisdom you tell yourself you are in your bathroom mirror.

How much ,more barrel scraping are you going to conduct here, mythology fanboy? The only thing you're succeeding in doing here, is to make an unedifying spectacle of yourself before a global public audience, with your tendentious ex recto apologetic brainfarts and pathetically obvious manifest lying.

While other posters have provided both proper, rigorous reasoning and in some cases extremely welcome expositions of genuine peer reviewed science, you have sought during your sleazy and underhand tenure here, to pollute the arena of discourse with the contents of your soiled intellectual nappies, in an unhinged Trumpian fit of pique and peeve, because people who paid attention in class don't respond to your drivel with the fawning and toadying you obviously crave. The only ego on display here is YOUR ego, mythology fanboy, the ego of a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger engaging in vainglorious self-deification, while mendaciously projecting this and your other inadequacies onto the rest of us.

Indeed, that one word encapsulates you to a tee - inadequate.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

THWOTH wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:...
I came here to explore how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Although that aim has progressed into exploring the atheist human origin story told in the name of evolution.

And yet the specifics of this so-called 'atheist ideology' remains entirely opaque, in your own terms, beyond not encompassing myths about the origins of life on Earth told in the name of God.

Like I said, the atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at how the human origin story is told in the name of evolution, bearing in mind that since the Huxley-Wilberforce debate in 1860, evolution has been understood by atheists as a weapon to be used against theists. And the specific feature of that atheist origin story is that mankind created themselves, as ego. I hope that’s specific enough for you.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

THWOTH wrote: While Evolution gives us an empirical basis for understanding the adaptation and speciation of all life on Earth it is but a single nail in the coffin of theism's claims and assertions on behalf of the Abrahamic mythological tradition. Other nails include the Problem of Evil, the temporal paradox at the root of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, contemporary cosmology and planetary science, and quantum theory, not to mention the broader epistemological and moral challenges members of the Abrahamic fellowship are patiently reluctant to engage with or address.

I’m only interested here in the human origin story as told in the name of evolution.

THWOTH wrote: What I discern from your contributions to the forum's post count is that you clearly find the explanatory power of Evolution challenging to your religious perspective. I think that's a fair point. However, it also seems to me that your fundamental objection is not to the empiricism or methodologies of Science but to having that perspective challenged in the first place. Consequently, in order to maintain your religious perspective you have avoided meeting the challenge Science poses directly, and instead have placed upon atheists at large the entire responsibility for your personal disquiet; for your spiritual crisis.

I’m not having a spiritual crisis, I’m just exploring a thread that continues to be revelatory for me.

THWOTH wrote: It appears then that you have a need to devise and then rely on mechanisms that transfer (or, displace) the negative feelings Evolution inculcates within you onto others; onto atheists and atheism.

Without atheism challenges to your religious perspective would simply not arise, and yet without the claims, assertions, and insistences of theism atheism would obviously not exist or have any rational context. In other words, you need atheists in order to justify both your feelings and your religious perspective - and to authorise your resentment at having your views challenged to begin with. This is not a healthy way to live.

You impute negative feelings about evolution to me but without any foundation. Without atheism, the human origin story would be much more about the human embeddedness in nature, specifically, in the savanna food chain. And more about the evolution of the spear, and of the Uber-Ich.

Feeling picked on, JJ?

You know against whom evolution is seen as a weapon? Creationists, a small subset of theists. You, for example. You know who sees it as a weapon? Creationists. You, for example.

Those theists who don’t take your book of Genesis as stenographer’s notes on actual events simply accept the theory of evolution for what it is: an explanation of observable and testable fact. Those theists aren’t threatened in the least by evolution. Only creationists.

I know of no atheist who sought a scholastic weapon against creationists as a motivator for their work which led to their development and refinement of the theory of evolution. This is an invention, made up by you and creationists like you.

Which brings us to something else: What parts of Genesis do you, the creationist, consider factual and what parts are not? If you are to be remotely consistent when you claim to be a creationist, you damned well better hold the ark story to be true. It’s all either the Word ™ of your god, or it isn’t. Or, do you, like millions others, pick and choose? If so, how?

Another funny thing: Huxley debated Wilberforce in 1860. Your hero Freud didn’t come up with his model of the psyche until sixty years later. Are you claiming all work on evolution before 1920 was in the name of a thing they never heard of? A thing that is nothing but a model to explain another intangible thing?

Talk about a fucking stretch.

You read philosophy, all right. You just don’t understand it.