Posted: Sep 16, 2019 4:18 am
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.
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:
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.