horrible thought on evolution

[Rlyeh]

Evolutionarily theories have gained such prevalence because they allow humans to give in to these base impulses and it also dispenses with morality as anything other than a viewpoint enabling it to be discarded as humans give full reign to their savage desires and impulses which can be seen in the decadence of non spiritual societies.

So nothing to do with evidence?

BTW what are these savage non spiritual societies you speak of?

Also I do not equate nihilism with materialism rather hedonism is symptomatic of the materialistic secularised society we live in were stringent morality is frowned upon and the doctrine of evolution presents a viewpoint confined entirely to our physical senses which will lead to decadent excess and hubris and is already very evident.

You must live on another planet.

[Rlyeh]

No humans were less aggressive when religion had greater precedence because belief in something greater than ourselves led to selfless acts which don't happen anymore and now that religion has been replaced with atheism humans are now allowed to indiscriminately follow their own self serving ends and fore-fill their own animalistic desires without any moral discernment as according to the evolutionists dogma only self preservation and propagation (even at the expense of others) is necessary at the expense of all else.

Evolutionists dogma.. do gravitists, atomicists and germists have dogma too?

[aimlesswalk]

So nothing to do with evidence?

BTW what are these savage non spiritual societies you speak of?

You must live on another planet.

No you don't have to live on another planet to see the casual violence and immoral hedonism all around it is evident in the decadent commercial cultures of most societies and the decline of commonly held religious views is to blame for this.

[Rlyeh]

No you don't have to live on another planet to see the casual violence and immoral hedonism all around it is evident in the decadent commercial cultures of most societies and the decline of commonly held religious views is to blame for this.

Which secular society frowns on morality?

[cormac mac airt]

No humans were less aggressive when religion had greater precedence because belief in something greater than ourselves led to selfless acts which don't happen anymore and now that religion has been replaced with atheism humans are now allowed to indiscriminately follow their own self serving ends and fore-fill their own animalistic desires without any moral discernment as according to the evolutionists dogma only self preservation and propagation (even at the expense of others) is necessary at the expense of all else.

Oh really? Tell that to the thousands of people who died during such conflicts as the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. The Thirty Years War which was initially religious. The Protestant Reformation. The Holocaust. And many more that could be named. If anything, religion has been at the heart of one peoples aggressive behavior towards another many, MANY times.

cormac

Edited November 1, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[aimlesswalk]

Oh really? Tell that to the thousands of people who died during such events as the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. The Thirty Years War which was initially religious. The Protestant Reformation. The Holocaust. And many more that could be named. If anything, religion has been at the heart of one peoples aggressive behavior towards another many, MANY times.

cormac

I won't argue except about The Holocaust which the theory of evolution was responsible for because it informed the social Darwinism ideology of Nazism which included persecution of those who had mental health or physical disabilities as being the mistakes of your perfect natural selection view of the world. I'm not excusing the institution of religion which has been responsible for many injustices over the centuries but a set of spiritual beliefs is essential for human beings to steer us away from the base instincts which supposedly govern most human actions and to also reinforce a sense of morality which science is not capable of doing.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Almagest]

Animalistic desires such as sex are crude mammalian impulses which are symptomatic of the unjust and cruel natural order which evolutionists would have us believe is all that exists but religions and the spiritual disciplines they embody teach us of other perspectives which can move us beyond our animalistic impulses. Evolutionarily theories have gained such prevalence because they allow humans to give in to these base impulses and it also dispenses with morality as anything other than a viewpoint enabling it to be discarded as humans give full reign to their savage desires and impulses which can be seen in the decadence of non spiritual societies. Also I do not equate nihilism with materialism rather hedonism is symptomatic of the materialistic secularised society we live in were stringent morality is frowned upon and the doctrine of evolution presents a viewpoint confined entirely to our physical senses which will lead to decadent excess and hubris and is already very evident.

Morality has always been a viewpoint. No two cultures or religions are entirely the same. All these claims to holding absolute and objective morality are bunk, and I can prove it. The mere fact that we haven't stoned women for not being virgins on their wedding night for thousands of years in the Western world shows that morality changes. After all, if it were truly objective then we should get back to what's written. The Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, allegedly wrote a morality for us that hasn't been properly implemented since it was created, and that's a good thing. Society should be governed by laws, pretty much everyone agrees with that, but we have to recognise that these laws have always been the product of humans. Evolution has provided us with the skills we need to build a working morality - reason and empathy.

Just because science and evolution dictate to us that we and the universe are nothing but invisible tiny swirling motes does not make it so.

I look in the mirror and see a person, not swirling motes. A human being is more than just the sum of its parts.

No it hasn't failed we have failed because we are inherently flawed beings and need the guidance of religion and without we give in to our base instincts and evolution accepts this.

I'm assuming that you adhere to some kind of monotheism, and that religions come from a perfect deity, is that correct? Well how come the most perfect and intelligent being ever to exist cannot create a religion that changes the world for the better? And are you telling me that I am not a moral person because I don't have a religion? I'm still trying to get an answer for that question.

[aimlesswalk]

Which secular society frowns on morality?

I think it's obvious that morality, selflessness and good manners have fallen by the wayside in most secularised societies as everyone is out for what they can get and gratification. Also there seems to be an acceptance of casual violence and immoral hedonism which is disheartening to those who retain a vestige of morality. And if you don't see what I'm saying your obviously a part of it!

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Almagest]

I won't argue except about The Holocaust which the theory of evolution was responsible for because it informed the social Darwinism ideology of Nazism which included persecution of those who had mental health or physical defects as being the mistakes of your perfect natural selection view of the world. I'm not excusing the institution of religion which has been responsible for many injustices over the centuries but a set of spiritual beliefs is essential for human beings to steer us away from the base instincts which supposedly govern most human actions and to also reinforce a sense of morality which science is not capable of doing.

And a century old tradition of German anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it what so ever?

[aimlesswalk]

And a century old tradition of German anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it what so ever?

I'm not saying it didn't but your being deliberately ignorant if you think the socially darwinistic views of Nazism shaped by the application of the theory of natural selection to society didn't influence the way people with mental health disabilities or 'useless eaters' were treated. It's the sort of ideology I could see creeping back again in the atheist scientific secularised society we live in.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[cormac mac airt]

I won't argue except about The Holocaust which the theory of evolution was responsible for because it informed the social Darwinism ideology of Nazism which included persecution of those who had mental health or physical defects as being the mistakes of your perfect natural selection view of the world. I'm not excusing the institution of religion which has been responsible for many injustices over the centuries but a set of spiritual beliefs is essential for human beings to steer us away from the base instincts which evolutionists say govern most human actions and to also reinforce a sense of morality which science is not capable of doing.

Evolution had nothing to do with the Holocaust. One mans (Hitler's) hypocritical belief, as he was of Jewish extraction himself, based on the notion of a superior "Aryan Race" (which never actually existed and had nothing to do with Germans) combined with a "the Jews have everything and we have nothing" mentality was what caused the Holocaust. That you wish to blame it on evolution suggests that you are so far away from any meaningful understanding of it that you will attempt to attach that baseless understanding to everything you disagree with.

Evolution/natural selection is not perfect and no one with any meaningful understanding of it has ever claimed it to be. It simply is what it is.

Like it or not these basic instincts are what allowed us to get where we are today. It's not science's place, nor does it try, to enforce ANY sense of morality. That is the responsibility of the individual or society in which one lives. That you can't apparently separate the two says more about your mindset than it does about evolution.

cormac

[aimlesswalk]

Evolution had nothing to do with the Holocaust. One mans (Hitler's) hypocritical belief, as he was of Jewish extraction himself, based on the notion of a superior "Aryan Race" (which never actually existed and had nothing to do with Germans) combined with a "the Jews have everything and we have nothing" mentality was what caused the Holocaust. That you wish to blame it on evolution suggests that you are so far away from any meaningful understanding of it that you will attempt to attach that baseless understanding to everything you disagree with.

Evolution/natural selection is not perfect and no one with any meaningful understanding of it has ever claimed it to be. It simply is what it is.

Like it or not these basic instincts are what allowed us to get where we are today. It's not science's place, nor does it try, to enforce ANY sense of morality. That is the responsibility of the individual or society in which one lives. That you can't apparently separate the two says more about your mindset than it does about evolution.

cormac

Why don't you read some history about how people with mental and physical disabilities were treated in Nazi Germany because you cannot say that these polices were not shaped by the socially darwinistic application of natural selection (thus the theory of evolution is responsible for this atrocity) to human beings. Read the biography of the Nazi physician Karl Brandt which explains a lot about the Nazi euthanasia program. This is what your precious theory of evolution led to!

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Almagest]

I'm not saying it didn't but your being deliberately ignorant if you think the socially darwinistic views of Nazism shaped by the application of the theory of evolution to society didn't influence the way people with mental health problems or 'useless eaters' were treated. It's the sort of ideology I could see creeping back again in the atheist scientific secularised society we live in.

I know Social Darwinism and Eugenics had a role in Nazism, as did a skewed interpretation of Nietzsche. The point is moot, because Nazi Germany was not secular.

[cormac mac airt]

Why don't you read some history about how people with mental and physical disabilities were treated in Nazi Germany because you cannot say that these polices were not shaped by socially darwinistic application of natural selection (thus the theory of evolution is responsible for this atrocity) to human beings. Read the biography of the Nazi physician Karl Brandt which explains a lot about the Nazi euthanasia program. This is what your precious theory of evolution led to!

Which has nothing to do with evolution which is biological in nature but everything to do with Hitler's, and by extension the Germans at the time, sense of superiority to everyone else (which he fostered in them). Social darwinism is nothing more than an excuse for one group to feel superior to another and has little to nothing to do with actual evolution, but more to do with the questionable mentality of the person/s using said excuse.

cormac

[Rlyeh]

Why don't you read some history about how people with mental and physical disabilities were treated in Nazi Germany because you cannot say that these polices were not shaped by the socially darwinistic application of natural selection (thus the theory of evolution is responsible for this atrocity) to human beings. Read the biography of the Nazi physician Karl Brandt which explains a lot about the Nazi euthanasia program. This is what your precious theory of evolution led to!

Why don't you think about what you're saying? You're putting blame on an explanation of phenomena because of what others do with the information.

By your logic the theory of gravity is responsible for everyone who has ever been hanged.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Whisperer]

Yes aimlesswalk, you are sooo right, this is evolution in actuality, for the bullying and inferences this type of behavior supports is the eradication of 'faults', the discontinuation of a line of 'evolution' that has a billion year history behind it.

Pseudo intellectuals will always argue it is genetic but that is too narrow a point to take when discussing such a broad subject.

On the one hand its a mutagenic transition that makes a successful adaptation,

On the other, it is a hubris based culling that destroys a potential line of mutagenic trasvergence.

Good on ya for drawing attention to humanity's way of handling evolutionary controls within it's own.

[aquatus1]

You may say this but since the decline of religious views being commonly held we have come to live in an increasingly materialistic, violent and sexualised society where morality has become secondary to gratification.

Compared to what? What, exactly, have humans been doing that they were not doing a whole heck of a lot more of prior to 500 years ago?

This is because according to evolution morality is nothing but a state of mind so has no external truth in the wider scheme of things so thereby many humans no longer feel bound to some enforced moral code (for there is none) and are able to pursue their own self interests without any regards for others.

Well, there are quite a few things wrong here, and you don't seem to be the type to defend your position with anything other than a repetition of your basic opinion, so let's just keep it simple and make a list:

• There is no such thing as "evolution morality". Similarly, there is no such thing as "physics morality" or "grammar morality" (despite what some would have you believe on that last one).
  
• Morality being "nothing more than a state of mind" is a psychological conclusion, not a biological one, and people where talking about it shortly after discovering that not everyone in the world likes the same thing, so...I suppose we can give the Ancient Greeks kudos for being the first to openly start up the discussion on that topic.
  
• Whether morality is objective or not is irrelevant as to whether people actually do it or not. If morality were objective (which it is not) and if any particular morality were even written down clearly enough to be followed (which none is, including that allegedly found in a certain Bronze Age collection of mythologies collected, edited, and bound into a single edition by a committee), it still wouldn't explain why prisons consist of almost 80% of people claiming adherence to that morality.
  
• Being bound to a specific moral code has never stopped people from pursuing their own self-interests. See above.
  
• Pursuing your own self interests has never been inextricably bound to not having any regards for others. Plenty of people have successfully done both. We are, after all, social creatures, according to evolution.
  

Religions and spiritual beliefs are here to lift human thoughts above our own animalistic instincts which otherwise many people would not and do not resist.

They don't do a very good job at it. Mostly, they just provide justifications for said animalistic thoughts "Jesus wants you to have sex with me!" or guilt trips that make you feel better when you are granted forgiveness by the guy with the lowest standards in history, "Oh, God, I can't believe I fornicated an 18th time outside of marriage! It's okay though, Jesus forgives me."

Edited November 1, 2013 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

Why don't you read some history about how people with mental and physical disabilities were treated in Nazi Germany because you cannot say that these polices were not shaped by the socially darwinistic application of natural selection (thus the theory of evolution is responsible for this atrocity) to human beings. Read the biography of the Nazi physician Karl Brandt which explains a lot about the Nazi euthanasia program. This is what your precious theory of evolution led to!

An argument that would only be true if humans had never actually done this prior to evolution becoming a thing.

So, Aimless, are you going on record as stating that prior to 150 years ago, people didn't abuse the mentally infirm, the poor, the foreign, the anyone-with-some-sort-of-insignifigant-yet-unalterable-difference? That people never killed anyone based on superiority of one kind or another until the publication of a book about finches and turtles by some guy who spent months walking through the jungles populated by those savages who had never even heard of a bible, let alone how gentle, tolerant, and forgiving the God inside was to all those who He didn't order killed?

[aimlesswalk]

An argument that would only be true if humans had never actually done this prior to evolution becoming a thing.

So, Aimless, are you going on record as stating that prior to 150 years ago, people didn't abuse the mentally infirm, the poor, the foreign, the anyone-with-some-sort-of-insignifigant-yet-unalterable-difference? That people never killed anyone based on superiority of one kind or another until the publication of a book about finches and turtles by some guy who spent months walking through the jungles populated by those savages who had never even heard of a bible, let alone how gentle, tolerant, and forgiving the God inside was to all those who He didn't order killed?

Humans have always discriminated against each other and particularly anyone who is different the difference being is that social Darwinism derived from the theory of evolution gave the worst kind of people a twisted justification for doing so. Also just because atrocities were committed before in the name of other creeds it doesn't absolve the theory of evolution for being partly responsible for what happened in Germany at that time just as organised religion can similarly have the same accusations levelled against it throughout history.

Also I never said anything about 'evolution morality' I said that if one accepts the theory of evolution to the exclusion of any other way of thinking than morality is just a subjective perspective which has no more meaning than what it is imbued with unlike a religious viewpoint such as Christianity which places morality or 'good and evil' as an externalised reality which we have no choice but to participate whereas in the viewpoint of evolution choosing to accept a morality could be largely a matter of choice as it has no basis outside thought and no determining on anything other than what a person prescribes to it.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[cormac mac airt]

Humans have always discriminated against each other and particularly anyone who is different the difference being is that social Darwinism derived from the theory of evolution gave the worst kind of people a reason and twisted justification for doing so. Also just because atrocities were committed before in the name of other creeds it doesn't absolve the theory of evolution for partly being responsible for what happened in Germany at that time just as organised religion can similarly have the same accusations levelled against it throughout history.

Also I never said anything about 'evolution morality' I said that if one accepts the theory of evolution to the exclusion of any other way of thinking than morality is just a subjective perspective which has no more meaning than what it is imbued with unlike a religious viewpoint such as Christianity which places morality or 'good and evil' as an externalised reality which we have no choice but to participate unlike the viewpoint of evolution were choosing to accept a morality could be largely a matter of choice as it has no basis outside thought and no determining on anything other than what a person prescribes it to.

That's about as ignorant as claiming that people don't kill people, guns do, so in order to prevent murders all guns should be banned. Or that eating in excess doesn't make one fat, the use of utensils do, so therefore if we abolish all utensils people will never get fat. Evolution pretty well shows where we come from, however it's not responsible for what we do with that information. And making it appear that evolution is responsible only means that you need a scape-goat to take the blame for mankinds oft-seen inhumanity to each other.

cormac

[aimlesswalk]

That's about as ignorant as claiming that people don't kill people, guns do, so in order to prevent murders all guns should be banned. Or that eating in excess doesn't make one fat, the use of utensils do, so therefore if we abolish all utensils people will never get fat. Evolution pretty well shows where we come from, however it's not responsible for what we do with that information. And making it appear that evolution is responsible only means that you need a scape-goat to take the blame for mankinds oft-seen inhumanity to each other.

cormac

Your quite happy to blame organised religion for the atrocities it has been responsible for throughout history but you do not acknowledge that the theory of evolution may also have contributed to similar atrocities in more recent history.

Also at least with a religious viewpoint a moral perspective is obligatory but no such moral perspective is necessary from an evolutionists viewpoint.

[aquatus1]

Humans have always discriminated against each other and particularly anyone who is different the difference being is that social Darwinism derived from the theory of evolution gave the worst kind of people a reason and twisted justification for doing so. Also just because atrocities were committed before in the name of other creeds it doesn't absolve the theory of evolution for partly being responsible for what happened in Germany at that time just as organised religion can similarly have the same accusations levelled against it throughout history.

Bear Hunting

Frank was excited about his new rifle. So, he went bear hunting.

He spotted a small brown bear and shot it. There was then a tap on his shoulder, and he turned round to see a big black bear.

The black bear said "You've got two choices. I either maul you to death or we have sex. "Frank decided to bend over. Even though he felt sore for two weeks, Frank soon recovered and vowed revenge.

He headed out on another trip where he found the black bear and shot it. There was another tap on his shoulder. This time a huge grizzly bear stood right next to him. The grizzly said "That was a huge mistake, Frank. You've got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we'll have rough sex. "Again, Frank thought it was better to comply. Although he survived, it would take several months before Frank finally recovered.

Outraged he headed back to the woods, managed to track down the grizzly and shot it. He felt sweet revenge, but then there was a tap on his shoulder. He turned around to find a giant polar bear standing there. The polar bear said "Admit it, Frank, you don't come here for the hunting, do you?"

If all throughout history people discriminated and slaughtered because God told them to, and people discriminated and slaughtered because their leader told them to, and people discriminated and slaughtered because evolution told them to...

...maybe what you are telling yourself is the problem isn't actually the problem.

Also I never said anything about 'evolution morality'

Except imply that it exists. By directly referring to it as a thing that states a point of view.

I said that if one accepts the theory of evolution to the exclusion of any other way of thinking than morality is just a subjective perspective which has no more meaning than what it is imbued with...[snipped for clariity]...were choosing to accept a morality could be largely a matter of choice as it has no basis outside thought and no determining on anything other than what a person prescribes it to.

Actually, no, you are not. Accepting the theory of evolution to the exclusion of any other way of thinking makes as much sense as accepting the theory of gravity, or the theory of erosion, to the exclusion of any other way of thinking. All that the general theory of evolution is is a bunch of theories describing particular chemical, biological, or zoological behaviours. Evolution is not a moral code, it is not an ideology, and requires absolutely no belief or acceptance on your part to exist. To blame it for changing how you treat your fellow man is nonsensical at the least, naive at best, and downright dangerous at worst. In validating and continuing the lie that evolution is somehow a moral code of any kind, you are only supporting those who agree with you, but choose to claim that it is a moral code in favor of their superiority. Both of you are wrong in your interpretations, both are using that mistaken interpretation to pursue your own goals, and both of you are incorrect.

Even dismissing evolution doesn't save this argument. You don't need evolution to determine that morality is a matter of choice, and it certainly is not evolution that has ever made any claim even vaguely similar to morality having no basis outside thought or no regards for the consequences. I don't even know of anyone, nihilists included, who claim morality has no basis. Evolution has nothing at all to do with that.

[What was snipped]...unlike a religious viewpoint such as Christianity which places morality or 'good and evil' as an externalised reality which we have no choice but to participate unlike the viewpoint of evolution...

The problem being that Christianity isn't capable of describing "good", "evil", or even "morality", on anything resembling a reliable basis. Nor, for that matter, does it claim we don't have a choice to follow it. We certainly do have a choice. People who chose not to get sent to hell, but that doesn't affect the fact that we are given a choice. And, let's face it, Christianity has made it pretty clear that getting forgiveness for a violation isn't all that difficult.

Evolution has no viewpoint on morality or consequences. All evolution does is explain what it is we see out there in the world of genetics. And none of what we have seen so far serves as either an excuse nor a justification for issues that are, ultimately, more a matter of Ego than chemistry or biology.

[cormac mac airt]

Your quite happy to blame organised religion for the atrocities it has been responsible for throughout history but you do not acknowledge that the theory of evolution may also have contributed to similar atrocities in more recent history.

Also at least with a religious viewpoint a moral perspective is obligatory but no such moral perspective is necessary from an evolutionists viewpoint.

I'm not happy about any of it, however, the blame lies where it lies. For something that many would like to believe is morally superior, religion has done a fantastic job of slitting its own throat to spite its face (figuratively speaking of course).

Moral perspective is obligatory? What a load of bull since I've seen more than my share of people who were "moral" on Sunday, but who weren't any different than anyone else the rest of the week, looking out for their own best interests over that of others. As with many things there are exceptions, but even those exceptions aren't remotely a majority.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

Bear Hunting

Frank was excited about his new rifle. So, he went bear hunting.

He spotted a small brown bear and shot it. There was then a tap on his shoulder, and he turned round to see a big black bear.

The black bear said "You've got two choices. I either maul you to death or we have sex. "Frank decided to bend over. Even though he felt sore for two weeks, Frank soon recovered and vowed revenge.

He headed out on another trip where he found the black bear and shot it. There was another tap on his shoulder. This time a huge grizzly bear stood right next to him. The grizzly said "That was a huge mistake, Frank. You've got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we'll have rough sex. "Again, Frank thought it was better to comply. Although he survived, it would take several months before Frank finally recovered.

Outraged he headed back to the woods, managed to track down the grizzly and shot it. He felt sweet revenge, but then there was a tap on his shoulder. He turned around to find a giant polar bear standing there. The polar bear said "Admit it, Frank, you don't come here for the hunting, do you?"

~SNIP~

Thanks for that aquatus1. That's twice today I shouldn't have been drinking a coke while reading your posts.

cormac

[aimlesswalk]

Actually, no, you are not. Accepting the theory of evolution to the exclusion of any other way of thinking makes as much sense as accepting the theory of gravity, or the theory of erosion, to the exclusion of any other way of thinking. All that the general theory of evolution is is a bunch of theories describing particular chemical, biological, or zoological behaviours. Evolution is not a moral code, it is not an ideology, and requires absolutely no belief or acceptance on your part to exist. To blame it for changing how you treat your fellow man is nonsensical at the least, naive at best, and downright dangerous at worst. In validating and continuing the lie that evolution is somehow a moral code of any kind, you are only supporting those who agree with you, but choose to claim that it is a moral code in favor of their superiority. Both of you are wrong in your interpretations, both are using that mistaken interpretation to pursue your own goals, and both of you are incorrect.

I didn't mean accepting the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all else in the sense of other scientific facts but rather in the sense of having this viewpoint as opposed to any spiritual perspective. I didn't say evolution was a moral code at all what I did say was that in the evolutionary viewpoint of the world no moral code is necessarily required because it is human egotism and has no basis in externalised reality or bearing on an objective view of life. You obviously know a lot more than me about evolution so I will only say the reasons why I disagree with it because it reduces humanity to intelligent mammals evolved from primates whereas religion vests a special purpose in humanity and explains our shortcomings in terms of a fall from grace whereas the evolutionary viewpoint acknowledges no shortcoming as it accepts it all as the natural order which in my opinion relinquishes our moral responsibility to each other which is central to the Christian view of life (and the ideals of other spiritual disciplines as well) because morality becomes nothing more than frame of mind instead of a literal truth with no basis outside our own perspective so therefore it isn't mandatory to have a moral perspective at all. Religion and the spiritual teachings which it embodies place morality at the centre of human existence and of upmost importance whereas in the evolutionary viewpoint it becomes a matter of perspective.

I think I've said all I can now.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk