God is My Superpower

[Elixir]

My superpower is knowing there are no superpowers.

 

[Jarhyn]

After quoting Dawkins out of context, now you quote Carrier, very likely out of context as well. But it makes no difference. The first clause of his second sentence is wrong, precisely because the second clause is correct. Because evolution is utterly mindless, it cannot be vicious and heartless..

Not to mention that a process that can be characterized as "vicious and heartless" may still yet be a process by which a discovery of something else is made.

Something random, for example, can be the instigative process for something organized and regular.

If I have a process by which 32 coins are flipped (random), and then the result is written down (random), and then this is repeated infinity times, and each result is fed into a complete Turing complete 32bit processor whose instruction set is randomized (or just a SUBLEQ processor), then the result is going to be completely random, and yet this system is capable of creating nonrandom processes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My superpower is knowing there are no superpowers.

Does that mean I don't get 10% of your income?

 

[Elixir]

My superpower is knowing there are no superpowers.

Does that mean I don't get 10% of your income?

Do you really want 10% of a negative number? I could use the subsidy!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Accept no gurus. And if that doesn't cover it....say it in bold. Accept no gurus.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

While you are busy labeling every atheist here a Fascist, a contemptible slur, you are also taking Dawkins out of context, as anyone who bothers to click to the link will soon learn.

Carrier:

Evolution has no moral authority. Because it is vicious and heartless, and utterly mindless. So telling the Christian our reason to be moral is that evolution made us that way is not the least bit reassuring. It's like telling them we’re good because an evil apocalyptic baby-eating robot told us to be, and we think he’s really cool so we'll do whatever he says, man!

1. No moral authority doesn't equal no morality. It's just subjective morality.
2. Subjective morality doesn't equal amorality.
3. Evolutionary theory isn't about how we should behave in the first place so this is just another stupid non-sequitur.

You've been told this repeatedly yet you still spew your bullshit.

 

[No Robots]

1. No moral authority doesn't equal no morality. It's just subjective morality.
2. Subjective morality doesn't equal amorality.
3. Evolutionary theory isn't about how we should behave in the first place so this is just another stupid non-sequitur.

You've been told this repeatedly yet you still spew your bullshit.

The verdict is in. The theory of evolution is the pseudo-scientific foundation of fascism:

When the law of the strong, and of natural selection, took the place of the word of love, it became apparent that giving up the Bible is not always enlightened: Nero's torches can burn all the brighter for it.--Atheism in Christianity / Ernst Bloch

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.--Karl Marx

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.--Darwin

The only moral theory of evolution is the one that sees all of existence as a rational process intended to create a rational being in man.

 

[pood]

1. No moral authority doesn't equal no morality. It's just subjective morality.
2. Subjective morality doesn't equal amorality.
3. Evolutionary theory isn't about how we should behave in the first place so this is just another stupid non-sequitur.

You've been told this repeatedly yet you still spew your bullshit.

The verdict is in. The theory of evolution is the pseudo-scientific foundation of fascism:

When the law of the strong, and of natural selection, took the place of the word of love, it became apparent that giving up the Bible is not always enlightened: Nero's torches can burn all the brighter for it.--Atheism in Christianity / Ernst Bloch

‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.--Darwin / Adrian Desmond, James Moore

It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.--Karl Marx

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.--Darwin

The only moral theory of evolution is the one that sees all of existence as a rational process intended to create a rational being in man.

It does not matter how much garbage you write, how many idiots you quote, or how many times you call people here Fascists. Evolution is a FACT, and the THEORY that describes this fact is CORRECT. All this nonsense connecting “social Darwinism” and the division of labor in England and on and on is a giant red herring, and a prime example of the Naturalistic Fallacy. Even if some of those people used the FACT of evolution and the THEORY that correctly describes it to justify bullshit like social Darwinism and unfettered capitalism, it does not mean that the FACT of evolution is not a FACT, nor does it mean that the THEORY of evolution is not a CORRECT THEORY. This is why it is so despicable that you cherry-picked Dawkins, who went on to explain that you cannot use evolution, the fact or the theory, to justify failure to try to right the ills of the world.

 

[No Robots]

This is why it is so despicable that you cherry-picked Dawkins, who went on to explain that you cannot use evolution, the fact or the theory, to justify failure to try to right the ills of the world.

Dawkins maintains in that article that:

It is a manifest fact that the brain – especially the human brain – is well able to over-ride its ultimate programming; well able to dispense with the ultimate value of gene survival and substitute other values. I have used hedonistic pleasure as just an example, but I could also mention more noble values, like a love of poetry, or music, and of course the long-term survival of the planet - and sustainability.

This is nothing but self-serving woo. According to Dawkins, the whole of nature is subject to the iron laws of Darwinism, but mankind gets a magic get out of jail free card. He means, of course, the better sort of mankind, because he considers it worthwhile to reopen discussion on eugenics.

 

[Janice Rael]

pfff, Dawk is a transphobe and he has a cold dead fish handshake (he was so disappointed that I was obese).

 

[pood]

This is why it is so despicable that you cherry-picked Dawkins, who went on to explain that you cannot use evolution, the fact or the theory, to justify failure to try to right the ills of the world.

Dawkins maintains in that article that:

It is a manifest fact that the brain – especially the human brain – is well able to over-ride its ultimate programming; well able to dispense with the ultimate value of gene survival and substitute other values. I have used hedonistic pleasure as just an example, but I could also mention more noble values, like a love of poetry, or music, and of course the long-term survival of the planet - and sustainability.

This is nothing but self-serving woo. According to Dawkins, the whole of nature is subject to the iron laws of Darwinism, but mankind gets a magic get out of jail free card. He means, of course, the better sort of mankind, because he considers it worthwhile to reopen discussion on eugenics.

You couldn’t be more wrong, which is par of the course for you. First, there is no such thing as “the iron laws of Darwinism,” just as there are no “iron laws” of anything. All “laws” of nature are descriptions, not prescriptions. Second, Darwinism is false. Darwin knew nothing of genes, DNA, genetic drift, molecular biology, etc. To describe the theory of evolution as Darwinism shows your glaring ignorance of the whole subject. Finally, mankind does not get a “magic get out of jail free card” because there is no jail to get out of. As Dawkins notes, the complexity of our brains very much enables us to form our own values, because nature has no values. It is blind. Some other species can do the same thing.

 

[No Robots]

To describe the theory of evolution as Darwinism shows your glaring ignorance of the whole subject.

Erm, it is Dawkins who uses the word in the article. Better let him know.

Finally, mankind does not get a “magic get out of jail free card” because there is no jail to get out of. As Dawkins notes, the complexity of our brains very much enables us to form our own values, because nature has no values. It is blind. Some other species can do the same thing.

Blind but not a jail? Riiiiight.

 

[pood]

A lot of evolution, perhaps most of it, does not involve natural selection at all. It is neutral evolution, it is genetic drift, it is evolution by accident. See Larry Moran’s excellent Sandwalk blog for a lot of information on this. So the whole idiotic basis of invoking “Darwinism” to justify “social Darwinism,” unfettered capitalism, and the exploitation of others is rendered null. Second, our robotic interlocutor does not even seem to know what the term “survival of the fittest” means in a biological context. The fittest organisms on earth are not the smartest, not the strongest, not the prettiest or the most handsome, not the best at exploiting others for profit.

 

[Janice Rael]

Erm, it is Dawkins who uses the word in the article. Better let him know.

Dawkins is an idiot. I'd be glad to let him know. I may not remember the last week or month, but I have never forgotten his utter uselessness. You can keep him. He's a Science-Denying Scientist.

 

[pood]

To describe the theory of evolution as Darwinism shows your glaring ignorance of the whole subject.

Erm, it is Dawkins who uses the word in the article. Better let him know.

Dawkins knows perfectly well that Darwinism is false. If he used the term at all, it was in a loose sense, aimed at laymen. Either that, or he was talking about Darwinism in its correct 19th century context, when Darwinism was all anyone knew. We’ve gone far beyond that. If you were educated beyond people like Wataon and Spinoza — which is to say, educated — you would know this.

Finally, mankind does not get a “magic get out of jail free card” because there is no jail to get out of. As Dawkins notes, the complexity of our brains very much enables us to form our own values, because nature has no values. It is blind. Some other species can do the same thing.

Blind but not a jail? Riiiiight.

What does this even mean? Nothing, like everything you write, so there is no reason to try to rebut it.

 

[pood]

In biology, Dawkins seems to be primarily an adaptationist, and this is a dubious position. Personally, he is increasingly a reactionary, and perhaps always has been. But his books remain brilliant, even if too adaptationist for the taste of many modern biologists.

 

[No Robots]

The theory of evolution is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy: it is an attempt by mankind to justify its egoism, greed and lust as "natural." At the same time, it allows mankind a magic escape from "blind" nature by virtue of some property that only it possesses. Mere egoism.

 

[Janice Rael]

The theory of evolution is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy: it is an attempt by mankind to justify its egoism, greed and lust as "natural." At the same time, it allows mankind a magic escape from "blind" nature by virtue of some property that only it possesses. Mere egoism.

lmao do another one!! do another one!!

 

[pood]

The theory of evolution is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy: it is an attempt by mankind to justify its egoism, greed and lust as "natural." At the same time, it allows mankind a magic escape from "blind" nature by virtue of some property that only it possesses. Mere egoism.

No, the attempt to justify egoism, greed and lust based on the FACT of evolution IS the Naturalistic Fallacy, precisely.

As to your second stupid sentence, I have already explained why it is false.

Finally, as noted above, you have no idea what survival of the fittest means in its proper biological context, and natural selection is not evolution, only a part of it.

 

[No Robots]

The theory of evolution is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy: it is an attempt by mankind to justify its egoism, greed and lust as "natural." At the same time, it allows mankind a magic escape from "blind" nature by virtue of some property that only it possesses. Mere egoism.

lmao do another one!! do another one!!

Glad you like these!

Here's a favorite from Waton:

But in the realm of life, modern science accomplished nothing. Biology—this is the science of life. What shall be said about a biology that does not know what life is? And this is the biology of the Aryans? Study the thousands of books that were written on biology by the Aryans, and in all of them you will not find a single statement as to what life itself is. For instance, Spencer defines life to be a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Is this a definition of life? This only tells us of a function of life, but what is life itself that makes this adjustment? Spencer himself admits that he does not know. And in all cases in which the Aryans come to the ultimate aspects of existence, they draw down the curtain on which is written: The Thing in Itself, Nihil Ulterius, The Unknowable. And ask no further questions. Now, the basis of the nazi philosophy is the blood theory, and we already saw that the nazis do not know what blood is, and they know absolutely nothing about life itself. What is life? We already saw that the Bible knew what life is. Life is what the Bible calls nephesh, it is the soul in its implicit state. Life is the Absolute, it is the cause of itself, it is the substance of all realities, and all infinite existence is a living reality.

He has a sterling analysis of Herbert Spencer, if you're interested.