God is My Superpower

[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.

 

[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.

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.

That is meaningless word salad from Waton. You learned a lot from him.

 

[pood]

Ooh, ooh, life is The Thing in Itself, it’s, it’s … oh, golly, it’s Nihil Ulterius! In italics, no less. Wow, so impressive. It’s The Unknowable! Here that, scientists? Life is The Unknowable. So stop trying to figure shit out!

 

[No Robots]

Ooh, ooh, life is The Thing in Itself, it’s, it’s … oh, golly, it’s Nihil Ulterius! In italics, no less. Wow, so impressive. It’s The Unknowable! Here that, scientists? Life is The Unknowable. So stop trying to figure shit out!

Your reading comprehension is deficient. He's saying that it is scientists who declare that the nature of life is unknowable, and that it is the Bible that declares that the nature of life is knowable.

 

[pood]

Ooh, ooh, life is The Thing in Itself, it’s, it’s … oh, golly, it’s Nihil Ulterius! In italics, no less. Wow, so impressive. It’s The Unknowable! Here that, scientists? Life is The Unknowable. So stop trying to figure shit out!

Your reading comprehension is deficient. He's saying that it is scientists who declare that the nature of life is unknowable, and that it is the Bible that declares that the nature of life is knowable.

And if that is what this guy is saying, he’s obviously dead wrong. Scientists do not declare that the “nature of life” is unknowable; quite to the contrary, since Darwin came along, they’ve been quite busy and quite successful in figuring out what life is and how it came to be — great strides are being made in abiogenesis, though we may never know for sure how life began. But we’re definitely on the scent of it.

The Bible gives us zero knowledge about anything at all. Life? A Magic Sky Fairy poofed it into existence! That’s your stupid Bible.

 

[pood]

And, btw, your quoted passage does NOT say that “scientists” declare that the nature of life is unknowable. According to him it is the “Aryans,” whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

 

[bilby]

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

Too late. No Robots has been Pwned by a Guru.

 

[steve_bank]

Aryan in one context was a mythical race created by Nazis to support the idea of German racial superiority.

If I hear the term outside of an academic context I assume it is is connected to white supremacy nonsense.

The Aryan Brotherhood. Neo Nazis.

 

[bilby]

Ooh, ooh, life is The Thing in Itself, it’s, it’s … oh, golly, it’s Nihil Ulterius! In italics, no less. Wow, so impressive. It’s The Unknowable! Here that, scientists? Life is The Unknowable. So stop trying to figure shit out!

My first question is, assuming for the sake of argument that it is unknowable, how does he know??

 

[pood]

One thing that is not unknowable, and which I do know: I’ve read enough of Waton to know that he is a clueless, pretentious wanker.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe I;;ll get one of those on,line PHDs so I can call my self Doctor Banks.

 

[DBT]

Maybe I;;ll get one of those on,line PHDs so I can call my self Doctor Banks.

Banksy for short. You can cash in on street art.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

You know what Dawkins also says? In The Selfish Gene, he says he would not want a society based on selfishness. But all you do is cherry pick shit and you don't give a fuck about logic.