Evolutionists, The Catholic Church is your friend.

[plumjam]

Having seen the recent most ludicrous evolution-head thread about an 'Alien species of men evolving to enjoy raping women' it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.

Yet Catholic Priests (for example) are against abortion and against contraception (thus expanding the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act). Therefore your local Father Patrick is quite a laudable positive evolutionary force, and should be commended for his life's work. Not to mention them Popes.
So these religionists who the evolutionists keep arguing against, are, in a positive practical sense, enabling evolution to 'occur'... while the avowed evolutionists usually hold positions which are wholly against allowing any possibility of it.. (post World War II embarrassment of course has to be factored into this.. pre 1945 they were quite a bit more cavalier).
Quite contradictory. Go figure.

Maybe you guys should become Catholics ;)

[Gate2501]

Plumjam: "Hi guys! Here you go, I think that you were just drinking this!"

JREF: "Ummmm no, we weren't. In fact, this appears to be a bottle of urine... eww."

Plumjam: "You sure were drinking it! And here, you forgot this monkey costume! You were wearing this too!"

JREF: "This is ludicrous, we were not drinking that OR wearing that costume, it would appear that you are attempting some form of shenanigans here..."

Plumjam: "Oh! I almost forgot your hat!"

JREF: /sigh "Goodbye Plumjam."

Plumjam: "Victory!"

[plumjam]

Plumjam: "Hi guys! Here you go, I think that you were just drinking this!"

JREF: "Ummmm no, we weren't. In fact, this appears to be a bottle of urine... eww."

Plumjam: "You sure were drinking it! And here, you forgot this monkey costume! You were wearing this too!"

JREF: "This is ludicrous, we were not drinking that OR wearing that costume, it would appear that you are attempting some form of shenanigans here..."

Plumjam: "Oh! I almost forgot your hat!"

JREF: /sigh "Goodbye Plumjam."

Plumjam: "Victory!"

Hmm.. so you completely evaded the OP and its points regarding Catholicism and Evolutionism.. while trying to be obscurely clever.
It didn't work, did it.
Next.

[linusrichard]

Nobody's in favor of abortion. I didn't bother reading after that.






(Practically nobody)

[plumjam]

Nobody's in favor of abortion. I didn't bother reading after that.






(Practically nobody)

So the people who have abortions are doing it against their will? :rolleyes:

[Dunstan]

Hey plumjam, do you believe in the theory of gravity?

If so, then according to your logic, you should jump off a cliff so as to give gravity another possibility on which to act.

Of course, I suspect you're actually an advocate of Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Plumjam: "Hi guys! Here you go, I think that you were just drinking this!"

JREF: "Ummmm no, we weren't. In fact, this appears to be a bottle of urine... eww."

Plumjam: "You sure were drinking it! And here, you forgot this monkey costume! You were wearing this too!"

JREF: "This is ludicrous, we were not drinking that OR wearing that costume, it would appear that you are attempting some form of shenanigans here..."

Plumjam: "Oh! I almost forgot your hat!"

JREF: /sigh "Goodbye Plumjam."

Plumjam: "Victory!"


This is positively the best post I have ever seen here at the atheist JREFF. You guys should listen to trolls posts like this and you could possiblely learn something.

I'm going to build the World's biggest straw man that will once again prove I have learned nothing from my trolling participation here.


:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:p igsfly

:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:pigsfly:p igsfly

[Zelenius]

Having seen the recent most ludicrous evolution-head thread about an 'Alien species of men evolving to enjoy raping women' it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.

Yet Catholic Priests (for example) are against abortion and against contraception (thus expanding the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act). Therefore your local Father Patrick is quite a laudable positive evolutionary force, and should be commended for his life's work. Not to mention them Popes.
So these religionists who the evolutionists keep arguing against, are, in a positive practical sense, enabling evolution to 'occur'... while the avowed evolutionists usually hold positions which are wholly against allowing any possibility of it.. (post World War II embarrassment of course has to be factored into this.. pre 1945 they were quite a bit more cavalier).
Quite contradictory. Go figure.

Maybe you guys should become Catholics ;)

I don't even know where to begin, except to laugh. I agree with the sentiments of a previous poster about those who deny gravity the opportunity to act on them, yet they claim they believe in gravity. I mean, really, for a person to claim they believe in gravity, and yet deny gravity the "opportunity", especially if they happen to live 5 or more stories up makes no sense whatsoever.

It's about time someone brought this up

[Undesired Walrus]

They don't look forward to it (abortion).

Nobody was in favour of going into the coal mines, but their economic situation demanded nothing else.

As for becoming Catholic, I went to Catholic school. I even went to Lourdes. A priest bought me my first beer. Yet throughout the experience I came to realise that it simply wasn't true.

I'd appreciate it if you were not so vile about my thread. I have never done the same to you.

[Gate2501]

LinusRichard: /sigh.

Plumjam: Victory!

My attempt at humor was a characterization of just about every post that you have ever made here. You attempt to dress us up in a monkey suit, and then debate the monkey.

"All of you evolution guys are in favor of abortion!"

Would be the monkey suit in this regard.

[plumjam]

Hey plumjam, do you believe in the theory of gravity?

If so, then according to your logic, you should jump off a cliff so as to give gravity another possibility on which to act.

Of course, I suspect you're actually an advocate of Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

What does gravity have to do with evolution / birth control / abortion?
I'll save you having to reply. The answer is clearly: nothing.
Try another tack.

[Twiler]

I believe evolution happens. I don't believe that we should maximise the number of people born under any cirumcumstances. These two statements do not contradict one another.

[Gate2501]

What does gravity have to do with evolution / birth control / abortion?
I'll save you having to reply. The answer is clearly: nothing.
Try another tack.

You didn't get his humor either.

It was a commentary on the way that you attribute fanatically religious qualities to a scientific theory, and the scientists who see no reason to reject it.

The joke was that if the followers of these theories (such as gravitiy), are so faithful to their god (the theory of gravity), then they should do everything that they possibly can, to allow gravity to work its magic!

It was an analog to your original post.

[plumjam]

Very brilliant points! The gall and arrogance these people have to dare stand in the way of evolution!

But why just stop with abortion and contraception? The entire field of medicine is anti-evolution, since it helps "bad" genes survive that would otherwise get removed from the gene pool, thus severely limiting evolution's "power". Every time a person gets sick and takes an antibiotic, they have gone against the mandate of evolution. Whether or not the illness kills them, well, that is in evolution's hands. To attempt to interfere with evolution's mandate is sinful and criminal.

So many people who claim to believe in evolution do everything they can to try to stop it. But such efforts are in vain since evolution will inevitably catch up with them. Anyone or anything who tries to disobey the "law" of evolution is committing the gravest of sins. This is in fact the best argument against the Endangered Species Act - the very reason these species are endangered to begin with is because they failed to evolve. "Survival of the fittest" is what evolution is all about and these endangered species have proven themselves unfit to live. They deserve to go extinct. Nature commanded them to evolve, but they failed to do this and must be punished with extinction. Yet so many hypocritical evolutionists are doing all they can to save these endangered species from evolution's wrath.

In the very least, anyone reading this who loves evolution and wants there to be as much evolution as possible(remember what Darwin or Huxley once said "The more evolution, the merrier!"), must forgo wearing their safety belt when they are in a car.

I love evolution and believe it should never be stopped.

Which, as I already said, was a very popular outlook of evolutionists up to the end of World War II, after which the consequences of such a faith were laid bare.
These days in polite circles it's "non-prescriptive", but of course the origin and rationale for this will have to remain forever a mystery for everyone. Because within the theory itself, the origin of beings believing in the non-prescriptiveness of evolution is impossible.

[Robert Oz]

Having seen the recent most ludicrous evolution-head thread about an 'Alien species of men evolving to enjoy raping women' it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.

Yet Catholic Priests (for example) are against abortion and against contraception (thus expanding the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act). Therefore your local Father Patrick is quite a laudable positive evolutionary force, and should be commended for his life's work. Not to mention them Popes.
So these religionists who the evolutionists keep arguing against, are, in a positive practical sense, enabling evolution to 'occur'... while the avowed evolutionists usually hold positions which are wholly against allowing any possibility of it.. (post World War II embarrassment of course has to be factored into this.. pre 1945 they were quite a bit more cavalier).
Quite contradictory. Go figure.

Maybe you guys should become Catholics ;)


Firstly, people are not for abortion, they are for the freedom of choice for our fellow human beings to do what they want with their own bodies - which is why the opposing sides are labelled as anti-abortion and pro-choice.

Yes, being anti-abortion and anti-contraception is counter-productive to spreading our seed, but so is abstaining from sex. After all, according to the Bible, God asked us to "multiply", which would also suggest having sex with everybody and anybody all the time, which is frowned on by most Christians.

However, evolution also provided us with feelings such as sympathy and empathy and we as a species have evolved to behave in an altruistic manner. We, as intelligent life forms, have prioritised our altruism above our own personal urges. We care for others.

[Dunstan]

Because within the theory itself, the origin of beings believing in the non-prescriptiveness of evolution is impossible.

Prove it.

[plumjam]

You didn't get his humor either.I understood, it just wasn't funny.

It was a commentary on the way that you attribute fanatically religious qualities to a scientific theory, and the scientists who see no reason to reject it.
yeah, pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history.

The joke was that if the followers of these theories (such as gravitiy), are so faithful to their god (the theory of gravity), then they should do everything that they possibly can, to allow gravity to work its magic!
And many scientists and social legislators did believe this regarding evolution.

It was an analog to your original post.
Yeah, a poor analog.
Given that we could reproduce in outer space, gravity is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for human reproduction. Yet, according to believers, evolution is a necessary condition for human reproduction.
There are other differences, but I won't bore you further.

[Gate2501]

Prove it.

A dangerous line of debate in dealing with "the jam".

He is probably not going to subscribe to your (or merriam-websters) *evolutionist* definitions.

I predict that semantics will enter the field of play!

[Wolfman]

Plumjam,

I'll try to address your questions as politely as I can, although the appalling ignorance of the topic you are seeking to discuss doesn't give me much hope.

First, there's no reason whatsoever that evolution needs to be an ongoing process, with change constantly taking place. In fact, we have in existence today some species that have existed in essentially the same form, with little or no evolution at all, for billions of years. These species moved into a particular niche, and evolved to fill that niche successfully. And in the billions of years since that happened, there's been no need for them to change, because their adaptation was already sufficient to guarantee their survival.

There are many other species that have gone extinct, because of their failure to adapt. And that, too, is a part of evolution.

So evolution can mean an ongoing process of survival through genetic change/mutation. Evolution can also mean surviving by staying exactly the same -- if you're already successful within the niche you occupy, there's no need to change. And evolution can also mean going extinct, because you failed to adapt sufficiently.

Taking your question of contraception and abortion, it is immediately rendered meaningless and pointless when faced with this perspective.

Further to that, today's "evolutionists" tend to think not just in terms of "survival", but of quality of life. There was a time in our history when "survival" was a critical issue...when humans faced significant struggles just to survive, and when larger numbers helped ensure that survival. But that is no longer the case today. Humans are, indisputably, at the very top of the food chain, and enjoy a high level of security in regards to survival as a species. In fact, despite practices such as contraception and abortion, the human population is still increasing at a fairly rapid rate.

Survival of humans is not really an issue (well...unless one factors in a massive disaster such as a worldwide nuclear war, or collision with a large asteroid...but none of these threats have anything whatsoever to do with contraception, abortion, or evolution). But we want more than survival. We want humans to be able to fully enjoy the benefits of what evolution has given them -- their intelligence, their skills, etc.

I believe (as do most "evolutionists" that I know) that all humans should have an equal opportunity to improve their lives, and to reach their full potential. This means access to adequate food, health care, education, etc. These are principles that I hold very deeply, and that I believe are very important to the ongoing 'survival' and 'development' of humanity as a whole.

The RC church's policies work directly against that goal. In some of the most impoverished areas of the world, the RC church enforces policies which guarantee that ongoing overpopulation continues to be a problem. They already don't have enough resources. They have people who don't have enough food. They have people who don't have enough money to get an education. And then the RC church comes along and says, "Oh, no...don't you dare try to control your population! That's against God's will!"

You seem to suffer from the sad misunderstanding that "evolutionists" consider evolution to be a moral or ethical issue; that it is something that "must happen". But it is not a moral or ethical issue...no moreso than are weather patterns (which sometimes help us, and sometimes hurt us), or the seasons. Evolution is simply a natural process, one that goes on regardless of our attempts to control or direct it. Oh, sure, we may in very small, limited ways seek to 'guide' it (such as bioengineered foods); but in the big picture, evolution is every bit as unstoppable and uncontrolable as the weather, or the seasons.

And that is where our biggest difference with the RC church would be; because for them, it is a fundamentally moral issue, a question of "right" and "wrong". There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about evolution; it just is.

For us, the "morality" comes in when one starts discussing quality of life, freedom, and choice. And the RC church's policies damage quality of life, limit freedom, and deny choice.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I understood, it just wasn't funny.

And since when did you become an expert on humour?

yeah, pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history.The Theory of Evolution is descriptive. It is not prescriptive.

And many scientists and social legislators did believe this regarding evolution.And you apparently think you can recognize humour.

Yeah, a poor analog.
Given that we could reproduce in outer space, gravity is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for human reproduction. Yet, according to believers, evolution is a necessary condition for human reproduction.
There are other differences, but I won't bore you further.You really, actually believe this don't you? :boggled:3

PS I know ol' PJ has me on Ignore but he sure is an amusing guy to poke with a sharpened stick just the same.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey plumjam, do you believe in the theory of gravity?


Gravity is a lie propetuated by the scientific elite. The truth is that God sucks.

[plumjam]

Prove it.

Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.
The problem you're faced with is, within a purely evolutionary selfish-gene shaped biological environment, how beings can originate who willingly go against the strict 'laws' of survival and procreation which such an environment would not be able to diverge from in any sustainable way.
Such beings would include homosexuals, virgin suicides, the secular celibates, the religious celibates, those who choose to use contraception, those who choose vasectomy/sterilisation, people who just are not interested in sex (yes, there are some, many of them my ex's), those who willingly sacrifice their lives for others prior to reproduction etc...
Many of the above have beliefs which are 180 degrees against those of prescriptive evolutionism. Now, not only how did these particular people physically originate, but likewise how would parallel beliefs originate and be sustained for millenia?
Within strict evolutionism they could not. In strict evolutionism if such modes of belief somehow (mysteriously) arose they would be gradually be snuffed out by evolution.
Yet we know that such modes of life, with their attendant beliefs, have persisted in human history for as far back as we can go. And they're still here.
Strange, huh?
Well, that's about as much a proof as you're gonna get here.

[ponderingturtle]

All true newtonists are against safety harnesses, they prevent people from being subjected to gravities noble judgements.

[Wolfman]

Plumjam,

Again, addressing some of your basic ignorance in regards to evolution, let us take the issue of homosexuality. I've heard this argument before...essentially, that since homosexuality guarantees that no procreation takes place, it is an evolutionary dead end.

Now, let's look at the real world. Social bonding is a very important part of the interactions in various primate populations. This is done in a variety of ways; one of the best known is social grooming, where they will spend time picking lice out of each other's fur, or just stroking each others' fur. These interactions help to cement relationships and build bonds between individuals in these communities.

In some primates, this social grooming takes another form. Males and females of the species will engage in behavior that we'd consider "homosexual"...males playing with each other's genitalia, masturbating each other, and even providing oral stimulation. Just as with grooming, this behavior appears to help build relationships and establish a hierarchy.

In such a system, it isn't necessarily important that every individual is able to reproduce; what is important is the survival of the group as a whole. This behavior not only builds social bonds, it also provides an alternative form of sexual release for individuals who are lower in the pecking order, and may not otherwise have much opportunity for sex.

Considering the proven fact of homosexual activity among some primate species; and the fact that "evolutionists" believe that we are, in fact, evolved from primates; it is not at all an unrealistic or improbably theory that homosexual activity remains as a part of our genetic heritage. It may no longer serve the same purpose...and who knows, given a few hundred million years, it may disappear. But the idea that it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

[Pardalis]

Yet Catholic Priests (for example) are against abortion and against contraception (thus expanding the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act). Therefore your local Father Patrick is quite a laudable positive evolutionary force, and should be commended for his life's work. Not to mention them Popes.
So these religionists who the evolutionists keep arguing against, are, in a positive practical sense, enabling evolution to 'occur'... while the avowed evolutionists usually hold positions which are wholly against allowing any possibility of it.. (post World War II embarrassment of course has to be factored into this.. pre 1945 they were quite a bit more cavalier).
Quite contradictory. Go figure.

Maybe you guys should become Catholics ;)

It's not that we want evolution to occur, WE KNOW IT OCCURS, whether people procreate or not.

What a dumb OP.

[Pardalis]

Also, actually, birth control can ultimately save mankind. Our population has spun out of control, and in order to prevent famine and starvation, more people will have to stop making babies.

So making babies "no-matter-what" is ultimately counter-evolutionary. Every animal population self-regulates at some point. You can't sustain such a growth in population for too long, or the species will die and go extinct.

The third world has major problems with over-population, thanks to the Church, and their livelihood and quality of life ain't getting better because people are procreating more.

[Robert Oz]

Now, let's look at the real world. Social bonding is a very important part of the interactions in various primate populations. This is done in a variety of ways; one of the best known is social grooming, where they will spend time picking lice out of each other's fur, or just stroking each others' fur. These interactions help to cement relationships and build bonds between individuals in these communities.

In some primates, this social grooming takes another form. Males and females of the species will engage in behavior that we'd consider "homosexual"...males playing with each other's genitalia, masturbating each other, and even providing oral stimulation. Just as with grooming, this behavior appears to help build relationships and establish a hierarchy.


Good point, Wolfman. I recently watched a National Geographic documentary on chimpanzees that discussed homosexual behaviour in chimpanzees, and the documentary showed rampant homosexual sex being used as a relationship builder within the group being studied.


The problem you're faced with is, within a purely evolutionary selfish-gene shaped biological environment, how beings can originate who willingly go against the strict 'laws' of survival and procreation which such an environment would not be able to diverge from in any sustainable way.
Such beings would include homosexuals <snip>


Plumjam,

What is the alternative explanation for homosexual behaviour:

God created homosexuals who can't help but be attracted to the same sex, and then punishes them for being the way he made them? :eek:

[ponderingturtle]

Plumjam,

What is the alternative explanation for homosexual behaviour:

God created homosexuals who can't help but be attracted to the same sex, and then punishes them for being the way he made them? :eek:

Of course god love a good joke.

[Pardalis]

In such a system, it isn't necessarily important that every individual is able to reproduce; what is important is the survival of the group as a whole. This behavior not only builds social bonds, it also provides an alternative form of sexual release for individuals who are lower in the pecking order, and may not otherwise have much opportunity for sex.

Considering the proven fact of homosexual activity among some primate species; and the fact that "evolutionists" believe that we are, in fact, evolved from primates; it is not at all an unrealistic or improbably theory that homosexual activity remains as a part of our genetic heritage. It may no longer serve the same purpose...and who knows, given a few hundred million years, it may disappear. But the idea that it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

Maybe homosexuality and birth control have another beneficial role to play. As I said in my previous post, these behaviours could lead to a decrease in population, which is precisely what humanity needs right now. Wouldn't you think?

[Wolfman]

Maybe homosexuality and birth control have another beneficial role to play. As I said in my previous post, these behaviours could lead to a decrease in population, which is precisely what humanity needs right now. Wouldn't you think?
Perhaps...but evolution isn't a conscious force that works based on "what humanity needs". If we're basing our arguments just on what is good for humanity, I'd agree; but if its in reference to evolution, I wouldn't.

[Pardalis]

Perhaps...but evolution isn't a conscious force that works based on "what humanity needs". If we're basing our arguments just on what is good for humanity, I'd agree; but if its in reference to evolution, I wouldn't.

Of course I wasn't thinking of anything conscious, but if the species is jeopardized by over-population, there would be an evolutionary benefit in having less babies, and genes that would decrease the number of individuals would be naturally selected.

That's just a thought experiment, I'm not suggesting that this is true.

[Dunstan]

Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.

I would have settled for a coherent argument. You fell well short of that, too.

The problem you're faced with is, within a purely evolutionary selfish-gene shaped biological environment, how beings can originate who willingly go against the strict 'laws' of survival and procreation which such an environment would not be able to diverge from in any sustainable way.
Such beings would include homosexuals, virgin suicides, the secular celibates, the religious celibates, those who choose to use contraception, those who choose vasectomy/sterilisation,

Where does evolutionary theory claim that every individual of a species will always do the utmost to survive and procreate as many times as possible?

It doesn't. For example, evolutionary biologists are very familiar with the concept of a species (such as certain ants and bees) where only a small percentage of the population is even capable of procreation. If you had actually read The Selfish Gene you might have realized this.

people who just are not interested in sex (yes, there are some, many of them my ex's),

I'm not surprised.

those who willingly sacrifice their lives for others prior to reproduction etc...

Yes, because evolutionary theory has never studied kin selection or altruism....

Seriously, pj, do you really think that modern evolutionary theory is still this 19th century Social Darwinism strawman that you describe? Or are you just pretending to think that?

Many of the above have beliefs which are 180 degrees against those of prescriptive evolutionism. Now, not only how did these particular people physically originate, but likewise how would parallel beliefs originate and be sustained for millenia?
Within strict evolutionism they could not. In strict evolutionism if such modes of belief somehow (mysteriously) arose they would be gradually be snuffed out by evolution.
Yet we know that such modes of life, with their attendant beliefs, have persisted in human history for as far back as we can go. And they're still here.
Strange, huh?
Well, that's about as much a proof as you're gonna get here.

I suspect that what you're calling "strict evolutionism" is not believed by any actual biologist.

[Wowbagger]

I suspect abortions and contraceptives would merely adjust the fitness landscape. Not remove it.

[Pardalis]

It doesn't. For example, evolutionary biologists are very familiar with the concept of a species (such as certain ants and bees) where only a small percentage of the population is even capable of procreation.

Imagine that, a population mostly constituted of celibate priests...:covereyes

[Hokulele]

Perhaps...but evolution isn't a conscious force that works based on "what humanity needs". If we're basing our arguments just on what is good for humanity, I'd agree; but if its in reference to evolution, I wouldn't.


Didn't rabbits develop the capability of reabsorbing their embryos in times of overcrowding or lack of food.

Oh right, rabbits didn't evolve. Silly me.

[godless dave]

Hmm.. so you completely evaded the OP and its points regarding Catholicism and Evolutionism.

What points?

Evolutionists are not people who advocate for evolution to happen. Evolutionists are biologists who study evolution.

[Silentknight]

yeah, pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history.

Yes, yes, we've all seen your "Atheists are Stalin" act before. I'm assuming you're just joking again, but please show some consideration for the inevitable tomato shortage your comedy routine is bound to cause. One would think that the first shepherd's crook reaching around your waist from the offstage area would have been a big enough hint. After all, nobody could possibly have still missed the fact that (Godwin argument omitted) (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution) or that Stalinist Russia practiced Communism as a religion and embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology," (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Hitler.cfm) after it's been explained to him so many times.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, yes, we've all seen your "Atheists are Stalin" act before. I'm assuming you're just joking again, but please show some consideration for the inevitable tomato shortage your comedy routine is bound to cause. One would think that the first shepherd's crook reaching around your waist from the offstage area would have been a big enough hint. After all, nobody could possibly have still missed the fact that (Godwin argument omitted) (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution) or that Stalinist Russia practiced Communism as a religion and embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology," (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Hitler.cfm) after it's been explained to him so many times.

It's also been explained to him that the eugenics movement was an attempt to justify bigotry with pseudo-science. But Plumjam has chosen not to learn this fact, just as he has chosen not to learn many other facts that expose the errors of his prejudices.

[Pardalis]

What points?

Evolutionists are not people who advocate for evolution to happen. Evolutionists are biologists who study evolution.

Exactly, evolution happened, happens and will continue to happen whether we want to or not.

Plumjam seems to have this distorted sense that we're "rooting" for evolution. We're marveled at it, sure, but that's all. Evolution will go on with or without us.

[Silentknight]

Hey guess what? There's a popular children's anime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimon) that has been secretly promoting the evolutionist agenda! With its strong emphasis on emotions and belief being necessary to make evolution happen, its religious iconography, its apocalyptic themes, and its appeal to a young audience, it's obvious that Bandai and Toei Animation are trying to brainwash our children into the religion of evolutionism.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Imagine that, a population mostly constituted of celibate priests...:covereyes

You should check out the Shakers. Some sects did believe in strict celibacy. You may wonder why they don't appear to be around today. :D

[godless dave]

Which, as I already said, was a very popular outlook of evolutionists up to the end of World War II

Do not change a member's words to insult them

[UnrepentantSinner]

To the OP - You know plumjam, just because you adopt an avatar doesn't mean you need to emulate it all the time.

[UnrepentantSinner]

yeah, pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history.

"Evolutionism" is a boogy man that exists only in the minds of Creationists and deniers. And I find it hard to believe that after it's been explained to you so many times you're still confusing conflating artifical selection with natural selection. The Theory of Evolution only addresses natural selection.

[Mashuna]

C'mon PJ, it must take you more effort to continually misrepresent evolution in this way than it would to actually learn about it. Give it a try, you might enjoy it.

[temporalillusion]

it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.

Why does accepting the theory of evolution as explaining the fact of evolution equate to desiring more/less/faster/slower evolution?

[articulett]

Plus, evolution works by natural selection... nature's ways of controlling populations are much crueler than humans' ways. Starvation is a favorite means of population control by nature. Disease is a biggie too. If only the Catholic church were as enlightened about their family planning policies as they were about evolution...

[rocketdodger]

Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.
The problem you're faced with is, within a purely evolutionary selfish-gene shaped biological environment, how beings can originate who willingly go against the strict 'laws' of survival and procreation which such an environment would not be able to diverge from in any sustainable way.
Such beings would include homosexuals, virgin suicides, the secular celibates, the religious celibates, those who choose to use contraception, those who choose vasectomy/sterilisation, people who just are not interested in sex (yes, there are some, many of them my ex's), those who willingly sacrifice their lives for others prior to reproduction etc...
Many of the above have beliefs which are 180 degrees against those of prescriptive evolutionism. Now, not only how did these particular people physically originate, but likewise how would parallel beliefs originate and be sustained for millenia?
Within strict evolutionism they could not. In strict evolutionism if such modes of belief somehow (mysteriously) arose they would be gradually be snuffed out by evolution.
Yet we know that such modes of life, with their attendant beliefs, have persisted in human history for as far back as we can go. And they're still here.
Strange, huh?
Well, that's about as much a proof as you're gonna get here.

Proof that you literally do not know what you are talking about.

Or else you are knowingly vomiting arguments that have been invalid for decades.

So which is it, Plumjam?

[rocketdodger]

I suspect abortions and contraceptives would merely adjust the fitness landscape. Not remove it.

You shouldn't use terms Plumjam can't find in his sunday school biology coloring book.

[plumjam]

Plumjam,

I'll try to address your questions as politely as I can, although the appalling ignorance of the topic you are seeking to discuss doesn't give me much hope.
Keep hope Wolfie, it's a good Catholic virtue.

First, there's no reason whatsoever that evolution needs to be an ongoing process, with change constantly taking place. In fact, we have in existence today some species that have existed in essentially the same form, with little or no evolution at all, for billions of years.
Yeah, species existing from origination to the present day with no evolution. Go figure.

These species moved into a particular niche, and evolved to fill that niche successfully.
Any evidence?

And in the billions of years since that happened, there's been no need for them to change, because their adaptation was already sufficient to guarantee their survival.
So no evolution.

There are many other species that have gone extinct, because of their failure to adapt. And that, too, is a part of evolution.
Species going extinct is not evolution. It's just species going extinct.

So evolution can mean an ongoing process of survival through genetic change/mutation. Evolution can also mean surviving by staying exactly the same -- if you're already successful within the niche you occupy, there's no need to change. And evolution can also mean going extinct, because you failed to adapt sufficiently.
Again, going extinct is not evolution. There's no creation of novelty in extinction.

Taking your question of contraception and abortion, it is immediately rendered meaningless and pointless when faced with this perspective.
Because Darwinian evolution is a false theory.

Further to that, today's "evolutionists" tend to think not just in terms of "survival", but of quality of life. There was a time in our history when "survival" was a critical issue...when humans faced significant struggles just to survive, and when larger numbers helped ensure that survival. But that is no longer the case today. Humans are, indisputably, at the very top of the food chain, and enjoy a high level of security in regards to survival as a species. In fact, despite practices such as contraception and abortion, the human population is still increasing at a fairly rapid rate.

Survival of humans is not really an issue (well...unless one factors in a massive disaster such as a worldwide nuclear war, or collision with a large asteroid...but none of these threats have anything whatsoever to do with contraception, abortion, or evolution). But we want more than survival. We want humans to be able to fully enjoy the benefits of what evolution has given them -- their intelligence, their skills, etc.

I believe (as do most "evolutionists" that I know) that all humans should have an equal opportunity to improve their lives, and to reach their full potential. This means access to adequate food, health care, education, etc. These are principles that I hold very deeply, and that I believe are very important to the ongoing 'survival' and 'development' of humanity as a whole.
That all sounds very good. But how do you suppose such attitudes which go beyond mere survival and reproduction 'evolved'?
There is no self-consistent answer to the question.

The RC church's policies work directly against that goal. In some of the most impoverished areas of the world, the RC church enforces policies which guarantee that ongoing overpopulation continues to be a problem. They already don't have enough resources. They have people who don't have enough food. They have people who don't have enough money to get an education. And then the RC church comes along and says, "Oh, no...don't you dare try to control your population! That's against God's will!"
Yeah, which will leave us (from the evolutionist's pov) with the ridiculous consequence that through the generations good Catholics will gradually evolve to be superior to condom-toting secularists. Evolution theory is rife with such ridiculous consequences. To give UW his due, at least he's being faithful to the theory in exploring its full consequences. If Darwinian evolution were true we all should be rapists, the fact that we aren't does not fit.

You seem to suffer from the sad misunderstanding that "evolutionists" consider evolution to be a moral or ethical issue; that it is something that "must happen". But it is not a moral or ethical issue...no moreso than are weather patterns (which sometimes help us, and sometimes hurt us), or the seasons.
Again, the question you need to ponder is, if Darwinian evolution is true, how did moral or ethical attitudes evolve / originate / come into existence ..which go beyond the realm of mere survival and reproduction?
The eugenicists, at their worst, were the ones being most consistent to their belief in evolution, until the consequences became too ghoulish to the rest of the population who, like you and I, hold these mysteriously-originated beyond-evolution beliefs.


Evolution is simply a natural process, one that goes on regardless of our attempts to control or direct it. Oh, sure, we may in very small, limited ways seek to 'guide' it (such as bioengineered foods); but in the big picture, evolution is every bit as unstoppable and uncontrolable as the weather, or the seasons.
Of course 'evolution' can be controlled. You have the ability to choose where you put your old fella.. among other things.

And that is where our biggest difference with the RC church would be; because for them, it is a fundamentally moral issue, a question of "right" and "wrong". There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about evolution; it just is.
According to your beliefs evolution brought into existence everything that you value and that you abhor.. yet you divorce these value judgements from the process by which they originated. So, on what grounds, do you value or abhor anything at all?

For us, the "morality" comes in when one starts discussing quality of life, freedom, and choice. And the RC church's policies damage quality of life, limit freedom, and deny choice.
Yeah, and you need to examine, in your own mind, how you think these kind of 'beyond-evolution' values originated.

Anyway Wolfie, at least that was a reasonable reply from you. Most of the others have just lapsed into the usual abuse. They could learn from you.

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip same old crap} Of course 'evolution' can be controlled. You have the ability to choose where you put your old fella.. among other things.

Populations evolve. Individuals do not.

[plumjam]

Populations evolve. Individuals do not.

So individuals can choose where to put their old fellas.. and other things, but populations (folks, a population is a group of individuals) can not?
How does that work?
US it's also rather low of you to insert a 'snip same old crap' next to my quote. You're usually better than that.
If you think it's crap, please share with us your views on the possible origination of morality which goes beyond mere survival and reproduction.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

yeah, pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history.

*snip*

Congratulations, you lost this debate.

.....

On an internet debate, you lose by default if you resort to comparing the opposition with Hitler and/or Nazi Germany. (Works event if you do it implicitly, like you did).

Whatzat you say? ... Next!

Hans

[plumjam]

Congratulations, you lost this debate.

.....

On an internet debate, you lose by default if you resort to comparing the opposition with Hitler and/or Nazi Germany. (Works event if you do it implicitly, like you did).

Whatzat you say? ... Next!

Hans

Good. I'm glad that your best counter to my "pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history." is that it contravenes some internet law conceived presumably by some kid in his parents basement.

[Undesired Walrus]

Even if applied Darwinism had motivated Hitler and slaughtered that many people, how would that for a moment make the theory any less true?

[plumjam]

Even if applied Darwinism had motivated Hitler and slaughtered that many people, how would that for a moment make the theory any less true?

Well, it's an interesting question.
I'm of the persuasion that when false ontological theories (such as Darwinian evolution, and/or materialism in general) are transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality, they end up having disastrous consequences.

When other ontological theories which are not so wildly out of sync with reality (such as those of the World's great religions) are likewise transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality they avoid the enormous immoralities of things like negative eugenics, scientific racism, race wars, Communist genocide and repression of its own citizens etc..
Moral systems derived from a religious view of reality, in comparison, largely avoid such extremes (although of course they aren't perfect).

To put it simply, IMO, if the ontology is out of harmony with reality then so too will be the resulting morality. It is this disharmony which we so strongly perceive when we examine the consequences of moralities derived from theories such as Darwinism.

[Safe-Keeper]

Even if applied Darwinism had motivated Hitler and slaughtered that many people, how would that for a moment make the theory any less true? I loved the Newtonian anti-safety harness analogy earlier in the thread:D.

[Mashuna]

US it's also rather low of you to insert a 'snip same old crap' next to my quote. You're usually better than that.

Well, if the crap fits. . .

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well, there's the thing, plumjam. Don't go around deriving morals from scientific theories. Why would you do that?

And, as has been asked, what morality would you derive from Newtonian motion? General relativity?

Your whole argument is one big appeal to consequences built on a non-sequitur.

1. Eugenics is an inevitable consequence of subscribing to Darwinian evolution.
2. I don't like eugenics.
3. Therefore, TOE is false.

Disregarding that the whole argument is a fallacy in itself, the first step is a completely absurd leap - even you must be able to see that.

[plumjam]

Well, there's the thing, plumjam. Don't go around deriving morals from scientific theories. Why would you do that?

And, as has been asked, what morality would you derive from Newtonian motion? General relativity?

Your whole argument is one big appeal to consequences built on a non-sequitur.

1. Eugenics is an inevitable consequence of subscribing to Darwinian evolution.
2. I don't like eugenics.
3. Therefore, TOE is false.

Disregarding that the whole argument is a fallacy in itself, the first step is a completely absurd leap - even you must be able to see that.

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings... this due to the alternatives demonstrably leading to disastrous consequences?

BTW your characterisation of my position is a complete straw man.
And how can you fall for the gravity red herring? (pun intended) Descriptions of gravity have only a tiny and hugely tangential relationship to the issue of human origins and the consequent question of the nature of the human being. Evolution theory clearly does make some central claims about human origins and thus the nature of the human being. Moral positions will be largely derived from one's conception of what a human being actually is. Apply your intelligence, I really shouldn't have had to explain the above.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well, it's an interesting question.
I'm of the persuasion that when false ontological theories (such as Darwinian evolution, and/or materialism in general) are transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality, they end up having disastrous consequences.

I'm sorry, this doesn't wash. How does this for a moment make them less true? You are willing to declare that no matter the mountain of evidence supporting a theory, it can be false simply because it doesn't fit when applied as an ideology?

When other ontological theories which are not so wildly out of sync with reality (such as those of the World's great religions) are likewise transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality they avoid the enormous immoralities of things like negative eugenics, scientific racism, race wars, Communist genocide and repression of its own citizens etc..
Moral systems derived from a religious view of reality, in comparison, largely avoid such extremes (although of course they aren't perfect).


I'd be careful about 'repression of its own citizens' and 'racism'. It is well known that the most vile and wicked slaveholders in the States were those who were devout Christians.

[godless dave]

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings.

I don't adopt any such moral system.

[plumjam]

I don't adopt any such moral system.

In post 42 we got some insight into your own particular moral system.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Mashuna]

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings.


Your moral system treats people as though they can float around and go through walls?

[plumjam]

I'm sorry, this doesn't wash. How does this for a moment make them less true? You are willing to declare that no matter the mountain of evidence supporting a theory,
which 'mountain of evidence'? Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting variation within limits. That's it.


it can be false simply because it doesn't fit when applied as an ideology?
Not ideology. Moral system.
Presumably you believe in things like the equal treatment of individuals under the law. Yet it's clear that individuals vary in everything. So if we are just fleshy robots varying in everything, on what would you base this belief that people should be treated as though they were equal?
To save you the bother, the answer is that we are not our bodies/brains and their attendant abilities/disabilities.
You often argue, very commendably, against racism. The underlying reason why racism is wrong is because our real identity is not equal to our bodies/brains.
Mad materialists, like James Watson, are the ones most prone to racist forms of thinking precisely because they philosophically identify the human being solely as the body. Poor Watson is taking flak for actually holding more consistently to his underlying philosophy, whereas most other scientists are forced to live with a radical disjuncture between their ontology and their morality.
Can't be easy for them, poor darlings.

It seems like one way they 'deal' with this is to introduce wonky red herrings involving gravity and the like.

[ThatSoundAgain]

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings... this due to the alternatives demonstrably leading to disastrous consequences?

If you want me to answer this question, please explain what you mean by "spiritual". I have adopted no such system, excepting the possibility that you're defining things differently.


BTW your characterisation of my position is a complete straw man.

If that characterisation is wrong, as far as step one is concerned, why do you keep conflating eugenics with the theory of evolution? What exactly is the relation?

It's possible, as we all are pointing out, to accept the theory of evolution as a very good biological model without supporting eugenics. What's your problem with this?


And how can you fall for the gravity red herring? (pun intended) Descriptions of gravity have only a tiny and hugely tangential relationship to the issue of human origins and the consequent question of the nature of the human being. Evolution theory clearly does make some central claims about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.

I'm not "falling for it". It would have been one of my first questions had others not raised it:

If acceptance of a scientific theory must have bearing on ones morals, you should be able to tell me what Newtonian motion must imply, morally. (Nevermind that you haven't been able to coherently do this for TOE). If acceptance of a scientific theory doesn't necessarily have bearing on ones morals, then what are we discussing?

Moral positions will be largely derived from one's conception of what a human being actually is. Apply your intelligence, I really shouldn't have had to explain the above.

It's annoying and unfair to have my intelligence questioned just because I find it difficult to follow your arguments. Even more so when my sole transgression is not agreeing with you.

Here's a hint: A human being is a human being.

[Mashuna]

which 'mountain of evidence'? Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting variation within limits. That's it.

Your continued refusal to look at evolution in detail does not diminish the evidence for it.



Not ideology. Moral system.
Presumably you believe in things like the equal treatment of individuals under the law. Yet it's clear that individuals vary in everything. So if we are just fleshy robots varying in everything, on what would you base this belief that people should be treated as though they were equal?
To save you the bother, the answer is that we are not our bodies/brains and their attendant abilities/disabilities.
You often argue, very commendably, against racism. The underlying reason why racism is wrong is because our real identity is not equal to our bodies/brains.
Mad materialists, like James Watson, are the ones most prone to racist forms of thinking precisely because they philosophically identify the human being solely as the body. Poor Watson is taking flak for actually holding more consistently to his underlying philosophy, whereas most other scientists are forced to live with a radical disjuncture between their ontology and their morality.
Can't be easy for them, poor darlings.

It's amazing. You can even get the answer comically wrong when you've set the question up yourself. How do you manage to do this so consistently? It's a real gift.

[Undesired Walrus]

which 'mountain of evidence'? Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting variation within limits. That's it.

What limits do you find?

You often argue, very commendably, against racism. The underlying reason why racism is wrong is because our real identity is not equal to our bodies/brains.

The discovery on our evolutionary past has aided us to disqualify racism from having any true meaning, given that scientific discovery allows us to reveal that we all originated in Africa 250,000 years ago, and the Africans allowed the current Human race to exist at all by saving us from extinction.

Mad materialists, like James Watson, are the ones most prone to racist forms of thinking precisely because they philosophically identify the human being solely as the body.

And Watson was being incredibly racist about 'black employees'. However, I can't say there is much supporting evidence of racism being more present in the current scientific community than -say- the trainspotter community.

[plumjam]

If you want me to answer this question, please explain what you mean by "spiritual". I have adopted no such system, excepting the possibility that you're defining things differently.
An existence not limited to the body/brain, which survives bodily death.



If that characterisation is wrong, as far as step one is concerned, why do you keep conflating eugenics with the theory of evolution? What exactly is the relation?
It is a natural human tendency to want to avoid disharmony between one's ontology and ones morality (as well as other beliefs). The eugenics movement, scientific racism etc.. were quite mainstream among the most respected scientists from Darwin up to the first half of the 20th century. This was as a result of the natural desire of those scientists and thinkers to avoid disharmony between their ontology and morality. Since WWII it has become a disharmony that materialists have just had to live with (except for the occasional lapse in the form of people like James Watson who say the unsayable and are promptly told to shut up).
So to answer your point, it is not inevitable (for reasons of social censure post-holocaust) that evolutionists will move in the direction of eugenics, but the logic of their ontology would move them in that direction if it had not become a social taboo to do so.

It's possible, as we all are pointing out, to accept the theory of evolution as a very good biological model without supporting eugenics. What's your problem with this?
see above


I'm not "falling for it". It would have been one of my first questions had others not raised it:

If acceptance of a scientific theory must have bearing on ones morals, you should be able to tell me what Newtonian motion must imply, morally. (Nevermind that you haven't been able to coherently do this for TOE). If acceptance of a scientific theory doesn't necessarily have bearing on ones morals, then what are we discussing?
Like I already explained, gravity has an insignificant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore theories of gravity are morally neutral.

On the other hand one's attitude vis-a-vis the TOE has a highly significant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore the theory of evolution is anything but morally neutral. It is morally active.
Eugenicists and their ilk recognised this, and acted upon it, following their materialist evolutionist notions about the nature of the human being.

Can't you now see how the gravity thing is such an obvious red herring?


Here's a hint: A human being is a human being.
What system of morality would you derive from that?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Prove it.


A dangerous line of debate in dealing with "the jam".

He is probably not going to subscribe to your (or merriam-websters) *evolutionist* definitions.

I predict that semantics will enter the field of play!


Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.


Go collect your $1,000,000, Gate. You nailed it in one.

[plumjam]

Go collect your $1,000,000, Gate. You nailed it in one.

Hmm.. still pissed about the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun, I see :p

[Mashuna]

Hmm.. still pissed about the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun, I see :p

Ah yes, the acceptance of any 'evidence' for miraculous events, and the head in the sand approach to the evidence for evolution. You're a credit to your own blinkered belief system. It's especially ironic that your belief system involves criticising others for being closed-minded, but there you go.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmm.. still pissed about the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun, I see :p


What evidence would that be? That you ran away from that debate as you have from so many others?

[MRC_Hans]

Keep hope Wolfie, it's a good Catholic virtue.
I assume this is not too private a discussion and that anybody can join...


Yeah, species existing from origination to the present day with no evolution. Go figure.


Very little evolution. You know, this is one thing that puzzles me about creationists: First you will go on about how little chance there is for life forms to evolve because it needs so many useful mutations, and so few are.

Then when it is pointed out that most life forms on the planet never went very far, you say "go figure".

Evolution is a game of chance, with very few winning numbers.


Species going extinct is not evolution. It's just species going extinct.


I do think you know better than that, but allow me to spell it out for you: Evolution is the survival of the fittest. So what does the survival of the fittest imply?

..Right! the nonsurvival of the not fittest.

Again, going extinct is not evolution. There's no creation of novelty in extinction.

In fact there is. Going extinct usually means that something outperformed you. You know, the ones with the novelty.


Because Darwinian evolution is a false theory.


No.


That all sounds very good. But how do you suppose such attitudes which go beyond mere survival and reproduction 'evolved'?
There is no self-consistent answer to the question.


Nothing beyond mere survival and reproduction evolved. There IS nothing else. However, if you claim that you can't see how altruism, care for others, and loyalty can be a survival factor for a flock animal, you should think again.


Yeah, which will leave us (from the evolutionist's pov) with the ridiculous consequence that through the generations good Catholics will gradually evolve to be superior to condom-toting secularists.


So you think having a lot of kids instead of only those you are able to raise properly is an evolutionary advantage? Think again.


Evolution theory is rife with such ridiculous consequences.


No. Creationism is rife with ridiculous strawmen.

To give UW his due, at least he's being faithful to the theory in exploring its full consequences. If Darwinian evolution were true we all should be rapists, the fact that we aren't does not fit.

This is one of the more silly arguments of creationsm. What happens to rapists (or rather happened through most of the history of mankind)? Yeah, they got killed or beaten up. Not a nice evolutionary advantage.


Again, the question you need to ponder is, if Darwinian evolution is true, how did moral or ethical attitudes evolve / originate / come into existence ..which go beyond the realm of mere survival and reproduction?


Lessee, we have these two packs of early hominids. Group A consists of raping egiosts, group B has some structure where members help each other, share food when it is scarce, look after each other's kids while others hunt, etc...

Which group will do best out there in the bush? After a generation or two, which one will have survives dry seasons, various difficulties?


According to your beliefs evolution brought into existence everything that you value and that you abhor.. yet you divorce these value judgements from the process by which they originated?


No divorce at all.

Anyway Wolfie, at least that was a reasonable reply from you. Most of the others have just lapsed into the usual abuse. They could learn from you.

Let's see: "Wolfie", condescending language, ridicule, the works. So most people just reply to you in kind?

.... Well do cry me a river.

Hans

[Darth Rotor]

Plumjam,
First, there's no reason whatsoever that evolution needs to be an ongoing process, with change constantly taking place.
WTF? While rate of change isn't necessarily a simple linear function, and regression to the mean is common, change and potential change doesn't stop. I think your time scale might need a tweak here. That observed continuum of events underscores evolution as a scientific principle.

As to the rest, plumjam got a grin out of me by pointing out that the Catholic preference for breeding, going forth, being fruitful, and multiplying, certainly acts as an engine for the long term variability in selection to take place. Of course, if the Malthusian dilemma arrives first, then regression to plant food will also occur among large populations of potential improvements to the genetic baseline. :cool:

My favorite bumper sticker for the month: "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

Pithy.

DR

[MRC_Hans]

Good. I'm glad that your best counter to my "pure evolutionism.. applied to human beings via eugenics and beyond was demonstrably worse than any fanatical religious theory in all of history." is that it contravenes some internet law conceived presumably by some kid in his parents basement.Not a comment on your theories at all, son. Just a comment on your method of debate.

Your theories are really not worth comment, but since we're mainly here for two reasonts, and I hate bubblegum, I've tried anyway, above.

Hans

[Foster Zygote]

Let's see: "Wolfie", condescending language, ridicule, the works. So most people just reply to you in kind?

Plumjam has always enjoyed passive/aggressive condescension. When he's called on it he says "Oh come on, can't you take a joke?". But when others respond in kind his response is often to overreact and exercises his persecution complex. I get the impression that for him it's mostly about getting attention. This thread does nothing to counter that impression.

[plumjam]

What evidence would that be? That you ran away from that debate as you have from so many others?

What you self-servingly interpret as my running away from debate is rather my desire to spend part of my life not answering the (usually) large number of replies I get in these threads. If I went on answering everyone it would be never-ending.
Take this thread as an example. I have had (sometimes multiple) replies from over 20 different people. I've replied to some of the responses I found interesting in themselves, or capable of illustrating a point or a new angle in my reply. But to carry on like that for more than a few pages takes too much investment of time and effort, particularly as the replies tend to balloon.

For that reason almost all of the time I'm happy to let others have the last word, whereupon they typically interpret this as some kind of sign of 'victory'.. and possibly, as in your own case, as 'running away'. Which is pretty childish really.
Hope that clears the matter up.

[Darth Rotor]

Gravity is a lie propetuated by the scientific elite. The truth is that God sucks.
The punchline to that joke is "The truth is that the Earth sucks."

If you are going to tell a joke, try to get the punchline right. Makes for a better joke. :)

DR

[Mashuna]

For that reason almost all of the time I'm happy to let others have the last word, whereupon they typically interpret this as some kind of sign of 'victory'.. and possibly, as in your own case, as 'running away'. Which is pretty childish really.
Hope that clears the matter up.

It's not other people having the last word that means you're wrong. It's, well, the way that you're wrong all the time.

[Ichneumonwasp]

WTF? While rate of change isn't necessarily a simple linear function, and regression to the mean is common, change and potential doesn't stop. That observed continuum of events underscores evolution as a scientific theory, or principle, or whatever you want to call it today. As to the rest, plumjam got a grin out of me by pointing out that the Catholic preference for breeding, going forth, being fruitful, and multiplying, surely acts as an engine for the long term variability in selection to take place. Of course, if the Malthusian dilemma arrives first, then regression to plant food will also occur among large populations of potential improvements to the genetic baseline. :cool:

DR



I think the difference in opinion may be the result of analysis at different levels. There is the change we see as variability within species, and there is the change we see through natural selection in which species diverge more quickly in certain catastrophic situations.

You refer to the former and I think Wolfman referred to the latter.

The issue of what we call "evolution", as you know, comes up quite frequently and much of it concerns these differing levels of description. Variability alone is not evolution by means of natural selection, and natural selection alone is not all the story either. Evolution is probably most properly described as the change in allele frequency over time. While there may be small changes in allele frequency with increases in variability in a stable environment, that does not describe the "bigger" changes that we usually refer to when discussing evolution -- when unstable environments rear their head and one is group is "decided upon" so that only their alleles may further propagate.

[ponderingturtle]

It's also been explained to him that the eugenics movement was an attempt to justify bigotry with pseudo-science.

That and an attempt to breed humans like you do horses.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What you self-servingly interpret as my running away from debate is rather my desire to spend part of my life not answering the (usually) large number of replies I get in these threads. If I went on answering everyone it would be never-ending.
Take this thread as an example. I have had (sometimes multiple) replies from over 20 different people. I've replied to some of the responses I found interesting in themselves, or capable of illustrating a point or a new angle in my reply. But to carry on like that for more than a few pages takes too much investment of time and effort, particularly as the replies tend to balloon.

For that reason almost all of the time I'm happy to let others have the last word, whereupon they typically interpret this as some kind of sign of 'victory'.. and possibly, as in your own case, as 'running away'. Which is pretty childish really.
Hope that clears the matter up.


You were not receiving a large number of replies in that thread, so sorry please do not lie to me.

You are the one who brought up this issue, so telling me that my reply is self-serving is beyond bizarre. If you have an answer to the issues raised in that thread, then respond to it. Getting the last word in does not now, nor has it ever, constituted "winning an argument".

Whining that others are being mean when you snipe at people (and your OP is a snipe from the outset) is simply childish.

My reply to you had nothing to do with claiming any victory in that argument, but frustration over your frequent "hit and run" tactics. If you want to debate issues, then debate them and carry them to a conclusion instead of running away when it is no longer convenient. Conclusions may be reached when the issues are honestly approched. Alternatively, beg out of the debate if real life intervenes. Others have the courtesy to say so when that is the issue.

Your approach, I am sorry to tell you, shows that you have an utter lack of respect for others on this board. That you think you have the answers and that you can magnanimously allow the other in a conversation to "get in the last word" is the absolute height of condescending conceit.

[Darth Rotor]

I think the difference in opinion may be the result of analysis at different levels.
When evolution is looked at in isolation, or through too high a magnification of the microscope, it falls prey to that.
There is the change we see as variability within species, and there is the change we see through natural selection in which species diverge more quickly in certain catastrophic situations.
Didn't humans converge? (I am referring to the branch/bush model of human development, rather than the strict "tree" model, and find it more and more to my liking as I read it further. Been a few months since I saw an article on it.)

You refer to the former and I think Wolfman referred to the latter.
I say micro, you say macro, let's call the whole thing off. :D
The issue of what we call "evolution", as you know, comes up quite frequently and much of it concerns these differing levels of description.
Yep.
Variability alone is not evolution by means of natural selection, and natural selection alone is not all the story either. Evolution is probably most properly described as the change in allele frequency over time.
Yep. Look also at the evolving condition of Terra Firma as its own change over time model, and of course its influence on the fauna/flora usually under discussion. Which you allude to below.
While there may be small changes in allele frequency with increases in variability in a stable environment, that does not describe the "bigger" changes that we usually refer to when discussing evolution -- when unstable environments rear their head and one is group is "decided upon" so that only their alleles may further propagate.
A population can survive a certain percentage of outliers with no harm to the two or three sigmas worth of "critical mass" needed to press on. The problem comes when critical mass shrinks. (IIRC, the ne ne and some other small population species are a good example of that.)

My dear wasp: If you and I aren't careful here, we may stumble into the ICR, and their pet argument for devolution, should we delve too deeply into extinction as an outcome of natural selection. (Define natural, micro or macro, or both . . . but let's not derail that way. )

DR

[ponderingturtle]

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings... this due to the alternatives demonstrably leading to disastrous consequences?


You do not need any belief or recognition of spiritual beings to come up with many modern moral systems. The thing is that religion treats everyone as sociopaths, incapable of thinking of others and having any empathy. Once you can think about, how would I feel in that situation, morals come out with out any need for spiritual claims.

[ponderingturtle]

The punchline to that joke is "The truth is that the Earth sucks."

If you are going to tell a joke, try to get the punchline right. Makes for a better joke. :)

DR

True it should have been God Blows, as people want to associate god with being celestial objects like the sun.

[Darth Rotor]

True it should have been God Blows, as people want to associate god with being celestial objects like the sun.
"God Blows" doesn't work as a punch line for gravity holding us to the Earth and making things fall. If you want to make a God Blows or God Sucks joke, you might try linking the thought to Black Holes, or tornadoes, or hurricanes/typhoons. The Sun god isn't God in most common usage. The typical God (capitzlized rather than the generic "god") usage is the Abrahamic God/Christian God/Allah, and so on. Language thing. Jokes work most effectively within the limitations of the language chosen.

How do I make a joke about snow in Tahiti, circa 1710, for example, in the native language?

DR

[Ichneumonwasp]

My dear wasp: If you and I aren't careful here, we may stumble into the ICR, and their pet argument for devolution, should we delve too deeply into extinction as an outcome of natural selection. (Define natural, micro or macro, or both . . . but let's not derail that way. )

DR


Hey, if they bring the beer, I'm all for it.

[ThatSoundAgain]

An existence not limited to the body/brain, which survives bodily death.

Sounds like we are on the same page here, regarding the definition.

If you believe people somehow in part survive death, that would make death less final. If I were to look at people as more spiritual in this sense, it would move me towards the position that murder is OK, and not away from it.

It is a natural human tendency to want to avoid disharmony between one's ontology and ones morality (as well as other beliefs). The eugenics movement, scientific racism etc.. were quite mainstream among the most respected scientists from Darwin up to the first half of the 20th century. This was as a result of the natural desire of those scientists and thinkers to avoid disharmony between their ontology and morality. Since WWII it has become a disharmony that materialists have just had to live with (except for the occasional lapse in the form of people like James Watson who say the unsayable and are promptly told to shut up).
So to answer your point, it is not inevitable (for reasons of social censure post-holocaust) that evolutionists will move in the direction of eugenics, but the logic of their ontology would move them in that direction if it had not become a social taboo to do so.

So, if eugenics were not a demonstrably bad idea, many people would think it was a good idea.

Once again, you haven't shown this supposed logic. You're merely slandering all materialists with unsupported claims that their outlook implies support for eugenics. I could do the same with Christianity and slavery.

Like I already explained, gravity has an insignificant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore theories of gravity are morally neutral.

On the other hand one's attitude vis-a-vis the TOE has a highly significant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore the theory of evolution is anything but morally neutral. It is morally active.
Eugenicists and their ilk recognised this, and acted upon it, following their materialist evolutionist notions about the nature of the human being.

It's you who claim that TOE is morally active. Why would human origins be important to a system of morals? Is a person who was conceived in vitro to be treated differently from all others?

Can't you now see how the gravity thing is such an obvious red herring?

Not until you show this link between TOE and eugenics, and the relevance the origin of humans has to a system of morals.

Until then, your argument stands as as much of a non-sequitur as if I were to claim that everyone who subscribe to Newtonian motion really are closeted anarchists, since objects fall down in complex and seemingly unpredictable ways of their own choosing.

What system of morality would you derive from that?

From human beings being human beings? None, on its own. The point is that I don't need to determine irrelevant properties of the class "all human beings" (them being spiritual, being created, or having evolved) to use the class in constructing my ethics.

[ponderingturtle]

"God Blows" doesn't work as a punch line for gravity holding us to the Earth and making things fall. If you want to make a God Blows or God Sucks joke, you might try linking the thought to Black Holes, or tornadoes, or hurricanes/typhoons. The Sun god isn't God in most common usage. The typical God (capitzlized rather than the generic "god") usage is the Abrahamic God/Christian God/Allah, and so on. Language thing. Jokes work most effectively within the limitations of the language chosen.


And saying the earth sucks misses all the levels of only god can do X. Unless it is a Earth God and that fails for exactly the reasons you say above.

[rocketdodger]

How do you (or anyone who so believes) reconcile, in your own life, believing that the human being is ontologically not a spiritual being, yet having to adopt a moral system which treats human beings as though they were spiritual beings... this due to the alternatives demonstrably leading to disastrous consequences?

It isn't that hard if one redefines "spiritual" to make sense in the context of their worldview.

As in, when materialists speak of "spiritual" they don't mean exactly what you think of when you speak of "spiritual."

[rocketdodger]

What system of morality would you derive from that?

Oh, I dunno, probably something like... humanism?

[Mobyseven]

Well, it's an interesting question.
I'm of the persuasion that when false ontological theories (such as Darwinian evolution, and/or materialism in general) are transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality, they end up having disastrous consequences.

When other ontological theories which are not so wildly out of sync with reality (such as those of the World's great religions) are likewise transposed into self-consistent systems in the realm of morality they avoid the enormous immoralities of things like negative eugenics, scientific racism, race wars, Communist genocide and repression of its own citizens etc..
Moral systems derived from a religious view of reality, in comparison, largely avoid such extremes (although of course they aren't perfect).

To put it simply, IMO, if the ontology is out of harmony with reality then so too will be the resulting morality. It is this disharmony which we so strongly perceive when we examine the consequences of moralities derived from theories such as Darwinism.

Well then, I await the argument you're no doubt going to put forward in support of the bolded section, as well as an explanation for the Crusades and honour killings in Hinduism and Islam (to name just two examples).

[Pardalis]

You know Plum, as a Catholic you should listen to the old man:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

The Pope accepts evolution.

[Pardalis]

The discovery on our evolutionary past has aided us to disqualify racism from having any true meaning, given that scientific discovery allows us to reveal that we all originated in Africa 250,000 years ago, and the Africans allowed the current Human race to exist at all by saving us from extinction.

Extremely important point there.

Molecular biology, genetics and such fields of study are increasingly showing that "race" is meaningless.

Religion on the other hand thrives on polarization and divisions.

[Pardalis]

BTW, Plum, you haven't satisfactorily answered this question:

Even if applied Darwinism had motivated Hitler and slaughtered that many people, how would that for a moment make the theory any less true?

[uruk]

~snip~ it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.~snip~Wow. That statement is so stupid it sucks the IQ points out of your head just reading it. (And I ain't got too many to spare)

This statement alone shows that you have no idea what evolution is about.

Please! for god's sake read a book on evolution (and please let it be from a litgitamate author like Gould or Dawkins and not some religeous propaganda) so that you will know what it is about.

Some of us have actually read the bible so why can't you show the same courtesy

[The Atheist]

Quite contradictory. Go figure.

Maybe you guys should become Catholics ;)

I like it. Good work!

Catholics aren't so bad. They drink, own racehorses, gamble and every single one of 'em I've ever known #### like rabbits.

Compared to some sects, I'd be a Holy Roman.

Or a Satanist.

Pretty much the same thing, really.

[uruk]

Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.
The problem you're faced with is, within a purely evolutionary selfish-gene shaped biological environment, how beings can originate who willingly go against the strict 'laws' of survival and procreation which such an environment would not be able to diverge from in any sustainable way. There is no problem. Higher brain functionsevolved in certain species which gave the organizim the ability to override it's instinct under certain circumstances. This poses no problem evolutionarily speaking because the species would still procreate under "normal" circumstances.

Evolutionary forces are not so much about the individual but the species as a whole. Self-sacrificing of the individual for the benefit of the whole has it's "evolutionary advantages" if you want to look at it that way.

Such beings would include homosexuals, virgin suicides, the secular celibates, the religious celibates, those who choose to use contraception, those who choose vasectomy/sterilisation, people who just are not interested in sex (yes, there are some, many of them my ex's), those who willingly sacrifice their lives for others prior to reproduction etc... These are the choices and behaviours of organisisms with higher brain functions. Here the behaiviour is not being driven by insticnt but rather concious choice. This is still "evolutionary acceptable" as long as the the rest of the species still procreate. And it is a mistake to think that homosexuals do not procreate. They just use surrogates or invetro fertilization or other similar methods.

Many of the above have beliefs which are 180 degrees against those of prescriptive evolutionism. Now, not only how did these particular people physically originate, but likewise how would parallel beliefs originate and be sustained for millenia? Again, as long as the rest of the species procreates there is no problem.

Human behaivour is a complicated and crazy thing. Why do we behaive the way we do? Your guess is as good as mine. This could be a good argument that intelligence is an evolutionary mistake. :)

Within strict evolutionism they could not. In strict evolutionism if such modes of belief somehow (mysteriously) arose they would be gradually be snuffed out by evolution.
Yet we know that such modes of life, with their attendant beliefs, have persisted in human history for as far back as we can go. And they're still here.
Strange, huh?
Well, that's about as much a proof as you're gonna get here. Again human behaivour is very complicated and not well understood yet. But the fact that we dominate and overpopulate our ecosystem and are very adaptable kinda makes your argument meaningless.

Obviously our species does extremely well dispite the the seemingly "anti-evolutionary" behaiviour. Strange Huh?

[Foster Zygote]

BTW, Plum, you haven't satisfactorily answered this question:

Even if applied Darwinism had motivated Hitler and slaughtered that many people, how would that for a moment make the theory any less true?
I'll take a stab at it.

It wouldn't make it any less true than the use of the science of chemistry to make poison gas artillery shells invalidates the science of chemistry.

One nitpick: Science doesn't slaughter people. People slaughter people. The same science that can be used by hateful people to make chemical weapons can be used by better people to purify the drinking water in a third world village.

Of course, it has been pointed out that such socio-political movements as eugenics and Nazism were based on precious little real evolutionary science. Much of Nazi "racial science" was based on thinly disguised phrenology, whereas Darwin's works were on the list of books banned by the Nazis. And in the end, it is evolutionary science that has exposed such racial concepts as those used by the eugenicists and the Nazis as groundless.

[Darth Rotor]

And saying the earth sucks misses all the levels of only god can do X.
Your future career choices ought not include comedian. You are the one who introduced God into this discussion, by screwing up a very good joke by trying to shoehorn a God joke into it.

Humor isn't as easy as it looks, eh? :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You know Plum, as a Catholic you should listen to the old man:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

The Pope accepts evolution.
Evolutionists, The Catholic Church is your friend.
So Plumjam is right, even if the reasons he is right aren't quite as pithy as your support of his thread. :D

Molecular biology, genetics and such fields of study are increasingly showing that "race" is meaningless.
At the molecular level, sure, but since humans don't operate at the molecular level, but at the significantly aggregated level, humans assign their own meanings, virtues and vices: which makes your above statement meaningless at the approprite level.

DR

[Pardalis]

So Plumjam is right, even if the reasons he is right aren't quite as pithy as your support of his thread. :D

But Plum doesn't even agree with his own leader, the guy who allegedly has direct communication with YKW. ;)


At the molecular level, sure, but since humans don't operate at the molecular level, but at the significantly aggregated level, humans assign their own meanings, virtues and vices: which makes your above statement meaningless at the approprite level.

DR

But now that we are aware of our biology, doesn't that change everything? We don't just follow our instincts anymore, our consciousness and our knowledge have grown so much that we can change our behavior according to what we know to be true.

[Foster Zygote]

But Plum doesn't even agree with his own leader, the guy who allegedly has direct communication with YKW. ;)

Plumjam isn't actually a Catholic.

[plumjam]

You were not receiving a large number of replies in that thread, so sorry please do not lie to me.

You are the one who brought up this issue, so telling me that my reply is self-serving is beyond bizarre. If you have an answer to the issues raised in that thread, then respond to it. Getting the last word in does not now, nor has it ever, constituted "winning an argument".

Whining that others are being mean when you snipe at people (and your OP is a snipe from the outset) is simply childish.

My reply to you had nothing to do with claiming any victory in that argument, but frustration over your frequent "hit and run" tactics. If you want to debate issues, then debate them and carry them to a conclusion instead of running away when it is no longer convenient. Conclusions may be reached when the issues are honestly approched. Alternatively, beg out of the debate if real life intervenes. Others have the courtesy to say so when that is the issue.

Your approach, I am sorry to tell you, shows that you have an utter lack of respect for others on this board. That you think you have the answers and that you can magnanimously allow the other in a conversation to "get in the last word" is the absolute height of condescending conceit.

Have you ever considered a career as a schoolmistress? :D

And hang on, your original 'contribution' to this thread was this


Originally Posted by Dunstan
Prove it.

Originally Posted by Gate2501 View Post
A dangerous line of debate in dealing with "the jam".

He is probably not going to subscribe to your (or merriam-websters) *evolutionist* definitions.

I predict that semantics will enter the field of play!

Originally Posted by Plumjam
Proof is a concept belonging to mathematics, so you'll be sorely disappointed.

Ichneumonwasp
Go collect your $1,000,000, Gate. You nailed it in one

So your sudden switch to now trying to take the moral high ground transparently fails. Others (the usual minority) were addressing the topic in a reasonable manner. You chose to join the back-of-the-class sniggerers, which is something all good schoolmistresses should be united in working against.
Next time try aiming the pistol away from your foot.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Have you ever considered a career as a schoolmistress? :D

And hang on, your original 'contribution' to this thread was this



So your sudden switch to now trying to take the moral high ground transparently fails. Others (the usual minority) were addressing the topic in a reasonable manner. You chose to join the back-of-the-class sniggerers, which is something all good schoolmistresses should be united in working against.
Next time try aiming the pistol away from your foot.



Nice try.

Had I claimed moral high ground in all situations -- a ridiculous position for anyone to assume -- you might, in some conceivable sense, have a point.

But since I have never assumed such a position in this thread or in the other, I fail to see your point.

Your approach is condescending and you assume that you have the answers yet allow others to have the last word in your generosity as you imply.

Just admit the truth.

And I stand by my first post in this thread. I pointed out a problem in your approach -- you went straight for the semantic line when others knew it was coming. If you don't like it, live with it. You are the one who fell into the trap and made the mistake.

[plumjam]

@ Pardalis, I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm a Catholic.. is it that my tone is a bit too confessional ?
(Just to put the record straight I'm an adherent of the teachings of Meher Baba, and yeah, like the New Improved Papacy he concurred with the existence of evolution. Yet not evolution with a Darwinian driving-mechanism. Rather an intelligently guided process in which life forms are originated and adapted specifically as useful vehicles for the development of souls to full self-consciousness, which is the first stage in what he described as the Journey of Consciousness (evolution-reincarnation-involution.)
Other spiritual teachers are available.)

[plumjam]

Nice try.

Had I claimed moral high ground in all situations -- a ridiculous position for anyone to assume -- you might, in some conceivable sense, have a point.

But since I have never assumed such a position in this thread or in the other, I fail to see your point.
Well, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that you opened with a juvenile snigger, and then when I replied to you at the level you yourself instigated you went all moral high-ground and started whining about me whining. You need to be a bit more consistent.

Your approach is condescending
It just gets funnier. The above is, of course, itself, condescending. Second foot shot.

and you assume that you have the answers
No. What you're doing here is assuming that I assume that I have the answers. You use assumption to accuse me of assumption. Which foot do you want to take the third bullet? :p

yet allow others to have the last word in your generosity as you imply.
No. Nowhere did I hint that it was generosity. I explained that it was for practical time/effort reasons. Another faulty assumption of yours.

And I stand by my first post in this thread. I pointed out a problem in your approach -- you went straight for the semantic line when others knew it was coming. If you don't like it, live with it. You are the one who fell into the trap and made the mistake.
What you failed to do was include in your quote the rest of my quite lengthy reply to Dunstan. The line you quoted was simply the opening sentence. The quite lengthy reply used reasonable argument, which in no way hinged on the definition of 'proof', to explain my position, so it was clearly not, as you accused, some kind of hiding behind semantics. Therefore you misrepresented my reply by snipping it out of context. More naughtiness from the Wasp.

[D'rok]

@ Pardalis, I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm a Catholic.. is it that my tone is a bit too confessional ?
(Just to put the record straight I'm an adherent of the teachings of Meher Baba, and yeah, like the New Improved Papacy he concurred with the existence of evolution. Yet not evolution with a Darwinian driving-mechanism. Rather an intelligently guided process in which life forms are originated and adapted specifically as useful vehicles for the development of souls to full self-consciousness, which is the first stage in what he described as the Journey of Consciousness (evolution-reincarnation-involution.)
Other spiritual teachers are available.)

Holy "Heglian dialectic leading to the self-conscious realization of Absolute Geist" Batman! The above, and the shallow bit of googling I just did on Meher Baba, is remarkably similar to Hegel's notions of Geist (Spirit) and the historical-dialectical (thesis-antithesis-syntehsis) stages of self-consciousness leading to full Absolute self-consiousness aware of its own becoming - i.e. God. Is there any concrete connection that you know of, or is it coincedence?

If it's coincidence, it is an interesting testament to how two thinkers from radically different cultures and times could devise such similar systems.

[godless dave]

which 'mountain of evidence'? Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting variation within limits. That's it.


Another false statement.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, if you're honest with yourself you'll see that you opened with a juvenile snigger, and then when I replied to you at the level you yourself instigated you went all moral high-ground and started whining about me whining. You need to be a bit more consistent.


It just gets funnier. The above is, of course, itself, condescending. Second foot shot.


No. What you're doing here is assuming that I assume that I have the answers. You use assumption to accuse me of assumption. Which foot do you want to take the third bullet? :p


No. Nowhere did I hint that it was generosity. I explained that it was for practical time/effort reasons. Another faulty assumption of yours.


What you failed to do was include in your quote the rest of my quite lengthy reply to Dunstan. The line you quoted was simply the opening sentence. The quite lengthy reply used reasonable argument, which in no way hinged on the definition of 'proof', to explain my position, so it was clearly not, as you accused, some kind of hiding behind semantics. Therefore you misrepresented my reply by snipping it out of context. More naughtiness from the Wasp.



Well, you can decide if you want to continue the drama queen passive aggressive act or we can examine each of these statements in detail by quoting your exact words in context.

Which would you prefer?

[Silentknight]

Plumjam, it doesn't strengthen your argument when you keep repeating the same debunked claims that Darwinian evolution motivated Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. I addressed them already. You already lost that argument in this and previous discussions where you attempted the same thing. If it's just a lame attempt at a joke on your part, it's not funny and it never was.

If you're trying to argue about the validity of beliefs based on moral consequences, then you're making a self-defeating argument. The topic of religiously motivated atrocities aside, of which I could easily name dozens if I were trying to commit the same fallacy as you, the belief that humans can survive death actually trivializes life as we know it. If killing someone merely sent them to the afterlife, or put them into "suspended animation" as one troll has put it, then murder would no longer be the irrevocible destruction of a finite human life. Murder would be no different from putting someone on a bus and sending them on a long road trip.

If however this life is all that there is, then life becomes more precious. Some religionists love to argue that atheists are ungrateful to God, yet these religionists are the ones who believe they're entitled to an eternity in paradise on top of their normal lifespan. Those who don't believe in any afterlife are already grateful for the finite life they've been granted.

Yeah, species existing from origination to the present day with no evolution. Go figure.
Wolfman was actually wrong about this. Species that have the same physical characteristics today as their ancestors did millions of years ago are still not identical to their ancestors due to the fact that their immune systems would have changed dramatically over time to keep up with the rapidly changing pathogens in the environment. A modern day horseshoe crab has a very different immune system than the ones living in the Paleozoic Era. A modern day coelacanth has a very different immune system than the ones living the Devonian. Even in humans, the immune system is one of our fastest changing characteristics.

Species going extinct is not evolution. It's just species going extinct.

Again, going extinct is not evolution. There's no creation of novelty in extinction.
Wrong. The removal of failed adaptations via extinction is an important part of the evolutionary process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Extinction). You're attempting to use a personal definition of the term, when you really ought to be looking it up. Extinction allows other species that had previously been in competition to thrive in the newly created niches. One example off the top of my would be the role the extinction of the dinosaurs played in mamallian evolution.

Yeah, which will leave us (from the evolutionist's pov) with the ridiculous consequence that through the generations good Catholics will gradually evolve to be superior to condom-toting secularists. Evolution theory is rife with such ridiculous consequences. To give UW his due, at least he's being faithful to the theory in exploring its full consequences. If Darwinian evolution were true we all should be rapists, the fact that we aren't does not fit.
Wrong, and this was addressed in the other thread as well. In our species, rape causes physical and mental harm to the female, which negatively impacts her child-rearing abilities. In case you haven't noticed, humans are a social species that must take care of its young for many years before they are mature enough to fend for themselves. We're not like reptiles or insects who can hit the ground running. Any tribe that advocated rape would be outcompeted by a tribe that prohibited it, over the course of several generations through seasons and hardships.

The eugenicists, at their worst, were the ones being most consistent to their belief in evolution, until the consequences became too ghoulish to the rest of the population who, like you and I, hold these mysteriously-originated beyond-evolution beliefs.
Rather than pointing out the ad nauseum fallacy here, let's try a different approach. Suppose evolution is worthless and false. Do you have an alternative theory to propose? If so, you're going to have to come up with a little thing known as evidence in order to support your personal theory.


By the way, as far as your "evolution = eugenics" comedy routine goes, now's not really the best time to start a tomato shortage, what with food prices being what they are.

[Pardalis]

@ Pardalis, I'm not sure where you got the notion that I'm a Catholic.. is it that my tone is a bit too confessional ?
(Just to put the record straight I'm an adherent of the teachings of Meher Baba, and yeah, like the New Improved Papacy he concurred with the existence of evolution.

So what's all the fuss about?

Yet not evolution with a Darwinian driving-mechanism. Rather an intelligently guided process in which life forms are originated and adapted specifically as useful vehicles for the development of souls to full self-consciousness, which is the first stage in what he described as the Journey of Consciousness (evolution-reincarnation-involution.)Other spiritual teachers are available.)

So when is your lifetime of silence going to start? (just kidding) ;)

BTW I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.

[plumjam]

Holy "Heglian dialectic leading to the self-conscious realization of Absolute Geist" Batman! The above, and the shallow bit of googling I just did on Meher Baba, is remarkably similar to Hegel's notions of Geist (Spirit) and the historical-dialectical (thesis-antithesis-syntehsis) stages of self-consciousness leading to full Absolute self-consiousness aware of its own becoming - i.e. God. Is there any concrete connection that you know of, or is it coincedence?

If it's coincidence, it is an interesting testament to how two thinkers from radically different cultures and times could devise such similar systems.

That's an interesting connection there D'rok. I've been doing my own shallow googling on Hegel, and yes, there seem to be some striking commonalities.
Consider these two quotes from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in contradiction and negation. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of reality—consciousness, history, philosophy, art, nature, society—leads to further development until a rational unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up (Aufhebung) to a higher unity. This whole is mental because it is mind that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, logical, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious whole is not a thing or being that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.

Central to Hegel's conception of knowledge and mind (and therefore also of reality) was the notion of identity in difference, that is that mind externalizes itself in various forms and objects that stand outside of it or opposed to it, and that, through recognizing itself in them, is "with itself" in these external manifestations, so that they are at one and the same time mind and other-than-mind. This notion of identity in difference, which is intimately bound up with his conception of contradiction and negativity, is a principal feature differentiating Hegel's thought from that of other philosophers.

The themes represented in these two quotes are very reminiscent of Meher Baba's teachings.

I wouldn't describe MB (as you did) as a thinker. By that I mean that he didn't arrive at his position via reasoning, but rather by a spiritual awakening involving loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover', at which point the teachings he gave originated not from philosophical pondering, but via direct revealed knowledge.
I had always assumed Hegel would come under the category of thinker. But apparently his approach was to examine his consciousness in what is described as 'pure seeing' i.e. a process of the examination of both consciousness and its contents. This is very reminiscent of some forms of eastern meditation, particularly within Buddhism.

That Hegel managed to reach some broadly similar conclusions as the revealed knowledge of MB means he was one extraordinarily perceptive chap.

To answer your question, no, I'm not aware of MB making any reference to Hegel, but I could be wrong. In general he did not refer to philosophers much, particularly of the western variety.
If you are interested in exploring the commonalities further here are some links for you.
http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/online.php
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/
http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp

Thanks again, you have sparked in me an interest in Hegel which I'll be looking into.

[Silentknight]

I wouldn't describe MB (as you did) as a thinker. By that I mean that he didn't arrive at his position via reasoning, but rather by a spiritual awakening involving loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover', at which point the teachings he gave originated not from philosophical pondering, but via direct revealed knowledge.

I don't see how it helps his credibility at all if you admit that he arrived at his position by deliberately or negligently harming his body in order to force his mind to shut down. If he wasn't thinking or conscious at the time then he would have been subject to his traumatized brain playing tricks on him. All it means is that he was more inclined to believe his hallucinations, visions, or dreams as literal truth because he was in a vulnerable state.

The fact that you'd argue that brain damage leads to enlightenment is very telling. (Just kidding.)

[godless dave]

In post 42 we got some insight into your own particular moral system.

You mean where I called you out on making a false statement? Can I conclude that in your moral system, lying is acceptable, but directing attention to someone else's lie is not?

[plumjam]

I don't see how it helps his credibility at all if you admit that he arrived at his position by deliberately or negligently harming his body in order to force his mind to shut down.
I didn't, nor did he.

If he wasn't thinking or conscious at the time then he would have been subject to his traumatized brain playing tricks on him. All it means is that he was more inclined to believe his hallucinations, visions, or dreams as literal truth because he was in a vulnerable state.
Makes no sense. How could a non-conscious anything experience hallucinations etc?

[Silentknight]

Then please describe in greater detail the nature of his "loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover'." If he was just meditating (sitting in his room, touching himself, etc.) then it's nothing special. If he experienced this after suffering some real trauma, then the questions I raised before would apply. How could a non-conscious individual receive any kind of direct revealed knowledge?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Ignoring the fact that evolution has nothing to do with morality....

.
To put it simply, IMO, if the ontology is out of harmony with reality then so too will be the resulting morality. It is this disharmony which we so strongly perceive when we examine the consequences of moralities derived from theories such as Darwinism.

You mean like Christian ontology?

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of heretics and "witches," the wars between various sects, antisemitism, attempts to censor science, slavery, the genocide of native peoples, racism, the subjection of women, bigotry toward of homosexuals and general sexual repression, etc...

To put it simply, IMO, if the ontology is out of harmony with reality... such as believing in an invisible tyrant that lives in the sky who will have me tortured for eternity if I don't kiss his apocryphal ass... then so too will be the resulting morality. It is this disharmony which we so strongly perceive when we examine the consequences of moralities derived from religions such as Christianity.

[articulett]

what Mark said!

[SimonD]

I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth repeating.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba

“…Starting in 1949, along with selected mandali, he traveled incognito about India in what he called "The New Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_(Meher_Baba))." On February 10, 1954, Meher Baba declared that he was the Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar) (an incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation) of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God))
After suffering as a passenger in two automobile accidents, one in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) in 1952 and one in India in 1956, his capacity to walk became seriously limited…”

I don’t understand why anyone would listen to a guy who reckons he is a god and then has two accidents which prevent him from walking.

What a crap god.

[godless dave]

Maybe he's like Yahweh in that he's vulnerable to iron chariots.

[D'rok]

That's an interesting connection there D'rok. I've been doing my own shallow googling on Hegel, and yes, there seem to be some striking commonalities.
Consider these two quotes from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel




The themes represented in these two quotes are very reminiscent of Meher Baba's teachings.

I wouldn't describe MB (as you did) as a thinker. By that I mean that he didn't arrive at his position via reasoning, but rather by a spiritual awakening involving loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover', at which point the teachings he gave originated not from philosophical pondering, but via direct revealed knowledge.
I had always assumed Hegel would come under the category of thinker. But apparently his approach was to examine his consciousness in what is described as 'pure seeing' i.e. a process of the examination of both consciousness and its contents. This is very reminiscent of some forms of eastern meditation, particularly within Buddhism.

That Hegel managed to reach some broadly similar conclusions as the revealed knowledge of MB means he was one extraordinarily perceptive chap.

To answer your question, no, I'm not aware of MB making any reference to Hegel, but I could be wrong. In general he did not refer to philosophers much, particularly of the western variety.
If you are interested in exploring the commonalities further here are some links for you.
http://www.ambppct.org/meherbaba/online.php
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/
http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp

Thanks again, you have sparked in me an interest in Hegel which I'll be looking into.

The similarities are striking. It's fascinating that they ended up at roughly the same place from ostensibly completely different starting points.

The difference may lie in Hegel's historicism. For Hegel, all of the overcoming of the subject/object distinction and the "negative" (as in negating) action that eventually leads to the self-concsiousness of Absolute Spirit (freedom/god) plays itself out simultaneously internally - as a self-conscious becoming - and externally - as the events of World History. In other words, it is the history of the geo-political nation-state and its geo-politics that is the objective manifestation of the internal dialectic of self-conscious Geist.

The only really accessible Hegel I know of is a transcription of his lectures on the philosophy of history:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-History-Wilhelm-Friedrich/dp/0872200566

His omnibus work is The Phenomenology of Spirit, which is extraordinarily difficult to read, but worth it:
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-Galaxy-Books-Hegel/dp/0198245971/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226547573&sr=1-1

Related is The Philosophy of Right. He also has written on Logic, but I've never read that work.

This is his one of his key interpreters:
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-Galaxy-Books-Hegel/dp/0198245971/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226547573&sr=1-1

I imagine most of his stuff is public domain, but YMMV with the translations.

[schlitt]

PJ, I am quite surprised to learn you are a creationist. I knew you were a theist, but I thought you were a sophisticated theist.

Your assertion that evidence shows only variation within limits is completely invalid and serves to expose your ignorance on the subject. Evolution was already well evidence by palaeontology, geography, comparative anatomy, embryology, etc, but recently the advances in genetics have confirmed the theory from another independent avenue of evidence which is incredibly powerful and completely irrefutable.

Things such as:

-The head to head fusion of ape chromosome 12 and 13 (2a and 2b now) to form a single chromosome in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. Complete with inactive telomeres in the middle evidencing the fusion beyond possible refutation.

-The existence of retroviral insertions which insert at random, in identical places in the genome of humans and chimpanzees. Then lesser to extent in Gorillas and so on. Showing common ancestry and independently verifying every other form of evidence about relatedness, which had already picked chimpanzees to share the closest common ancestor to humans.

-The fossilization of genes which render them unusable, but they are still recognizable as relics of past forms. Such as the GULO gene which metabolises vitamin C, which is mutated beyond use in humans but is still left in our genome and is active in many other mammals.

-The existence of the genes for tails in the human genome. Occasionally mutations occur in the control portion which governs gene expression, and you get a human born with a fully functioning tail. Multiple tail bones, controlling muscles, the works.

-Evolution is at the forefront of modern medical discovery and the relationship of all species allows for comparison between mutated genes for reconstruction, which has brought about many exciting new discoveries. Check out “sleeping beauty” if you want a good example of this.

As for the Catholic Church; the last few popes have accepted evolution, and there are many Catholics who also accept evolution.

Do yourself a favour and read the following books:

The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution. – Sean B Carroll

Your inner fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body – Neil Shubin.

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA – Daniel J Fairbanks.

Evolution: What the fossils say, and why it matters - by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell

Read them, educate yourself on the subject, and then see what you think about it. Asserting your opinions as fact about a subject you are ignorant of is foolish.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Asserting your opinions as fact about a subject you are ignorant of is foolish.

That's never stopped Plumjam before.

[schlitt]

That's never stopped Plumjam before.

Unfortunately it usually fails to stop anyone.

[Pardalis]

I don’t understand why anyone would listen to a guy who reckons he is a god and then has two accidents which prevent him from walking.

What a crap god.

Sounds like Mercerism.

[Tumblehome]

(deleted accidental half post)

[Tumblehome]

(I know I'm late for the plumjamfest, but I have to get my two cents in on the OP.)

...it occurred to me that most evolutionists seem to be in favour of abortion, and in favour of contraception.. but these two forces would 'work against' evolution as they see it, in that they restrict the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act.. thus restricting its power.

Yet Catholic Priests (for example) are against abortion and against contraception (thus expanding the developed possibilities upon which evolution can act).


You're forgetting (or maybe you just don't know ;)) that sex has a social function, too, and isn't just for reproduction. You might even be surprised to learn that the former takes precedence over the latter a lot more often than not. And in a social species like ours, social success has a significant bearing on sexual selection for reproductive purposes.

Another thing, dammit...Your argument would carry a lot more weight with wombats*. I could--in theory only, mind you--use a condom 364 nights of the year, and on the 365th, go bareback and still continue my kind.

And your point about Catholics is just the opposite of how it works. Forbidding birth control results in more Catholics, and that only weakens the human race. :duck:

(If you'd like a more receptive audience for your arguments, the Catholics gather every Sunday at your local cathedral, and the Wombats Debating Society meets every second Tuesday behind the big oak stump.)


* Or any animal that mates only once a year.

[Mashuna]

I wouldn't describe Meher Baba (as you did) as a thinker.

Must. . .resist. . .temptation. . .

Phew. It would be too cheap, even for me.

[Morrigan]

Plumjam, please get this through your thick skull:


Evolutionists are not people who advocate for evolution to happen. Evolutionists are biologists who study evolution.


This above is more than enough to completely refute your OP.

[Safe-Keeper]

Like I already explained, gravity has an insignificant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore theories of gravity are morally neutral.

On the other hand one's attitude vis-a-vis the TOE has a highly significant bearing on one's beliefs about human origins and thus the nature of the human being.
Therefore the theory of evolution is anything but morally neutral. It is morally active.:slaps forehead: Serious freaking sarcasm alert :boxedin:

You mean like how the heliocentric theory caused serious doubts as to how the universe was created because it shot down the ridiculous notion that God had created the universe with everything revolving around the Earth. I get you now.

Eugenicists and their ilk recognized this, and acted upon it, following their materialist evolutionist notions about the nature of the human being.Nice try, plumjam, but this history revisionist idea of yours was thoroughly shot down in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90829), in which it was explained to you that eugenicists got their ideas from animal breeding. The idea that you could remove unwanted traits by killing the individuals carrying them (not exactly rocket science:rolleyes:) was known long before Darwin came along.

[Darth Rotor]

I'd be careful, one and all, with calling PJ a creationist, since the connotation of that label is strongly Christian, which PJ is not. Likewise, his philosophy seems a bit more Deist in its linkage with the design, intelligible or intelligent, that the standard ID crowd who are, once again, strongly connoted as being Christian.

Spiritual awakening is a phenomenon that crosses a lot of cultural bounds. That a lot of it happens as a process of the inner life seems to frustrate literalists.

We now return you to your originally scheduled PJ Party. Oh, whoever brought the Hegel with extra jalapeños has earned my mild disgruntlement. It needs a lot of beer to wash down, that Hegel.

DR

[plumjam]

Then please describe in greater detail the nature of his "loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover'." If he was just meditating (sitting in his room, touching himself, etc.) then it's nothing special. If he experienced this after suffering some real trauma, then the questions I raised before would apply. How could a non-conscious individual receive any kind of direct revealed knowledge?

Loss of body-consciousness is not the same thing as becoming non-conscious. Are you conscious of your Silentknight body when dreaming?
As to the rest, I may have been inclined to answer you more fully, but your reference to 'sitting in his room, touching himself' would strongly suggest to me that you aren't genuinely interested in learning more.
If you are interested in learning more, well you have his name and you have internet access. So it's up to you.

[Dunstan]

I'd be careful, one and all, with calling PJ a creationist, since the connotation of that label is strongly Christian, which PJ is not.

Really? Certainly we in North America are most used to dealing with Christian creationists, but I've never had the impression that "creationist" implies Christian.

[plumjam]

I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth repeating.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Baba

“…Starting in 1949, along with selected mandali, he traveled incognito about India in what he called "The New Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_(Meher_Baba))." On February 10, 1954, Meher Baba declared that he was the Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar) (an incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation) of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God))
After suffering as a passenger in two automobile accidents, one in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) in 1952 and one in India in 1956, his capacity to walk became seriously limited…”

I don’t understand why anyone would listen to a guy who reckons he is a god and then has two accidents which prevent him from walking.

What a crap god.

Well, you seem to be labouring under the unwarranted assumption that a spiritual entity which exists in a particular embodied incarnation, with its own particular purposes for that incarnation would need to follow (presumably) your own (presumably) rather individual ego/mind dominated (selfish) conception of what constitutes "the good life".

The reality is that MB predicted that in order to facilitate his work he would have to "spill his blood" once in the west and once in the east. This duly occurred via automobile accidents in the USA and India. Regarding the accident in the USA, the driver (who had been MB's regular driver for many thousands of miles both in east and west) later described how the steering wheel had been wrenched from his grasp by an invisible force, steering them into a ditch.
(I'm sure you'll disbelieve this, but I just thought I would set the record straight)

You may like to compare and contrast the suffering of Jesus on the cross, with MB's suffering. MB was left with (among other things) a damaged hip joint for the later years of his life, more or less a dislocation. This is one of the most painful ongoing situations a human being can physically have, yet he refused surgery. Presumably not due to squeamishness about injections.

So, Jesus accepted suffering though he could have avoided it, MB did likewise.
To explain this to you would involve a massive diversion into a family of other concepts. But as with Silentknight you can always investigate yourself.

[plumjam]

The similarities are striking. It's fascinating that they ended up at roughly the same place from ostensibly completely different starting points.
Yes. From the little I have read of Hegel (mostly today) it seems to me that he was somebody who had had some kind of revelatory experience, but was enormously struggling to put it into a coherent collection of words.
If he wasn't that then my other conclusion would have to be that he was an above-averagely intelligent person being sponsored by some Cartesian 'mischievous demon' to spend his life's work intentionally mystifying his readership for kicks ;)
I have to admire the people who have read Hegel and condensed what he was actually apparently trying to say into modern English. Good on them. Tomorrow I'll be reading them :D

The difference may lie in Hegel's historicism. For Hegel, all of the overcoming of the subject/object distinction and the "negative" (as in negating) action that eventually leads to the self-concsiousness of Absolute Spirit (freedom/god) plays itself out simultaneously internally - as a self-conscious becoming - and externally - as the events of World History. In other words, it is the history of the geo-political nation-state and its geo-politics that is the objective manifestation of the internal dialectic of self-conscious Geist.
I don't really know anything about such concepts as historicism. But in regard to the progress of consciousness the similarities are there. I don't have any quotes or links to hand, but MB taught about progress of consciousness coming about only (and necessarily) via a full experiencing of the opposites, and he likened it (much more comprehensibly than old Hego) to a river. In order for the water in a river to be able to make progress there has to be two banks (the opposites) (thesis-antithesis.. perhaps). If the river banks are destroyed we just get a directionless pointless delta.
In the end, though (much as a river entering the ocean will at some point necessarily have to say goodbye to riverbanks) we have to transcend the opposites of experience in order to arrive at what is variously described as enlightenment, nirvikalpa samadhi, theosis, fana, salvation etc..
Coast guard!


The only really accessible Hegel I know of is a transcription of his lectures on the philosophy of history:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-History-Wilhelm-Friedrich/dp/0872200566

His omnibus work is The Phenomenology of Spirit, which is extraordinarily difficult to read, but worth it:
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-Galaxy-Books-Hegel/dp/0198245971/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226547573&sr=1-1

Related is The Philosophy of Right. He also has written on Logic, but I've never read that work.

This is his one of his key interpreters:
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-Galaxy-Books-Hegel/dp/0198245971/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226547573&sr=1-1

I imagine most of his stuff is public domain, but YMMV with the translations.
Thanks for the links, D'rok.
Just out of curiosity, to what, if any, extent do you subscribe to Hegel's views?

[Foster Zygote]

Then please describe in greater detail the nature of his "loss of body-consciousness, from which it took several years to 'recover'." If he was just meditating (sitting in his room, touching himself, etc.) then it's nothing special. If he experienced this after suffering some real trauma, then the questions I raised before would apply. How could a non-conscious individual receive any kind of direct revealed knowledge?

According to Sai Ke Saat at http://saikesaat.blogspot.com/2008_01_archive.html

Meher Baba, as he came to be called by his disciples, took up his avataric duties early in 1922 after seven years of intense work with the five Perfect Masters of the time. Hazrat Babajan, the aged woman master of Poona, initiated his spiritual awakening in January, 1914, by kissing him on the forehead. Almost immediately he entered into a transcendental state of mind out of touch with normal gross consciousness. He scarcely ate or slept for nine months.

Dazed and apparently insane, he made his way during the next year to Shirdi Sai Baba, the chief of the five Perfect Masters, who acknowledged him publically as the Sustainer of the Universe, and sent him to Upasni Maharaj. As soon as that master saw the young man approaching, he picked up a stone and threw it with great force. It struck him on the forehead exactly where the old woman had kissed him. Thus began a painful five-year process of regaining normal consciousness while retaining his divine state.

It sounds like a great piece of fiction to me. Likewise the claim about him predicting the spilling of his blood in the west and the east, especially the driver's account of the wheel being "wrenched from his grasp by an invisible force, steering them into a ditch". Are there any records of this rather vague prediction that were published prior to his 1952 accident? I'd ask Plumjam, but he has me on ignore rather than answer my challenge to prove that I have ever called him a racist or a pedophile.

[D'rok]

...If he wasn't that then my other conclusion would have to be that he was an above-averagely intelligent person being sponsored by some Cartesian 'mischievous demon' to spend his life's work intentionally mystifying his readership for kicks ;)

I'm going to have to go with that one. ;) Schopenhauer agrees:

If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy) paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

....

I have to admire the people who have read Hegel and condensed what he was actually apparently trying to say into modern English. Good on them. Tomorrow I'll be reading them :DI just noticed that one of my links was wrong. Hegels' most important interpreter is Kojeve, and this is the book I meant to link to:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Reading-Hegel-Lectures-Phenomenology/dp/0801492033/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_2


I don't really know anything about such concepts as historicism. But in regard to the progress of consciousness the similarities are there. I don't have any quotes or links to hand, but MB taught about progress of consciousness coming about only (and necessarily) via a full experiencing of the opposites, and he likened it (much more comprehensibly than old Hego) to a river. In order for the water in a river to be able to make progress there has to be two banks (the opposites) (thesis-antithesis.. perhaps). If the river banks are destroyed we just get a directionless pointless delta.
In the end, though (much as a river entering the ocean will at some point necessarily have to say goodbye to riverbanks) we have to transcend the opposites of experience in order to arrive at what is variously described as enlightenment, nirvikalpa samadhi, theosis, fana, salvation etc..
Coast guard!I had a skim of one of the Discourses and God Speaks. From what I can see, Meher Baba doesn't put the same emphasis on interaction with the "other" as Hegel does.

(Warning: metaphysical gobbledegook is about to ensue)

In the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel talks of the initial moments of consciousness arising out of the totality of undifferentiated "Given Being". An "existent" (i.e. a particular proto-conscious entity) differentiates itself from Given Being through "negative" action. That action is spurred by the "presence of an absence" in the form of a desire that can only be satisfied by negating a part of the whole and transforming that part into something for oneself. The prosaic analogy is the presence of the absence of nourishment - i.e. the desire called hunger - and the negative action that negates a part of Given Being - let's say a banana - by eating it. But this proto-conscious entity doesn't remain differentiated - i.e. self-aware, self-conscious - once the desire is satisfied; it sinks back down into the eternal now of the undifferentiated whole.

Hegel says that differentiation, or, if you prefer, individuation (you're right about the Cartesian demon BTW), can only be sustained through interaction with another "existent" like our banana-eater. Banana-eater can only be sure of his own "I-ness" if he is recognized as such by another "I" like himself. So, a really human, self-conscious desire (presence of an absence requiring negative action) is a desire for recognition - a desire for a desire. The negative action taken by banana-eater #1 takes the form of a struggle for recognition with banana-eater #2 and vice versa. The struggle plays itself out in Time as the events of World History, and the end result is a fully free self-consciousness that contains the particular and the universal without contradiction and is aware of its own becoming as absolute Spirit.


Just out of curiosity, to what, if any, extent do you subscribe to Hegel's views?I am deeply sceptical of his most outlandish claims; but I find something of value in his method and in his recognition of the importance of the "other" in the process of individuation. I look on his works as a challenging thought experiment rather than as "big-T" Truth.

I take the same approach in the little bit of reading I've done of Meher Baba's work so far.

[Silentknight]

Loss of body-consciousness is not the same thing as becoming non-conscious. Are you conscious of your Silentknight body when dreaming?
If you're claiming he was dreaming when he received his visions, then you're proving my earlier point. One can certainly think and remember things while dreaming. However, you implied earlier that he was not "thinking" and that whatever happened to him took several years to recover from, which seems to imply some kind of brain trauma. In such a state he would have had no control over what went through his traumatized mind, and because this works both ways, anything he'd have come up with afterwards needs to be taken with a huge block of salt lick.

As to the rest, I may have been inclined to answer you more fully, but your reference to 'sitting in his room, touching himself' would strongly suggest to me that you aren't genuinely interested in learning more.
If you are interested in learning more, well you have his name and you have internet access. So it's up to you.
If you're going to get offended when your sacred cows are mocked, then I suggest you apply the same standards to your own statements. If however it's okay to poke fun at people's beliefs, such as by comparing them to Hitler, Stalin, etc. then you should have no problem with Meher Baba being taken less than seriously.

Speaking of which, I have in fact looked up a few things about him and am shocked at the striking similarities between him and Hitler. For example:

1) They were born within five years of each other.
2) Both invoked God's name and claimed that they were doing God's work.
3) Both started cults of personality around themselves.
4) Both survived incidents that could have easily killed them. In Baba's case it was the two car accidents. In Hitler's case it was the failed assassination attempt where someone placed a bomb in his conference room. Surviving these incidents only served to reaffirm their belief in their divine vocations.
5) Both had distinct facial hair.
6) Both believed in a non-Darwinian form of evolution based on their existing religious views.
7) Both believed in the ultimate perfection of humanity (albeit in very different ways, but who's counting?)
8) Both made extensive use of distinct hand gestures, which they became known for.
9) Both died following a period of final seclusion.
10) Both had names containing exactly four syllables.


Given these irrefutable and undeniable similarities, we must be forced to conclude that Meher Baba was Hitler, and that his followers were Nazis, and therefore they caused the Holocaust. That's what you believe so don't try to deny it!

...Hey, lighten up! Don't get mad! We're just having us a discussion here! (cough, snicker, snicker, cough, cough)

[Safe-Keeper]

The reality is that MB predicted that in order to facilitate his work he would have to "spill his blood" once in the west and once in the east.Before or after the accident? Anyone can claim after the fact that they made predictions or "knew it was going to happen", and a lot of people in fact do, but if you can't back up the claim, it's worth nothing.

[SimonD]

[This post is a derail]

Well, you seem to be labouring under the unwarranted assumption that a spiritual entity which exists in a particular embodied incarnation, with its own particular purposes for that incarnation would need to follow (presumably) your own (presumably) rather individual ego/mind dominated (selfish) conception of what constitutes "the good life".

Is that meant to be the ‘god life’. No where in my post did I mention ‘a good life’

I could think of nothing more egotistical then a man to declare himself a god.

The reality is that MB predicted that in order to facilitate his work he would have to "spill his blood" once in the west and once in the east.

Your god was able to predict that he would need to spill his blood, but not how it would be done? Your gods ‘all knowing’ powers must have been off that day.

This duly occurred via automobile accidents in the USA and India. Regarding the accident in the USA, the driver (who had been MB's regular driver for many thousands of miles both in east and west) later described how the steering wheel had been wrenched from his grasp by an invisible force, steering them into a ditch.

How selfish of your god to put his driver (can’t your god drive himself – I guess his powers don’t extend to this ability) in a situation where he crashes. Why didn’t he just do it himself? I guess he didn’t mind inflicting the trauma of a car crash on a mere mortal


(I'm sure you'll disbelieve this, but I just thought I would set the record straight)


The first rational statement that you have made


You may like to compare and contrast the suffering of Jesus on the cross, with MB's suffering.

No I wouldn’t.

The legend of Jesus is one of self sacrifice for the human race. Before Jesus came people would sacrifice an animal (a lamb) to ‘wash away their sins’. Jesus said I sacrifice myself (as the lamb) to wash away your sins.*

Your god caused some guy to crash his car to sacrifice his hips for….what? To teach his driver how to deal with trauma?


MB was left with (among other things) a damaged hip joint for the later years of his life, more or less a dislocation. This is one of the most painful ongoing situations a human being can physically have, yet he refused surgery. Presumably not due to squeamishness about injections.

Your god couldn’t even cure himself? What a crap god


So, Jesus accepted suffering though he could have avoided it, MB did likewise.
To explain this to you would involve a massive diversion into a family of other concepts. But as with Silentknight you can always investigate yourself.

Jesus did this to benefit the human race. He died so that others may live in the kingdom of heaven*. Again, I ask what benefit a god has to gain from being involve in a 2 car crashes

* not my personal belief

[plumjam]

PJ, I am quite surprised to learn you are a creationist. I knew you were a theist, but I thought you were a sophisticated theist.
That's kind of an insult combined with a (within your understanding of reality) backhanded compliment.
Merry Christmas.
(those with residual doubts please consult Darth Rotor's later post which clearly and honorably brings into question the application of the term 'creationist' (which normally I'd be comfortable with, except that in the popular mind it seems to be inextricably linked with some possibly (on balance) damaging-to-the-human-being fundamentalist sects within American versions of Christianity.))
(Sorry for so many brackets (parentheses in American English))

Your assertion that evidence shows only variation within limits is completely invalid and serves to expose your ignorance on the subject. Evolution was already well evidence by palaeontology, geography, comparative anatomy, embryology, etc, but recently the advances in genetics have confirmed the theory from another independent avenue of evidence which is incredibly powerful and completely irrefutable.


Things such as:

-The head to head fusion of ape chromosome 12 and 13 (2a and 2b now) to form a single chromosome in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. Complete with inactive telomeres in the middle evidencing the fusion beyond possible refutation.

-The existence of retroviral insertions which insert at random, in identical places in the genome of humans and chimpanzees. Then lesser to extent in Gorillas and so on. Showing common ancestry and independently verifying every other form of evidence about relatedness, which had already picked chimpanzees to share the closest common ancestor to humans.

-The fossilization of genes which render them unusable, but they are still recognizable as relics of past forms. Such as the GULO gene which metabolises vitamin C, which is mutated beyond use in humans but is still left in our genome and is active in many other mammals.

-The existence of the genes for tails in the human genome. Occasionally mutations occur in the control portion which governs gene expression, and you get a human born with a fully functioning tail. Multiple tail bones, controlling muscles, the works.

-Evolution is at the forefront of modern medical discovery and the relationship of all species allows for comparison between mutated genes for reconstruction, which has brought about many exciting new discoveries. Check out “sleeping beauty” if you want a good example of this.

As for the Catholic Church; the last few popes have accepted evolution, and there are many Catholics who also accept evolution.

Do yourself a favour and read the following books:

The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution. – Sean B Carroll

Your inner fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body – Neil Shubin.

Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA – Daniel J Fairbanks.

Evolution: What the fossils say, and why it matters - by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell

Read them, educate yourself on the subject, and then see what you think about it. Asserting your opinions as fact about a subject you are ignorant of is foolish.

I appreciate you writing all this stuff. I did read it all, and some of it was of interest.
But the problem is that my problem with 'evolution' is its specifically Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian for the pedants) manifestation.
Darwinism represents a scenario in which all modifications from reproducible single-celled life came about purely through supposedly random genetic mutations.
My intuition is usually right, and on this topic my intuition is that in centuries to come the view that the whole variegated landscape of life came about through "natural selection of random genetic mutations" will be a massive joke (in the same way that these days it's a massive joke that apparently some people used to believe the World was flat) , but only to those bio-geeks who have bothered to delve back into the history of it all.

More generally, your apparent criticisms of your (misunderstood) position in which you have put me ignore the possibility of progressive intelligent direction of orgination and development of life forms, the greater purpose of which is to advance MB's Journey of Consciousness.
(Remember folks, the Universe was created in order to facilitate the Journey of Consciousness) :D

[Safe-Keeper]

Your god couldn’t even cure himself? What a crap godWell, to be fair, most gods humans have invented have had limitations, and many have even been mortal. Some didn't have special powers at all, so Yahweh's omni-everything is a bit of an exception.

[Silentknight]

A car crash is an accident at least and a self-inflicted injury at most. If we take the account at face value then it implies that Meher Baba wanted or intended for this to happen. The fact that he tried to act like a martyr afterwards by refusing medical treatment only undermines any claims that the incident was unintentional. There is nothing admirable about deliberate or negligent stupidity.

[SimonD]

Well, to be fair, most gods humans have invented have had limitations, and many have even been mortal. Some didn't have special powers at all, so Yahweh's omni-everything is a bit of an exception.

I am probably being a bit harsh. I just irks me that some guy would declare ‘I am a god’ and then not show any ‘god-like’ abilities.


9 dictionary results for: god
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=god&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god#sharethis)God

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/G02/G0226200) /gɒd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)[god] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)
noun, verb, god⋅ded, god⋅ding, interjection –noun 1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.4.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.6.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) an image of a deity; an idol.7.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) any deified person or object.8.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) Gods, Theater. a.the upper balcony in a theater.b.the spectators in this part of the balcony.–verb (used with object) 9.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.

[plumjam]

Before or after the accident? Anyone can claim after the fact that they made predictions or "knew it was going to happen", and a lot of people in fact do, but if you can't back up the claim, it's worth nothing.

IKEA Sofa Atheist Man! ;)
No. These predictions (being predictions) were made prior to their fulfillment. If you want a specific internet source (which you wouldn't believe anyway) then, sorry, I can't be bothered to hunt one out for you. You can either choose to believe my having read about this stuff for over 20 years, plus believe in my character. Or otherwise choose to disbelieve in these and investigate yourself. The latter of which you'll almost certainly not do.

[D'rok]

My intuition is usually right, and on this topic my intuition is that in centuries to come the view that the whole variegated landscape of life came about through "natural selection of random genetic mutations" will be a massive joke (in the same way that these days it's a massive joke that apparently some people used to believe the World was flat) , but only to those bio-geeks who have bothered to delve back into the history of it all.

I don't understand why evolution through natural selection would necessarily contradict Meher Baba's doctrines. (Assuming that you are basing your beliefs re natural selection at least in part on Meher Baba's teachings). Given that river analogy you presented earlier, the river banks necessarily limit and guide the direction of spiritual evolution. Why can't natural selection be the banks that limit and guide physical evolution? Our physical development doesn't occur on a directionless, pointless delta, does it?

[schlitt]

That's kind of an insult combined with a (within your understanding of reality) backhanded compliment.
Merry Christmas.
(those with residual doubts please consult Darth Rotor's later post which clearly and honorably brings into question the application of the term 'creationist' (which normally I'd be comfortable with, except that in the popular mind it seems to be inextricably linked with some possibly (on balance) damaging-to-the-human-being fundamentalist sects within American versions of Christianity.))
(Sorry for so many brackets (parentheses in American English))


I did not intend it to be an insult, although by extension of implication I guess it is. ;)



I appreciate you writing all this stuff. I did read it all, and some of it was of interest.
But the problem is that my problem with 'evolution' is its specifically Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian for the pedants) manifestation.
Darwinism represents a scenario in which all modifications from reproducible single-celled life came about purely through supposedly random genetic mutations.
My intuition is usually right, and on this topic my intuition is that in centuries to come the view that the whole variegated landscape of life came about through "natural selection of random genetic mutations" will be a massive joke (in the same way that these days it's a massive joke that apparently some people used to believe the World was flat) , but only to those bio-geeks who have bothered to delve back into the history of it all.

More generally, your apparent criticisms of your (misunderstood) position in which you have put me ignore the possibility of progressive intelligent direction of orgination and development of life forms, the greater purpose of which is to advance MB's Journey of Consciousness.
(Remember folks, the Universe was created in order to facilitate the Journey of Consciousness) :D

I understand your reservations, as I have experienced them for the majority of my life. It was only recently when I started learning about biology, evolution, their basis in chemistry, the molecular properties, and the interactions of matter as an all encompassing system, that things started to make sense and I could see how Darwin's simple idea really was enough to explain the diversity of life.

I seriously recommend you read the books I suggested. They contain pieces of information which are pivotal for lay persons understanding. Such as the re-use of existing properties to form new, and the traceable history. The physical mechanisms involved, which demystifies what seems unapproachably complex.

The mechanisms behind evolution are truly fascinating, and extremely well evidenced.

Though even if our understanding of "how", was less complete than it is currently, we would still have the evidence for that fact that it did happen.

As I stated above, things such as the provable shared ancestry with apes through identical virus markings. The invariably consistent nature of fossils becoming more complex the younger the geographical strata they are found in. There are millions of pieces of evidence all convergent and consistent. The only way evolution can be denied is through ignorance. I say that sincerely and I do not intend it to be an insult. Ignorance is easily remedied.

[Silentknight]

Darwinism represents a scenario in which all modifications from reproducible single-celled life came about purely through supposedly random genetic mutations.
*sigh*

Mutations may be random but natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection means that environmental factor A will act on individuals with trait B and result in C. The argument from incredulity is not evidence that evolution is false.

I took the liberty of deleting everything else in your post that consisted of facetious unsupported statements and ended up with the following:


"My intuition is... a massive joke ...:D"

Yup, that's pretty much what happens when one relies solely on oneself as a source.

[Pardalis]

The reality is that MB predicted that in order to facilitate his work he would have to "spill his blood" once in the west and once in the east. This duly occurred via automobile accidents in the USA and India. Regarding the accident in the USA, the driver (who had been MB's regular driver for many thousands of miles both in east and west) later described how the steering wheel had been wrenched from his grasp by an invisible force, steering them into a ditch.

You actually believe that?

[plumjam]

Well, SimonD, I did try. I only tried because I've never interacted with you before, and you said you'd already brought up your objection previously (which I may well have missed).

From reading your responses I can see that you're orthodox JREF material. Somewhat closed-minded, somewhat "convince me, a**hole", as well as somewhat wanting to appear as dismissive amongst your brethren.
Et cetera.

But if I'm mistaken now is your chance to contribute something not of that ilk. Possibly slightly away from the orthodoxy, perhaps a bit brave and a bit interesting. ;)

[Foster Zygote]

Darwinism represents a scenario in which all modifications from reproducible single-celled life came about purely through supposedly random genetic mutations.
Plumjam is still willfully ignorant of the actual mechanisms of evolutionary biology. Willful ignorance is the only reasonable conclusion given the number of attempts that have been made to explain said mechanisms to him over the last fifteen months.

My intuition is usually right,...
Like his intuition that Hitler was an atheist.

and on this topic my intuition is that in centuries to come the view that the whole variegated landscape of life came about through "natural selection of random genetic mutations" will be a massive joke (in the same way that these days it's a massive joke that apparently some people used to believe the World was flat) , but only to those bio-geeks who have bothered to delve back into the history of it all.
My intuition is that centuries from now, assuming humans have not destroyed themselves or caused another dark age in which scientific learning is lost, evolution won't be questioned any more than electricity, chemistry or the Heliocentric solar system. In fact, my intuition tells me that it will be creationism that will be compared with the belief that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

More generally, your apparent criticisms of your (misunderstood) position in which you have put me ignore the possibility of progressive intelligent direction of orgination and development of life forms...
No, the possibility is not ignored, it has simply been noted that no evidence of such has been presented that cannot just as likely be a product of human imagination. Plumjam is simply upset that people reject something for which he can offer no solid evidence.

[Pardalis]

I'd put my money on Zygote's intuition anytime.

[Foster Zygote]

These predictions (being predictions) were made prior to their fulfillment. If you want a specific internet source (which you wouldn't believe anyway) then, sorry, I can't be bothered to hunt one out for you. You can either choose to believe my having read about this stuff for over 20 years, plus believe in my character.
In other words: Plumjam has chosen to believe that the prediction was made a priori, despite the inability to prove it. And I fail to see what Plumjam's character has to do with this (although I have an opinion on that subject) as he could sincerely believe in the truth of something that is false.

Or otherwise choose to disbelieve in these and investigate yourself. The latter of which you'll almost certainly not do.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. I wonder what Plumjam will say if we search for some time and find no evidence to support the assertion that Meher Baba predicted that he would "spill blood" prior to 1952. And even so, it is a vague enough prediction for the likes of most modern day psychics. At any rate, I will certainly continue to search for evidence of this prediction being published prior to 1952.

[Gate2501]

Well, SimonD, I did try. I only tried because I've never interacted with you before, and you said you'd already brought up your objection previously (which I may well have missed).

From reading your responses I can see that you're orthodox JREF material. Somewhat closed-minded, somewhat "convince me, a**hole", as well as somewhat wanting to appear as dismissive amongst your brethren.
Et cetera.

But if I'm mistaken now is your chance to contribute something not of that ilk. Possibly slightly away from the orthodoxy, perhaps a bit brave and a bit interesting. ;)


Plumjam. I'll try to be decent for a moment with you and avoid my /b/ posting style.

The people here get a little silly with you, because you basically repeat the same behavior over and over Ad Nauseam. You mischaracterize the science of Evolutionary Biology, and turn it into some demonic strawman, which you then knock over, and /flex your guns.

This is always explained to you, and many of the posters here who are very well versed in the science behind the Theory of Evolution fully address your points and issues raised.

You.

Are.

Silly.






So forgive us for getting a little silly with you :p

[SimonD]

Well, SimonD, I did try. I only tried because I've never interacted with you before, and you said you'd already brought up your objection previously (which I may well have missed).

And this statement is not dismissive?

Well, you seem to be labouring under the unwarranted assumption that a spiritual entity which exists in a particular embodied incarnation, with its own particular purposes for that incarnation would need to follow (presumably) your own (presumably) rather individual ego/mind dominated (selfish) conception of what constitutes "the good life".

If I create a new thread about your god, would you be prepared to discuss his claims that he is?


From reading your responses I can see that you're orthodox JREF material. Somewhat closed-minded, somewhat "convince me, a**hole", as well as somewhat wanting to appear as dismissive amongst your brethren.
Et cetera.

I am ‘closed minded’ because I would rather believe in scientific evidence then the word of a man (who believes he is a god) speaking his unsupported thoughts?

Kettle, pot, black.

Have a look at my profile – no friends and I am not subscribed to any threads or groups. I really couldn't give a flying **** what anyone in JREF thinks of me.


But if I'm mistaken now is your chance to contribute something not of that ilk. Possibly slightly away from the orthodoxy, perhaps a bit brave and a bit interesting.

Are you prepared to discuss your god’s claims that he is a god? Or is that not up for discussion, because you did not answer any of the questions that I asked, just made some dismissive claims about my ‘closed mind’

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, SimonD, I did try. I only tried because I've never interacted with you before, and you said you'd already brought up your objection previously (which I may well have missed).

From reading your responses I can see that you're orthodox JREF material. Somewhat closed-minded, somewhat "convince me, a**hole", as well as somewhat wanting to appear as dismissive amongst your brethren.
Et cetera.

But if I'm mistaken now is your chance to contribute something not of that ilk. Possibly slightly away from the orthodoxy, perhaps a bit brave and a bit interesting. ;)



Damn. I forgot my rulebook at work. I need a ruling form the judges, please.

Don't such obvious attempts at manipulation immediately disqualify the contestant?

Or is that the rule where they immediately advance to the next round of "Time for the godless liberal a**holes that the entire universe hates, but who congregate at the evil JREF to plan the destruction of theism and idealism, to watch and laugh at the mindless dribbling of the inferior" so that we can watch the drama queens make bigger fools of themselves?

;)

[Gate2501]

Are you prepared to discuss your god’s claims that he is a god? Or is that not up for discussion, because you did not answer any of the questions that I asked, just made some dismissive claims about my ‘closed mind’

I think that old MB was supposed to be an "Avatar" which is sort of like god but not quite... Its more like what Jesus was, right? According to MB god is some kind of wacky consciousness that questioned the sea of nothing that was its existence? Then everything was like "BLAM SUCKA" and the universe was born!

I could be wrong I haven't read about the dude for a long time (probably was the last time PJ brought him up in a thread I was in).

[plumjam]

If you're claiming he was dreaming when he received his visions, then you're proving my earlier point. One can certainly think and remember things while dreaming. However, you implied earlier that he was not "thinking" and that whatever happened to him took several years to recover from, which seems to imply some kind of brain trauma. In such a state he would have had no control over what went through his traumatized mind, and because this works both ways, anything he'd have come up with afterwards needs to be taken with a huge block of salt lick.


If you're going to get offended when your sacred cows are mocked, then I suggest you apply the same standards to your own statements. If however it's okay to poke fun at people's beliefs, such as by comparing them to Hitler, Stalin, etc. then you should have no problem with Meher Baba being taken less than seriously.

Speaking of which, I have in fact looked up a few things about him and am shocked at the striking similarities between him and Hitler. For example:

1) They were born within five years of each other.
2) Both invoked God's name and claimed that they were doing God's work.
3) Both started cults of personality around themselves.
4) Both survived incidents that could have easily killed them. In Baba's case it was the two car accidents. In Hitler's case it was the failed assassination attempt where someone placed a bomb in his conference room. Surviving these incidents only served to reaffirm their belief in their divine vocations.
5) Both had distinct facial hair.
6) Both believed in a non-Darwinian form of evolution based on their existing religious views.
7) Both believed in the ultimate perfection of humanity (albeit in very different ways, but who's counting?)
8) Both made extensive use of distinct hand gestures, which they became known for.
9) Both died following a period of final seclusion.
10) Both had names containing exactly four syllables.


Given these irrefutable and undeniable similarities, we must be forced to conclude that Meher Baba was Hitler, and that his followers were Nazis, and therefore they caused the Holocaust. That's what you believe so don't try to deny it!

...Hey, lighten up! Don't get mad! We're just having us a discussion here! (cough, snicker, snicker, cough, cough)

(Your first paragraph is a product of not having investigated that particular matter sufficiently)
I have no problem with people having a sense of humour and testing it against sacred cows (that's part of the reason I hang out in this forum). I love having a laugh, sometimes at the expense of sacred cows whose carers don't yet believe, and can't be convinced, they are really cowherds.

I am quite glad at your 10 point list. It shows you have somewhat gone beyond the JREF Zombie standard of "show me". You actually investigated rather than just tried to be somewhat impressive/dismissive in the midst of your peers. Thumbs up.

Whether your investigation will go any further, well, I'm not a proselytizer, despite the fact that MB said anyone who came into contact with his words would be spiritually benefited.
So... hmm.. you get a pass, in that in future threads I'll be more apt to reply.
You lucky lucky boy :D

[Silentknight]

Good, I'm glad we finally agree on something, that Meher Baba was really Hitler. Never let your detractors say you're unwilling to accept the facts when shown cold hard evidence. :rolleyes:

Also, for your information, I read over the story from the link that Foster Zygote, not you, was courteous enough to provide. The reason I was still asking for clarification was because the term "transcendental state" was not qualified in any meaningful way. In fact, there's no evidence either way for his exact state of mind or his physiological condition during that time, which is what left me to speculate about it. Given that the story makes it a point to include the detail about his having a rock smash into the front of his head (e.g. where the prefrontal cortex would be) there's little reason to rule out serious brain damage. All joking aside, the man should have been hospitalized after this incident, just like he should have had enough sense to get medical treatment for his hip problems rather than undergo self-martyrdom for whatever reason.

So to narrow it down:

Was he simply meditating?
Was he dreaming?
Was his traumatized brain playing tricks on him in its state of deprivation?
Was it something else entirely?

You seem to believe the lattermost, that something else was at work here. Before you tell me not to dismiss these since I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, I've experienced / lived through the first three. How exactly do you rule out those possibilities in order to conclude that it was "something else" going on with him?

Also, just to get this out of the way, I see him as a human being, nothing more but certainly nothing less. The same goes for Jesus of Nazareth or the Muslim prophet Mohammed. This means he could get sick, suffer the same conditions, and possess the same flaws and limitations as everyone else.

[Safe-Keeper]

You actually believe that?We live in a world where two billion people believe that a man two thousand years ago walked on water, turned water into wine, brought dead back to life and traveled to some kind of parallel dimension called 'Paradise' or 'Heaven' or something, depending on who you ask... and you doubt plumjam's ability to believe that some nutter predicted that he was going to total his ride?

Oh, and if he was to spill blood, why couldn't he just get a paper cut:p? [/cheap shot]

[Silentknight]

We live in a world where two billion people believe that a man two thousand years ago walked on water, turned water into wine, brought dead back to life and traveled to some kind of parallel dimension called 'Paradise' or 'Heaven' or something, depending on who you ask... and you doubt plumjam's ability to believe that some nutter predicted that he was going to total his ride?

Oh, and if he was to spill blood, why couldn't he just get a paper cut:p? [/cheap shot]

Or a circumcision. Preferrably while driving.

[Pardalis]

Good thing Meher Baba is not a woman...

[Mashuna]

Your first paragraph is a product of not having investigated that particular matter sufficiently

I just love the way you can still post criticisms like this with (presumably) a straight face.

I suspect the reason so many people think you are a fundy creationist is due to your repeated use of their fallacious arguments.

[ponderingturtle]

Your future career choices ought not include comedian. You are the one who introduced God into this discussion, by screwing up a very good joke by trying to shoehorn a God joke into it.

Humor isn't as easy as it looks, eh? :)

DR

With out god or some other intelligent factor in it, it fails to reference ID at all.

[Silentknight]

Another point to comment on. The "suffering" Meher Baba went through was not at all comparable to the fate of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was arrested, tried, and executed under the laws of an arguably brutal and corrupt legal system, for the crime of speaking his mind. Those in power always feel threatened whenever freethinkers arise and challenge the existing hierarchy. The closest comparison to Jesus would be the Greek philosopher Socrates, who had little choice but to accept his sentence because he couldn't fight powers beyond his control, and did not wish to rebel against the state he loved.

Meher Baba on the other hand said he was going to do something stupid, went out and did something stupid, and then exacerbated his stupid by refusing medical treatment for his injuries. That does not remotely begin to compare. It's similar to how fundamentalist trolls call themselves martyrs by comparing themselves to Jesus after they seek out debates of their own free will, insult and threaten people into accepting their beliefs, and then are subject to verbal criticism and mockery kept to mere words.

The problem with self-crucifixion is that it can be quite tricky to hammer in that third nail.

[rocketdodger]

my intuition is usually right,

orly?

[schlitt]

orly?

Unfortunately "intuition" trumps solid empirical evidence for most.

People use a large dose of confirmation bias to prop up their "intuition" in their own minds. (I know you like to quote mine for things which seem insulting toward you plumjam, but this applies to every human on the planet.)

However, an argument from personal incredulity is not a valid means for denying evolution.

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, and if he was to spill blood, why couldn't he just get a paper cut:xtongue? [/cheap shot]My cheap shot inspired a motivator!
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/automotivator.jpg

The Kite Runner... an incredibly brutal movie, the movie version of an even more brutal book.

[rocketdodger]

People use a large dose of confirmation bias to prop up their "intuition" in their own minds. (I know you like to quote mine for things which seem insulting toward you plumjam, but this applies to every human on the planet.)

Because I am so fond of plumjam, and his satisfaction is of paramount importance in my life, I would like to personally direct that towards him, so that he may be more successful in his quote-mining.