Military Atheists: It's About Time!!

[youngterrier]

As I said, it's proven fact that the survival and thriving ability increases exponentially with altruism and cooperation. Simultaneously, it is within the inherent interests of every creature to survive and thrive as an individuals. Once we realize that cooperation and altruism does in fact make one's life easier and more happy than heathenistic psychopathic pursuits, it's quite easy to understand and pursue cooperation and altruism.

"Altruism" is quite often not a good policy for any group of living things to follow. The animal kingdom is full of things that are considered barbaric by normal people - prolicide, cannibalism, intentional neglect of offspring, and other such things. And often those things CAN and usually ARE beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Why should a mother invest energy caring for offspring that is not likely to have reproductive success? Why shouldn't a Lion kill his lionesses' cubs when it is obvious he is stronger than the other Lion he ran off who fathered those cubs and thus would be more likely to father cubs who would be more likely to survive and reproduce? Why should many female insects and arachnids spare a single male that inseminates them when not doing so could mean hundreds developing eggs in her could end up malnourished as well?

You can ask similar questions that relate to human affairs. Why should parents invest time and energy raising a down-syndrome kid who (1) isn't going to have reproductive success, (2) isn't going to grow up to become human capital that twenty-first century societies need, and (3) isn't going to live long enough to tend to his or her parents in their old age? Why should we allow anyone with double-digit IQ to reproduce? IQ scales certainly aren't perfect, but they have been shown to be positively correlated with achievement. There's no doubt we'd be better off if the average IQ on today's scale was 150, so why do we not say the end justifies the means? Why should you perform CPR on a stranger who needs it when whether or not that person will survive will have little effect on the performer or society at large? Why do we care about endangered species whos extinction would have minimal consequences for civilization?

If anything, humans do good because of selfishness, after selfishness they do things out of affection, after affection they do good things for others because they know that's how they would want to be treated and the world would be better off because of it. When I say better off, I'm not saying "cosmologically," I'm saying it would be better off for me to live in based off of preference. It all starts with selfishness, from selfishness we cooperate with others, and our understanding of how to thrive expands from that. Selfishness is the core, which as Darwinism teaches us, is the core of the survival of life and that's just a fact of life, which is objectively true.

Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience, YT. There is no way to empirically show that any human behavior pattern was essential to the preservation of human populations over the millenia. And there are plenty of behaviors that make absolutely no sense from an evolutionary perspective (see above).

I bet you think the theory of evolution is a pseudoscience as well? After all, there's no empirical way to prove macroevolution in that the human race is evolved from monkeys, yet it is the scientific consensus that that is a fact. The whole "pseudoscience" argument is more of a cop out just because there hasn't been empirical macro-scale study over 100 years on the matter. Evolution in social stances holds true.

People confuse Darwinism in that they believe that there's a specific way we are programmed and we stick to it no matter what, that's not how it works. Yes, there are some things that are held constant in nature, but as time and generations pass individuals adapt to suite their environment. Given the right amount of time, some aspects of creature (or culture in this case) can radically change for survival. The difference between man and animal is that man has reason, and the difference between what man has done in the past and what man does at present is that man is more reasoned in that he knows more about the surrounding world. Man does not simply pick and choose his viewpoints, he picks the most rational viewpoint, and it's often influenced by what's most comforting to him. When given superior evidence and being free from presupposed notions, man will pick the superior argument or viewpoint and adopt it to his world view. This influences our laws and our morality. Take for instance, the Gay Rights movement. 75 years ago (okay random number, I don't care), it was considered wrong, not a choice, and no one had any sympathy for you if you were gay, whatever punishment you got, you got. Since then, we've realized Gay people are people too, and despite what you may think about marriage we can agree that hurting/killing them for who they are is wrong and not really beneficial to society, especially considering there have been plenty of gay people who have contributed to society. The same can be said for black people and the civil rights period.

I think it's quite elementary and stupid to think that our understanding of our fellow species has not increased in the last 50 years alone, let alone few thousand, and even dumber to think that that understanding hasn't changed how we treat people.

I could give you a list of reasons why not caring for children, despite disability is wrong and unbeneficial to our society, many of which include unknown potential (see Temple Grandin), as well as it betraying current human nature by ignoring our senses of empathy and understanding.

[Pwns]

I bet you think the theory of evolution is a pseudoscience as well? After all, there's no empirical way to prove macroevolution in that the human race is evolved from monkeys, yet it is the scientific consensus that that is a fact. The whole "pseudoscience" argument is more of a cop out just because there hasn't been empirical macro-scale study over 100 years on the matter. Evolution in social stances holds true.

Evolutionary psychology has never been a very widely accepted field in the scientific communty the same way that evolution itself has. It isn't just me who is saying evo-psych isn't a true science. And scientific consensus does not truth make. Physicists don't accept the many-worlds hypothesis because it's the best way to resolve the Schrodinger's cat paradox, and just because scientists believe in evolution with no supernatural driving forces does not make it so, either. But that's getting off on a tangent.

People confuse Darwinism in that they believe that there's a specific way we are programmed and we stick to it no matter what, that's not how it works. Yes, there are some things that are held constant in nature, but as time and generations pass individuals adapt to suite their environment. Given the right amount of time, some aspects of creature (or culture in this case) can radically change for survival. The difference between man and animal is that man has reason, and the difference between what man has done in the past and what man does at present is that man is more reasoned in that he knows more about the surrounding world. Man does not simply pick and choose his viewpoints, he picks the most rational viewpoint, and it's often influenced by what's most comforting to him. When given superior evidence and being free from presupposed notions, man will pick the superior argument or viewpoint and adopt it to his world view. This influences our laws and our morality. Take for instance, the Gay Rights movement. 75 years ago (okay random number, I don't care), it was considered wrong, not a choice, and no one had any sympathy for you if you were gay, whatever punishment you got, you got. Since then, we've realized Gay people are people too, and despite what you may think about marriage we can agree that hurting/killing them for who they are is wrong and not really beneficial to society, especially considering there have been plenty of gay people who have contributed to society. The same can be said for black people and the civil rights period.

And what exactly forms a "rational position"? Can you justify sterilizing all with IQs in the lower 50% because even though it may deprive certain people of freedoms, it will ultimately be for the benefit of many generations down the line? Same thing with forcing families only to raise children who are developmentally disabled? The whole idea of eugenics itself arose after Darwin's theory of evolution was published.

And how exactly do you say it a "rational" rather than a moral position to not force women with down-syndrome babies to get abortions?

[youngterrier]

I bet you think the theory of evolution is a pseudoscience as well? After all, there's no empirical way to prove macroevolution in that the human race is evolved from monkeys, yet it is the scientific consensus that that is a fact. The whole "pseudoscience" argument is more of a cop out just because there hasn't been empirical macro-scale study over 100 years on the matter. Evolution in social stances holds true.

Evolutionary psychology has never been a very widely accepted field in the scientific communty the same way that evolution itself has. It isn't just me who is saying evo-psych isn't a true science. And scientific consensus does not truth make. Physicists don't accept the many-worlds hypothesis because it's the best way to resolve the Schrodinger's cat paradox, and just because scientists believe in evolution with no supernatural driving forces does not make it so, either. But that's getting off on a tangent.

People confuse Darwinism in that they believe that there's a specific way we are programmed and we stick to it no matter what, that's not how it works. Yes, there are some things that are held constant in nature, but as time and generations pass individuals adapt to suite their environment. Given the right amount of time, some aspects of creature (or culture in this case) can radically change for survival. The difference between man and animal is that man has reason, and the difference between what man has done in the past and what man does at present is that man is more reasoned in that he knows more about the surrounding world. Man does not simply pick and choose his viewpoints, he picks the most rational viewpoint, and it's often influenced by what's most comforting to him. When given superior evidence and being free from presupposed notions, man will pick the superior argument or viewpoint and adopt it to his world view. This influences our laws and our morality. Take for instance, the Gay Rights movement. 75 years ago (okay random number, I don't care), it was considered wrong, not a choice, and no one had any sympathy for you if you were gay, whatever punishment you got, you got. Since then, we've realized Gay people are people too, and despite what you may think about marriage we can agree that hurting/killing them for who they are is wrong and not really beneficial to society, especially considering there have been plenty of gay people who have contributed to society. The same can be said for black people and the civil rights period.

And what exactly forms a "rational position"? Can you justify sterilizing all with IQs in the lower 50% because even though it may deprive certain people of freedoms, it will ultimately be for the benefit of many generations down the line? Same thing with forcing families only to raise children who are developmentally disabled? The whole idea of eugenics itself arose after Darwin's theory of evolution was published.

And how exactly do you say it a "rational" rather than a moral position to not force women with down-syndrome babies to get abortions?

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post. But alas, I shall try.

First of all, evolution is an accepted fact among the vast majority of 95% biologists, whether it was shaped by a divine hand or not is irrelevant. Occam's Razor dictates that it was natural. Science can't postulate any hypothesis that includes a God or Gods, because the existence/divine hand of those Gods cannot be proven, while the event itself is self evidence of its natural occurrence. Second of all, I think it's arrogance on your part, or anyone's part to claim superior knowledge in a subject in comparison to someone who has a degree. In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree. Now there are instances and hypothesis in terms of the origin of life that are not proven and will be hard to prove in the future, regardless evolution theory does not make those claims. The fact that so many people accept evolution as fact in that field of study pretty much implies it as a fact, and if evidence arises that contradicts the accepted claims, the scientific world will follow. It's like me arguing with a train conductor on how to run trains. I read a book once, but that doesn't make me qualified to argue.

As for the eugenics concept. Wow that is fucking ignorance. It's not Darwinism. In Darwinism the undesirables are just that--undesirable, and they won't be able to reproduce because of that. Darwinism doesn't perpetrate a perfect future, it just states reality as it is. Those who adapt survive--Not the strongest, not the smartest, but the most adaptable. Genocide is immediately unjustified because we are ALL sexually compatible with each member of our species; race is a social construct that developed over slight differentiation. Now, there are circumstances in which some members of our species are unable to reproduce, but there would be no need to sterilize them or prevent them from reproducing. Mental disabilities are not a basis of which to discriminate, sterilize, or murder anyone, because you're measuring value on one thing and taking an extremely preemptive measure on that basis (again, look up mothafuckin Temple Grandin)

To say that evolution is a falsehood is ignorance. Ideas and scientific concepts adhere to Darwinism (if it's not compatible with reality, it doesn't work!), languages adhere to Darwinism(see Latin to French and Spanish), and cultures adhere to Darwinism (see the United Kingdom to the United States). The fact of the matter is, psychologically that works as well. We're not the same person we were the day that we were born, our experiences have shaped who we are. If I was exposed to the assumption that 2+2=5, but my experience showed me that 2+2=4, I'd be tempted to believe my first exposure, however my experience and the compatibility with reality of 2+2=4 will make me act as such. At the beginning of our primitive civilization we knew nothing about reality, we didn't know anything about psychology or physics or economics, however as time passed we were able to grow past our dogmatisms and shape our world based off the science that we observed. And if the science we proposes was wrong and incompatible with reality, it was either altered to fit the reality or discarded all together. Regardless, our experiences tells how to live our lives and when exposed to a different viewpoint, or new knowledge, we unconditionally change our viewpoint. Again, human rights is an example of this.

I think it's laughable that you discard evolution in a conceptual way, it's stupid.

[JohnStOnge]

Morality may be an abstract concept just like math or science, but it has right and wrong answers. The equivalent of what you're saying is 2+2=4, but the universe doesn't care, that's just a concept. What's wrong with that, you may ask me? I mean really, scientifically the universe doesn't care about math just as it doesn't care about morality, but that doesn't mean the concept of morality is subjective in nature. As living rational creatures we can figure out the answers to reality whether they be mathematical or moral.

That makes no sense at all. We describe real phenomenae in our own terms, but they are still real phenomenonae. There is a correct objective answer to the question of what we call 2+2 equals that is independent of anybody's opinion. Whether we call it "4" or not is irrelevant. If you add what we call 2 apples to what we call 2 apples you will have what we call 4 apples. It will happen every time. It is 100% predictable. Morality is obviously subjective. There are countless examples of differences between what people call "right" and "wrong."

You can prove that 2+2 = 4 and always will as long as you define what 2 is and what four is. You cannot prove that there is anything "good" about optimizing the success of our species or "bad" about failing to optimize it.

Beyond that, an objective effort to optimize the success of our species would involve things most would consider "immoral." We've been throught that before.

[Cap'n Cat]

And, I think we see why religion is disappearing every day.

[JohnStOnge]

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post.
....

As for the eugenics concept. Wow that is **** ignorance.

YT, you really would do better if you stayed away from personal insults. It is always better to attack the arguments themselves and stay away from ad hominem tactics.

[Pwns]

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post. But alas, I shall try.

First of all, evolution is an accepted fact among the vast majority of 95% biologists, whether it was shaped by a divine hand or not is irrelevant. Occam's Razor dictates that it was natural. Science can't postulate any hypothesis that includes a God or Gods, because the existence/divine hand of those Gods cannot be proven, while the event itself is self evidence of its natural occurrence. Second of all, I think it's arrogance on your part, or anyone's part to claim superior knowledge in a subject in comparison to someone who has a degree. In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree. Now there are instances and hypothesis in terms of the origin of life that are not proven and will be hard to prove in the future, regardless evolution theory does not make those claims. The fact that so many people accept evolution as fact in that field of study pretty much implies it as a fact, and if evidence arises that contradicts the accepted claims, the scientific world will follow. It's like me arguing with a train conductor on how to run trains. I read a book once, but that doesn't make me qualified to argue.

I never claimed to have superior knowledge on evolution than most people, though I can promise you I'm more well-read on the subject than the vast majority of non-scientists. All I'm saying is that it is a fact that the line of thinking that is involved in evolutionary psychology (completely separate from regular evolutionary biology) is largely criticized in the scientific community. You can't put an evolutionary context on every human behavior pattern. You can't that any such behavior is ultimately beneficial for a species. There is no such dissent in regular evolutionary biology.

Genocide is immediately unjustified because we are ALL sexually compatible with each member of our species; race is a social construct that developed over slight differentiation.

First of all, race is not a social construct. That's a flat-out LIE. There's a reason certain ethnic groups have more susceptibility to certain medical problems than others. In any kind of drug testing there has to be subjects of different races because they can affect them differently regardless of whether they are "westernized" or assimilated into American culture. Also, here are genetic tests that can identify the race of a person. That's not something that's a social construct.

And your reason for being against eugenics makes no sense from a "rational" standpoint. From a purely utilitarian, "the end justifies the means" mind set, the fact that horrific eugenics programs could benefit future generations isn't affected by the fact that certain individuals have reproductive compatibility with others.

As for Temple Grandin, he is a person with high-functioning autism. I was specifically talking about down syndrome and people with conditions that impair all forms of cognition. Focus, YT.

To say that evolution is a falsehood is ignorance. Ideas and scientific concepts adhere to Darwinism (if it's not compatible with reality, it doesn't work!), languages adhere to Darwinism(see Latin to French and Spanish), and cultures adhere to Darwinism (see the United Kingdom to the United States). The fact of the matter is, psychologically that works as well. We're not the same person we were the day that we were born, our experiences have shaped who we are. If I was exposed to the assumption that 2+2=5, but my experience showed me that 2+2=4, I'd be tempted to believe my first exposure, however my experience and the compatibility with reality of 2+2=4 will make me act as such. At the beginning of our primitive civilization we knew nothing about reality, we didn't know anything about psychology or physics or economics, however as time passed we were able to grow past our dogmatisms and shape our world based off the science that we observed. And if the science we proposes was wrong and incompatible with reality, it was either altered to fit the reality or discarded all together. Regardless, our experiences tells how to live our lives and when exposed to a different viewpoint, or new knowledge, we unconditionally change our viewpoint. Again, human rights is an example of this.

I never said evolution was a "falsehood". Re-read what I read carefully. And I agree with what you are saying about changing outlook with respect to human rights and things like that. What I'm saying is that scientific knowledge is also a double-edged sword. Scientific knowledge also leads to some ideas that make sense from a rational, utilitarian, and evolutionary perspective but not from any moral perspective. Like the idea of selective breeding by those of higher cognitive function, or the idea of curbing reproduction to deal with a theoretical malthusian collapse. It can only really be condemned from a moral perspective. That's what JSO is saying if I understand right.

[JohnStOnge]

In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree.

For what it's worth, I have a biology degree and I do not consider the overall theory of evolution to have been established as "fact." I do believe it. I look at it as the most plausible explanation for what we see around us and generally consistent with the evidence. But the idea that all of the diversity of life we see arose through that process is a cause and effect proposition. And any cause and effect proposition must be inferred through controlled experimentation. Either that or you would at least have to directly observe it to happen.

For example: Part of the overall theory is that at it all started with single celled organisms. Every living thing we see...us, blue whales, flamingos...has single celled organism ancestors. The idea that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms is something that theortetically should be testable through controlled experimentation. But at this point there has been no controlled experiment demonstrating that it can occur.

Now, the idea that populations "evolve" in the sense of changing is a fact in that it has been observed. Like the melanistic moths becoming a greater proportion of the population when trees were covered with soot then receding again when soot covered trees became less prevalent. Or the proportions of finches with certain types of bills changing as types of food became more and less available.

But it has not been directly observed or shown through experimentation that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms.

[JohnStOnge]

That's what JSO is saying if I understand right.

Yes. I think. If our only objective was to maximize the health of the population of our species we would eliminate certain individuals and engage in selective breeding policies. Also, we might cull the population at times. Think in terms of managing any population of animals.

[citdog]

In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree.

For what it's worth, I have a biology degree and I do not consider the overall theory of evolution to have been established as "fact." I do believe it. I look at it as the most plausible explanation for what we see around us and generally consistent with the evidence. But the idea that all of the diversity of life we see arose through that process is a cause and effect proposition. And any cause and effect proposition must be inferred through controlled experimentation. Either that or you would at least have to directly observe it to happen.

For example: Part of the overall theory is that at it all started with single celled organisms. Every living thing we see...us, blue whales, flamingos...has single celled organism ancestors. The idea that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms is something that theortetically should be testable through controlled experimentation. But at this point there has been no controlled experiment demonstrating that it can occur.

Now, the idea that populations "evolve" in the sense of changing is a fact in that it has been observed. Like the melanistic moths becoming a greater proportion of the population when trees were covered with soot then receding again when soot covered trees became less prevalent. Or the proportions of finches with certain types of bills changing as types of food became more and less available.

But it has not been directly observed or shown through experimentation that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms.

[youngterrier]

Morality may be an abstract concept just like math or science, but it has right and wrong answers. The equivalent of what you're saying is 2+2=4, but the universe doesn't care, that's just a concept. What's wrong with that, you may ask me? I mean really, scientifically the universe doesn't care about math just as it doesn't care about morality, but that doesn't mean the concept of morality is subjective in nature. As living rational creatures we can figure out the answers to reality whether they be mathematical or moral.

Beyond that, an objective effort to optimize the success of our species would involve things most would consider "immoral." We've been throught that before.

No, it wouldn't, you really can't read.

Can you say there is an objective definition of health? certainly there are different definitions of what is healthy: Thin, able to run marathons, or just able to do basic exercises, etc. All these are subjective, however in terms of health drinking poison is objectively bad, and we can say that with 100% confidence.

The same can be said of morality, except morality is a collective interest of the people in their well-being. If the aim, just like health is to maximize that well-being, we may not know an absolute best answer, but we can see what is objectively bad

[youngterrier]

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post.
....

As for the eugenics concept. Wow that is **** ignorance.

YT, you really would do better if you stayed away from personal insults. It is always better to attack the arguments themselves and stay away from ad hominem tactics.

It's not ad hominem if it's true

[youngterrier]

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post. But alas, I shall try.

First of all, evolution is an accepted fact among the vast majority of 95% biologists, whether it was shaped by a divine hand or not is irrelevant. Occam's Razor dictates that it was natural. Science can't postulate any hypothesis that includes a God or Gods, because the existence/divine hand of those Gods cannot be proven, while the event itself is self evidence of its natural occurrence. Second of all, I think it's arrogance on your part, or anyone's part to claim superior knowledge in a subject in comparison to someone who has a degree. In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree. Now there are instances and hypothesis in terms of the origin of life that are not proven and will be hard to prove in the future, regardless evolution theory does not make those claims. The fact that so many people accept evolution as fact in that field of study pretty much implies it as a fact, and if evidence arises that contradicts the accepted claims, the scientific world will follow. It's like me arguing with a train conductor on how to run trains. I read a book once, but that doesn't make me qualified to argue.

I never claimed to have superior knowledge on evolution than most people, though I can promise you I'm more well-read on the subject than the vast majority of non-scientists. All I'm saying is that it is a fact that the line of thinking that is involved in evolutionary psychology (completely separate from regular evolutionary biology) is largely criticized in the scientific community. You can't put an evolutionary context on every human behavior pattern. You can't that any such behavior is ultimately beneficial for a species. There is no such dissent in regular evolutionary biology.

No, but we can evaluate wait actions are beneficial for the human race and what isn't, that's what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that most behavior is motivated by social gain and selfishness

Genocide is immediately unjustified because we are ALL sexually compatible with each member of our species; race is a social construct that developed over slight differentiation.

First of all, race is not a social construct. That's a flat-out LIE. There's a reason certain ethnic groups have more susceptibility to certain medical problems than others. In any kind of drug testing there has to be subjects of different races because they can affect them differently regardless of whether they are "westernized" or assimilated into American culture. Also, here are genetic tests that can identify the race of a person. That's not something that's a social construct.
Okay, this is flat out bullshit and where you clearly don't understand what the definition of "species." Like having blue eyes, the color of one's skin does not make them a different species. Granted, one's location in the world and the environment in which one lives greatly influences the immune system and other such things, but that's more environmental than racial. People who live in a certain area display certain traits because of their environment, not race. This is why race is a social construct. The environment in which to survive in Africa is different than Europe or North America, by our definition, we may be "superior" in one way or another, but if we switched places we'd be just as out of place if they did the same. That's not a lie, that's science. Read a book.
And your reason for being against eugenics makes no sense from a "rational" standpoint. From a purely utilitarian, "the end justifies the means" mind set, the fact that horrific eugenics programs could benefit future generations isn't affected by the fact that certain individuals have reproductive compatibility with others.
Considering it is the environment we live in, socially and physically, that determines what is beneficial to our species, I'd prefer you not to allude to this, because you're showing misunderstanding of Darwinism in general, and it makes you look dumb. Hitler denied Darwinism, those who developed the terms "Social Darwinism" and "eugenics" morphed Darwiinism for their own political gain and really misunderstood it clearly.
As for Temple Grandin, he is a person with high-functioning autism. I was specifically talking about down syndrome and people with conditions that impair all forms of cognition. Focus, YT.
Temple Grandin was a she. As I've stated, humans are empathetic and those who sadistically advocate for the execution of others are less human than the rest of us. Though it may not necessarily help us in the long run, I'd argue in the short run we would not live with ourselves if we tried such action. Not to mention, no one mentioned anything about eugenics, which implies government intervention, which is a whole 'nother issue all together.

To say that evolution is a falsehood is ignorance. Ideas and scientific concepts adhere to Darwinism (if it's not compatible with reality, it doesn't work!), languages adhere to Darwinism(see Latin to French and Spanish), and cultures adhere to Darwinism (see the United Kingdom to the United States). The fact of the matter is, psychologically that works as well. We're not the same person we were the day that we were born, our experiences have shaped who we are. If I was exposed to the assumption that 2+2=5, but my experience showed me that 2+2=4, I'd be tempted to believe my first exposure, however my experience and the compatibility with reality of 2+2=4 will make me act as such. At the beginning of our primitive civilization we knew nothing about reality, we didn't know anything about psychology or physics or economics, however as time passed we were able to grow past our dogmatisms and shape our world based off the science that we observed. And if the science we proposes was wrong and incompatible with reality, it was either altered to fit the reality or discarded all together. Regardless, our experiences tells how to live our lives and when exposed to a different viewpoint, or new knowledge, we unconditionally change our viewpoint. Again, human rights is an example of this.

I never said evolution was a "falsehood". Re-read what I read carefully. And I agree with what you are saying about changing outlook with respect to human rights and things like that. What I'm saying is that scientific knowledge is also a double-edged sword. Scientific knowledge also leads to some ideas that make sense from a rational, utilitarian, and evolutionary perspective but not from any moral perspective. Like the idea of selective breeding by those of higher cognitive function, or the idea of curbing reproduction to deal with a theoretical malthusian collapse. It can only really be condemned from a moral perspective. That's what JSO is saying if I understand right.

And for the last part, I'd say you're wrong. Science doesn't make a bold statement and act upon it without sufficient evidence. At this point in human history, we don't say what is objectively right, as much as we can say what is objectively wrong. We (at least the civilized world) recognize that all people are people that deserve respect and justice, and that's different from the days of eugenics, "social darwinism," and genocide in the industrial world. When people get into an uproar about such things taking place, they don't invoke God as a reason as much as the fact that they are people too, and as people we demand protection of rights to all people. We do this because we all fear the slippery slope. Once we get rid of the undesirables today, what's to say we won't get rid of tomorrow's undesirables, and what's to say who they will be? Social, moral, and political philosophy go hand in hand in this way

[youngterrier]

That's what JSO is saying if I understand right.

Yes. I think. If our only objective was to maximize the health of the population of our species we would eliminate certain individuals and engage in selective breeding policies. Also, we might cull the population at times. Think in terms of managing any population of animals.

But the problem with that is that it would never fly in the political sphere. Natural selection says the most adaptable survive. Not the smartest and not the majority decide this. What is "better" genetically is completely subjective. We're talking about well-being here, in terms easing of suffering and maximizing prosperity. We're not talking about physical strength or mental ability, we're talking about survival ability. One does not need to be smart or strong to contribute to society. The problem you guys are having is that you're talking about things in specific genetic terms, but not including societal ones like economically, intellectually, or artistically in terms of contribution. I highly doubt you can find anyone who doesn't fit in the context of significance being able to contribute genetically, intellectually, economically, or artistically.

[youngterrier]

In this case, biological evolution is an accepted fact in the field of biology by those whom have a biology degree.

For what it's worth, I have a biology degree and I do not consider the overall theory of evolution to have been established as "fact." I do believe it. I look at it as the most plausible explanation for what we see around us and generally consistent with the evidence. But the idea that all of the diversity of life we see arose through that process is a cause and effect proposition. And any cause and effect proposition must be inferred through controlled experimentation. Either that or you would at least have to directly observe it to happen.

For example: Part of the overall theory is that at it all started with single celled organisms. Every living thing we see...us, blue whales, flamingos...has single celled organism ancestors. The idea that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms is something that theortetically should be testable through controlled experimentation. But at this point there has been no controlled experiment demonstrating that it can occur.

Now, the idea that populations "evolve" in the sense of changing is a fact in that it has been observed. Like the melanistic moths becoming a greater proportion of the population when trees were covered with soot then receding again when soot covered trees became less prevalent. Or the proportions of finches with certain types of bills changing as types of food became more and less available.

But it has not been directly observed or shown through experimentation that a population or populations of single celled organisms can give rise to a population or populations of multicellular organisms.

And that's all the theory states, what I'm saying is in the context of psychology, we have developed new tendencies as we've grown smarter

[youngterrier]

And for all you people talk about equating using science to dictate what's in our best interest with eugenics. Here's why that's wrong
What is "superior" genetically is dependent on environmental factors and in many ways subjective, it's like saying a fish is genetically inferior to a human. Sure, we're more capable of "doing things," but fish are perfect for their environment, while we aren't. The objective of Darwinism isn't superiority, but survival ability. I can say genetically what is superior for an environment, but in terms of comparing creatures that is completely subjective. Simultaneously, their health is objectively good in that it's healthy or bad in that it is dying, and as a living creature I can say I prefer to live to death as many other creatures. When you start defining what is objectively superior and inferior (which you can't), you're going to have problems, especially when you talk about sterilization and genocide. Who is to define what is "better" genetically? Once the undesirables are extinguished, immediately there are weaker members of society that are still apparent. So, let's get rid of them too. And the next set. And the next set. The problem with eugenics is that it's completely relative! There is no absolute better or worse genetically for anyone. Science doesn't deal with that, science deals in absolutes and science would not postulate eugenics because there's no evidence that it would work to create a better society! Not to mention, psychologically, when you force people to do something they don't want to do, that will probably trigger resistance, so such cleansing wouldn't fly by so peacefully.

[Pwns]

First of all, YT, you are wrong about race. You won't find any kind of drug trials or biomedical research involving human subjects that doesn't either (1) only use individuals from one race or (2) doesn't separate them out as a clinical confounder. Forensic anthropologists have used genetic tests to show which race people of certain ancient civilizations are most closely related to. Law enforcement can use genetic testing to figure out the race of a perpetrator when all they have at the crime scene is DNA. Genome-wide association studies also show the clear variation across races is much bigger than they are within races. Lack of race stratification in any kind of GWAS or any kind of application of genetic epidemiology makes it COMPLETELY useless. I know this from experience. That race is a valid classification isn't contingent on being a different SPECIES. If you refuse to believe race is a valid subclassification of people, you are going against all empirical evidence.

Second of all, Darwin's writings DID inspire Nazi ideology. They inspired them the same way that they inspired the eugenics movement in America. That was the reason MANY top scientific intellectuals in the late 19th/early 20th century were proponents of it...Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, and many others. It's hard to to find major scientific minds from this time period who DIDN'T support it. And just because they were wrong about the deterioration of the gene pool doesn't mean they were wrong about the potential benefits of eugenics.

And for all you people talk about equating using science to dictate what's in our best interest with eugenics. Here's why that's wrong
What is "superior" genetically is dependent on environmental factors and in many ways subjective, it's like saying a fish is genetically inferior to a human. Sure, we're more capable of "doing things," but fish are perfect for their environment, while we aren't. The objective of Darwinism isn't superiority, but survival ability. I can say genetically what is superior for an environment, but in terms of comparing creatures that is completely subjective. Simultaneously, their health is objectively good in that it's healthy or bad in that it is dying, and as a living creature I can say I prefer to live to death as many other creatures. When you start defining what is objectively superior and inferior (which you can't), you're going to have problems, especially when you talk about sterilization and genocide. Who is to define what is "better" genetically? Once the undesirables are extinguished, immediately there are weaker members of society that are still apparent. So, let's get rid of them too. And the next set. And the next set. The problem with eugenics is that it's completely relative! There is no absolute better or worse genetically for anyone. Science doesn't deal with that, science deals in absolutes and science would not postulate eugenics because there's no evidence that it would work to create a better society! Not to mention, psychologically, when you force people to do something they don't want to do, that will probably trigger resistance, so such cleansing wouldn't fly by so peacefully.

Are you really going to try and say that certain genetic traits aren't more desirable than others? Is having MS, Cystic Fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's Disease, Alzheimers, Type I diabetes, or Tay-Sachs disease in your genes preferable to not having them? Is having Down-Syndrome preferable to not having it? Is it better to have an IQ of 120 or 80? Are you really going to say that these are subjective?

[houndawg]

My God, I don't even think we can have a conversation with the ignorance in this post.
....

As for the eugenics concept. Wow that is **** ignorance.

YT, you really would do better if you stayed away from personal insults. It is always better to attack the arguments themselves and stay away from ad hominem tactics.

Maybe YT would try to be nicer if pwns would try to be smarter?

[Ibanez]

And for all you people talk about equating using science to dictate what's in our best interest with eugenics. Here's why that's wrong
What is "superior" genetically is dependent on environmental factors and in many ways subjective, it's like saying a fish is genetically inferior to a human. Sure, we're more capable of "doing things," but fish are perfect for their environment, while we aren't. The objective of Darwinism isn't superiority, but survival ability. I can say genetically what is superior for an environment, but in terms of comparing creatures that is completely subjective. Simultaneously, their health is objectively good in that it's healthy or bad in that it is dying, and as a living creature I can say I prefer to live to death as many other creatures. When you start defining what is objectively superior and inferior (which you can't), you're going to have problems, especially when you talk about sterilization and genocide. Who is to define what is "better" genetically? Once the undesirables are extinguished, immediately there are weaker members of society that are still apparent. So, let's get rid of them too. And the next set. And the next set. The problem with eugenics is that it's completely relative! There is no absolute better or worse genetically for anyone. Science doesn't deal with that, science deals in absolutes and science would not postulate eugenics because there's no evidence that it would work to create a better society! Not to mention, psychologically, when you force people to do something they don't want to do, that will probably trigger resistance, so such cleansing wouldn't fly by so peacefully.

[youngterrier]

First of all, YT, you are wrong about race. You won't find any kind of drug trials or biomedical research involving human subjects that doesn't either (1) only use individuals from one race or (2) doesn't separate them out as a clinical confounder. Forensic anthropologists have used genetic tests to show which race people of certain ancient civilizations are most closely related to. Law enforcement can use genetic testing to figure out the race of a perpetrator when all they have at the crime scene is DNA. Genome-wide association studies also show the clear variation across races is much bigger than they are within races. Lack of race stratification in any kind of GWAS or any kind of application of genetic epidemiology makes it COMPLETELY useless. I know this from experience. That race is a valid classification isn't contingent on being a different SPECIES. If you refuse to believe race is a valid subclassification of people, you are going against all empirical evidence.

Second of all, Darwin's writings DID inspire Nazi ideology. They inspired them the same way that they inspired the eugenics movement in America. That was the reason MANY top scientific intellectuals in the late 19th/early 20th century were proponents of it...Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, and many others. It's hard to to find major scientific minds from this time period who DIDN'T support it. And just because they were wrong about the deterioration of the gene pool doesn't mean they were wrong about the potential benefits of eugenics.

And for all you people talk about equating using science to dictate what's in our best interest with eugenics. Here's why that's wrong
What is "superior" genetically is dependent on environmental factors and in many ways subjective, it's like saying a fish is genetically inferior to a human. Sure, we're more capable of "doing things," but fish are perfect for their environment, while we aren't. The objective of Darwinism isn't superiority, but survival ability. I can say genetically what is superior for an environment, but in terms of comparing creatures that is completely subjective. Simultaneously, their health is objectively good in that it's healthy or bad in that it is dying, and as a living creature I can say I prefer to live to death as many other creatures. When you start defining what is objectively superior and inferior (which you can't), you're going to have problems, especially when you talk about sterilization and genocide. Who is to define what is "better" genetically? Once the undesirables are extinguished, immediately there are weaker members of society that are still apparent. So, let's get rid of them too. And the next set. And the next set. The problem with eugenics is that it's completely relative! There is no absolute better or worse genetically for anyone. Science doesn't deal with that, science deals in absolutes and science would not postulate eugenics because there's no evidence that it would work to create a better society! Not to mention, psychologically, when you force people to do something they don't want to do, that will probably trigger resistance, so such cleansing wouldn't fly by so peacefully.

Are you really going to try and say that certain genetic traits aren't more desirable than others? Is having MS, Cystic Fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's Disease, Alzheimers, Type I diabetes, or Tay-Sachs disease in your genes preferable to not having them? Is having Down-Syndrome preferable to not having it? Is it better to have an IQ of 120 or 80? Are you really going to say that these are subjective?

I'm saying it's subjective because it depends what your definition of better is. Eliminate all the people with said traits above, and you still have people on an unequal plain IQ wise, along with other diseases. So do you eliminate them? Science and Darwinism doesn't make bold statements over what is superior, just what is superior to a certain environment. Forced eugenics violates scientific principal in this way. Science doesn't make a conclusion without conclusive evidence, and eugenics is completely relative. It's easy to point to the inferior of society, but it's harder to point out those carrying recessive genes. Once the lesser are eliminated, it's not like the "greater" are on the exact same plain, eugenics would eliminate them as well. That's not science.

As far as race goes, you've yet to rebut my statement. Race is the result of years in one environment, and just like any trait it shows up in the genome. The genome of an African American is going to be different from an African, yet similar and is going to continue to differentiate

[Pwns]

I'm saying it's subjective because it depends what your definition of better is. Eliminate all the people with said traits above, and you still have people on an unequal plain IQ wise, along with other diseases. So do you eliminate them? Science and Darwinism doesn't make bold statements over what is superior, just what is superior to a certain environment. Forced eugenics violates scientific principal in this way. Science doesn't make a conclusion without conclusive evidence, and eugenics is completely relative. It's easy to point to the inferior of society, but it's harder to point out those carrying recessive genes. Once the lesser are eliminated, it's not like the "greater" are on the exact same plain, eugenics would eliminate them as well. That's not science.

YT, you know that sterilizing individuals with certain genetic diseases or others who are carriers of a disease is a form of eugenics, right? None of the diseases I mentioned, as well as most of the others, have any evolutionary advantage to them. Many of them are horrible, debilitating diseases. There is nothing subjective about that. If you could cure any of them with gene therapy or make the disease genes disappear from the population, it's an absolute no brainer. There is nothing subjective about that.

. Race is the result of years in one environment, and just like any trait it shows up in the genome. The genome of an African American is going to be different from an African, yet similar and is going to continue to differentiate

In other words, a valid classification of humans and not a social construct, right?

[youngterrier]

I'm saying it's subjective because it depends what your definition of better is. Eliminate all the people with said traits above, and you still have people on an unequal plain IQ wise, along with other diseases. So do you eliminate them? Science and Darwinism doesn't make bold statements over what is superior, just what is superior to a certain environment. Forced eugenics violates scientific principal in this way. Science doesn't make a conclusion without conclusive evidence, and eugenics is completely relative. It's easy to point to the inferior of society, but it's harder to point out those carrying recessive genes. Once the lesser are eliminated, it's not like the "greater" are on the exact same plain, eugenics would eliminate them as well. That's not science.

YT, you know that sterilizing individuals with certain genetic diseases or others who are carriers of a disease is a form of eugenics, right? None of the diseases I mentioned, as well as most of the others, have any evolutionary advantage to them. Many of them are horrible, debilitating diseases. There is nothing subjective about that. If you could cure any of them with gene therapy or make the disease genes disappear from the population, it's an absolute no brainer. There is nothing subjective about that.

. Race is the result of years in one environment, and just like any trait it shows up in the genome. The genome of an African American is going to be different from an African, yet similar and is going to continue to differentiate

In other words, a valid classification of humans and not a social construct, right?

It's a social construct in the sense that genocide or discrimination can't be really justified based on one's race. We're all the same species. Some members of our species display characteristics that are different, and skin color is one of them. Take Hitler's holocaust for example. Jews were genetically compatible with whites, but the whites thought they were superior. Nothing in science suggested that the Jews were inferior. If the Jews were inferior of a race, they would have phased out naturally ala Darwinism, not because of genocide. The problem I have with people who reject science as a basis of a morality is that they don't understand that science is really skepticism in practice. In many ways, like other sciences we have an idea of how to reach our goals and we have ideas how not to reach them. At the same time, we know how to not reach them. For instances, physicists can give you an idea how old the earth is, but is subject to change with new discovers. At the same time, they can tell you for a fact it isn't 6,000 years old. Eugenics isn't Darwinism because it's based off the perspective of the majority, not of nature.

I can say we would be better off without certain genetic diseases and disorders, there's no doubt about that, however there are better ways of getting rid of them through scientific means than ways of genocide or sterilization.

We're talking about 2 different things here. One is Darwinism as a social policy, and the other is actions being objectively wrong or objectively right. For one, Darwinism happens naturally and it isn't dictated by the majority, it's just a fact of nature. In terms of things being objectively right or wrong, it's not a matter of saying what is right as much as it is at saying what is wrong. It's clear that the United States and Europe are more prosperous scientifically and socially, and what we strive to do right may differ, we can universally say what the wrong thing to do for our societal benefit would be, without needing the belief in religion to spot it. We can all say that what the Taliban does is wrong or what the Nazis did was wrong or what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did was wrong because they embraced concepts of oppression of thought and dogmatism (which is the basis of all suffering) and did objectively immoral things to those people oppressed. It's not about just biology, we're still in the process of figuring out what a perfect society looks like in all faucets, it's about the allowing of ideas to spread--because ideas are ultimately what lead to our prosperity (that's a fact). If you look back at all the oppressiveness in the world's history, it's not due to the ideology, it's due to the dogmatism associated with that ideology. Religion has dogma by definition as does communism. But can we really say that it was science or Darwinism that lead to certain atrocities? Certainly those at the time may have justified as much, but that doesn't mean it was science, because it already had a goal in hand. Science doesn't have goals. Science explains what is, as does Darwinism, and those who justify cruel actions because science or Darwinism says so, doesn't understand what either are.

[SeattleGriz]

YT, you know that sterilizing individuals with certain genetic diseases or others who are carriers of a disease is a form of eugenics, right? None of the diseases I mentioned, as well as most of the others, have any evolutionary advantage to them. Many of them are horrible, debilitating diseases. There is nothing subjective about that. If you could cure any of them with gene therapy or make the disease genes disappear from the population, it's an absolute no brainer. There is nothing subjective about that.



In other words, a valid classification of humans and not a social construct, right?

It's a social construct in the sense that genocide or discrimination can't be really justified based on one's race. We're all the same species. Some members of our species display characteristics that are different, and skin color is one of them. Take Hitler's holocaust for example. Jews were genetically compatible with whites, but the whites thought they were superior. Nothing in science suggested that the Jews were inferior. If the Jews were inferior of a race, they would have phased out naturally ala Darwinism, not because of genocide. The problem I have with people who reject science as a basis of a morality is that they don't understand that science is really skepticism in practice. In many ways, like other sciences we have an idea of how to reach our goals and we have ideas how not to reach them. At the same time, we know how to not reach them. For instances, physicists and give you an idea how old the earth is, but is subject to change with new discovers. At the same time, they can tell you for a fact it isn't 6,000 years old. Eugenics isn't Darwinism because it's based off the perspective of the majority, not of nature.

I can say we would be better off without certain genetic diseases and disorders, there's no doubt about that, however there are better ways of getting rid of them through scientific means than ways of genocide or sterilization.

We're talking about 2 different things here. One is Darwinism as a social policy, and the other is actions being objectively wrong or objectively right. For one, Darwinism happens naturally and it isn't dictated by the majority, it's just a fact of nature. In terms of things being objectively right or wrong, it's not a matter of saying what is right as much as it is at saying what is wrong. It's clear that the United States and Europe are more prosperous scientifically and socially, and what we strive to do right may differ, we can universally say what the wrong thing to do for our societal benefit would be, without needing the belief in religion to spot it. We can all say that what the Taliban does is wrong or what the Nazis did was wrong or what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did was wrong because they embraced concepts of oppression of thought and dogmatism (which is the basis of all suffering) and did objectively immoral things to those people oppressed. It's not about just biology, we're still in the process of figuring out what a perfect society looks like in all faucets, it's about the allowing of ideas to spread--because ideas are ultimately what lead to our prosperity (that's a fact). If you look back at all the oppressiveness in the world's history, it's not due to the ideology, it's due to the dogmatism associated with that ideology. Religion has dogma by definition as does communism. But can we really say that it was science or Darwinism that lead to certain atrocities? Certainly those at the time may have justified as much, but that doesn't mean it was science, because it already had a goal in hand. Science doesn't have goals. Science explains what is, as does Darwinism, and those who justify cruel actions because science or Darwinism says so, doesn't understand what either are.

As an Intelligent Design person, I can say almost 98% of what you said went over the Lemmings heads. Good luck convincing anyone with reason.

[youngterrier]

It's a social construct in the sense that genocide or discrimination can't be really justified based on one's race. We're all the same species. Some members of our species display characteristics that are different, and skin color is one of them. Take Hitler's holocaust for example. Jews were genetically compatible with whites, but the whites thought they were superior. Nothing in science suggested that the Jews were inferior. If the Jews were inferior of a race, they would have phased out naturally ala Darwinism, not because of genocide. The problem I have with people who reject science as a basis of a morality is that they don't understand that science is really skepticism in practice. In many ways, like other sciences we have an idea of how to reach our goals and we have ideas how not to reach them. At the same time, we know how to not reach them. For instances, physicists and give you an idea how old the earth is, but is subject to change with new discovers. At the same time, they can tell you for a fact it isn't 6,000 years old. Eugenics isn't Darwinism because it's based off the perspective of the majority, not of nature.

I can say we would be better off without certain genetic diseases and disorders, there's no doubt about that, however there are better ways of getting rid of them through scientific means than ways of genocide or sterilization.

We're talking about 2 different things here. One is Darwinism as a social policy, and the other is actions being objectively wrong or objectively right. For one, Darwinism happens naturally and it isn't dictated by the majority, it's just a fact of nature. In terms of things being objectively right or wrong, it's not a matter of saying what is right as much as it is at saying what is wrong. It's clear that the United States and Europe are more prosperous scientifically and socially, and what we strive to do right may differ, we can universally say what the wrong thing to do for our societal benefit would be, without needing the belief in religion to spot it. We can all say that what the Taliban does is wrong or what the Nazis did was wrong or what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did was wrong because they embraced concepts of oppression of thought and dogmatism (which is the basis of all suffering) and did objectively immoral things to those people oppressed. It's not about just biology, we're still in the process of figuring out what a perfect society looks like in all faucets, it's about the allowing of ideas to spread--because ideas are ultimately what lead to our prosperity (that's a fact). If you look back at all the oppressiveness in the world's history, it's not due to the ideology, it's due to the dogmatism associated with that ideology. Religion has dogma by definition as does communism. But can we really say that it was science or Darwinism that lead to certain atrocities? Certainly those at the time may have justified as much, but that doesn't mean it was science, because it already had a goal in hand. Science doesn't have goals. Science explains what is, as does Darwinism, and those who justify cruel actions because science or Darwinism says so, doesn't understand what either are.

As an Intelligent Design person, I can say almost 98% of what you said went over the Lemmings heads. Good luck convincing anyone with reason.

meh, it doesn't matter, I'm just throwing around my reason. If people disagree, they are welcome to it, I just don't feel there is sufficient reasoning in opposition, and often there are misconceptions about naturalist viewpoints.

[SeattleGriz]

As an Intelligent Design person, I can say almost 98% of what you said went over the Lemmings heads. Good luck convincing anyone with reason.

meh, it doesn't matter, I'm just throwing around my reason. If people disagree, they are welcome to it, I just don't feel there is sufficient reasoning in opposition, and often there are misconceptions about naturalist viewpoints.

Even that reply was too smart.