2 of 3
2
Will atheists help
Posted: 14 April 2017 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2115
Joined  2013-06-01

When they find the glasses, then just maybe the data will change the thinking. Just as AMH says, he does not understand the point about domestication. Yet he said it quite well. The chicken is part of domestication not evolution like the jungle fowl it was created from. Evolution is a long drawn out process. Domestication is quick compared to natural evolution. When AMH wants to reconnect with evolution, do you think that he wants to connect to the jungle fowl or the chicken? The jungle fowl is just nature. The chicken is nature that was reworked with knowledge to be part of the world that has been created. It is that knowledge that AMH is correct about that is going to be required to get us through this climate change. Whereas evolution does not lean towards any one species where domestication is all about one species.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2115
Joined  2013-06-01

for AMH post #14
There is more. I agree evolution is a scientific fact. But evolution of species that you are talking about is not what we are going to connect to. The connecting you are talking about contains “god”. That means it is not evolution – “the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.” What you are referring to is called domestication. The earth did not start off as a nice place for mankind. It was hostile and difficult for early mankind. Mankind created the earth that you know today by domestication not evolution. And I really like the idea of you wanting to look back into history. Because history will show that god as a form of knowledge helped create the earth for mankind. And some of the old atheist religions are still around, like Buddhism for example.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
MikeYohe - 14 April 2017 07:24 AM

When they find the glasses, then just maybe the data will change the thinking. Just as AMH says, he does not understand the point about domestication. Yet he said it quite well. The chicken is part of domestication not evolution like the jungle fowl it was created from. Evolution is a long drawn out process. Domestication is quick compared to natural evolution. When AMH wants to reconnect with evolution, do you think that he wants to connect to the jungle fowl or the chicken? The jungle fowl is just nature. The chicken is nature that was reworked with knowledge to be part of the world that has been created. It is that knowledge that AMH is correct about that is going to be required to get us through this climate change. Whereas evolution does not lean towards any one species where domestication is all about one species.

Well “evolution being a long, drawn out process” is kind of an old thinking..in a way.
There is no set speed limit or time duration for evolution. Certainly different species evolved faster or slower than others.
While other species along side of those species didn’t evolve at all. Or were done “evolving” for the time being.

You can’t simply point out domestication from some starting point.
Unless you can say exactly when humans and “jungle fowl” started hanging around each other.(so to speak)
Were jungle fowl around before homo sapiens? I would guess so.(I’m just guessing)
Were proto-humans eating jungle fowl if they could? I would guess so.
But did they have brains yet that were capable of conceiving animal husbandry/agriculture/livestock?


But this leads to another point you made about “humans being domesticated”.
Did the Jungle Fowl “domesticate humans” as much as we domesticated it? Yeah… I think so.
Who’s to say? It’s really a non-question.
But one thing is for sure…this interaction between hominids(people?)and jungle fowl was slowly taking place over a long time.
So it didn’t happen faster or slower than relatively anything else in evolution.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 14 April 2017 07:24 AM

When they find the glasses, then just maybe the data will change the thinking. Just as AMH says, he does not understand the point about domestication. Yet he said it quite well. The chicken is part of domestication not evolution like the jungle fowl it was created from. Evolution is a long drawn out process. Domestication is quick compared to natural evolution. When AMH wants to reconnect with evolution, do you think that he wants to connect to the jungle fowl or the chicken? The jungle fowl is just nature. The chicken is nature that was reworked with knowledge to be part of the world that has been created. It is that knowledge that AMH is correct about that is going to be required to get us through this climate change. Whereas evolution does not lean towards any one species where domestication is all about one species.

VYAZMA asked the right question. Tyson did a good job of this with dogs and humans in his Cosmos series. Each animal saw advantages to hanging around each other and not eating each other.

Mike sees humans as separate from nature. He sees knowledge as something that can “rework” nature. When he says “world”, he means something more like what I would call “culture”. We create culture, but it’s still part of nature. I heard a talk recently that said we could solve all the problems of global warming and still experience the collapse of civilization and possibly the end of the species not too long after that. It would happen because we continue to view the world as a set of problems to be solved, instead of something we are part of.

This isn’t the talk, but it’s the same guy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

questions from VYAZMA

Improve in positive terms.” What does that mean?

It means treat all species of life as they have rights and stop or reduce as possible human exploitation of other humans, other species, and natural resources.

You’re the one forecasting doom and gloom. I said we will survive.

Not doom and gloom just saying 99.9% of all species have gone extinct, we need to be more careful.  Rushing forth to “subdue” all other species was not and is not being careful.

You’re the one beseeching humanity to find a higher calling, a better way.
From what position are you stating that?

Beseeching seems a little strong.  A higher calling is from our own collective innateness to continue successful evolution.

Where do you gain the authority or the foresight to find room for improvement?

I have no more authority than any of us.  The foresight?  It doesn’t take foresight to know there is unequivocally room for improvement

What’s your standard? What are you comparing reality against?

I use reality as the reality of activities of daily living.  There are no supreme beings in reality

You said, “There may not be a long term….” Not me!

In terms of species and evolution if a species does not evolve along with other species sharing the planet the species probably goes extinct in the short term, less than 10,000 years. 

As William Clifford (W K Clifford, The Ethics of Belief) the Victorian philosopher and mathematician, famously wrote:

“It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to ignore evidence that is relevant to his beliefs, or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way.”

Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief” is in strong contrast to the belief that theistic supernatural stories trump the reality of natural, earthly, evidence.

Belief against the evidence is not a virtue and it can be a vice, especially when it leads to damaging action to our species and the planet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2017 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
AMH - 14 April 2017 08:49 AM

It means treat all species of life as they have rights and stop or reduce as possible human exploitation of other humans, other species, and natural resources.

I tend to agree with you on this. But I recognize that this is only my(our) viewpoint. Plus it’s probably not as strong as yours or has different nuances.
I temper mine with the obvious conclusion that this is about the best we can do. Really.
And that is an oversimplification for the sake of this typing. To say “this is the best we can do” is to imply that there is potential for better.
I’m keeping it simple here. I don’t want to write out 2 pages.

Come on man! What the heck do you think is driving us? Get real!
Look at history. Look at our human animal instincts-objectively!!

A higher calling is from our own collective innateness to continue successful evolution.

You shouldn’t be using that word-evolution. We don’t have a collective innateness to “continue successful evolution”.
You are out of bounds. Evolution isn’t about success. Your idea of success!!
C’mon dude.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2017 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4250
Joined  2014-06-20
AMH - 12 April 2017 07:45 PM

Evolution is a scientific fact.
We are only one species among enumerable species is a scientific fact.
Our species cannot survive as a group of created beings following directions from a God and subdue everything is a scientific fact.
For hundreds of thousands of years our AMH generations evolved, learned, lived among, and competed with other animals for survival.
During those years of early development we balanced our form of life with other forms of life as we passed through their landscapes with care on our nomadic foraging journey.
We need to return to the civility of balancing our life form with other life forms and their landscapes.
All of us, AMH of the planet should explore our evolutionary heritage, we should embrace with pride our ancestral history and successful arrival into the 21st century: It’s up to us to stop doing stupid things to all species and the planet.
It’s up to us to remove the survival of our species from the domain of irrational religious dogma.
AMH of the world, enter the realm of rational realistic down-to-earth spirituality and humanity.  Will atheists help?

It’s what most atheists already do. Do you have something specific in mind that isn’t being done by atheists already?

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2017 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

Loisl, yes I do. Let me think about how I want to explain to you my thoughts.  Thank you very much for your question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2017 02:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28
AMH - 15 April 2017 05:15 PM

Loisl, yes I do. Let me think about how I want to explain to you my thoughts.  Thank you very much for your question.

I believe the American style Humanism introduced by Felix Adler provides a solid platform for living a good life without God while the human has agency.

People are shifting away from believing in religion but still believe in their own spirituality and don’t consider themselves Atheists.

There are other groups who absolutely refuse any form of religious dogma: Atheist being one and Evolutionist being another one that absolutely refuse any form of religious dogma but does not accept the title of atheist because that title insinuates there was something of substance at the dawn of history that was supernaturally Devine: there wasn’t.

Evolutionists know 98% of our species existence or hundreds of thousands of years was spent accumulating and adjusting markers of who we are as a species today.  Compared to our time period of hundreds of thousands of years of existing as a modern human species the conventional religions of today account for only two thousand years of our existence. And, that was after we invented writing and was able to inscribe what we believed at that time with absolutely no scientific knowledge or any evidence to substantiate what anything was at the time.

I want to help move current religions into the dustbin of all previous religions and get the religious politicians and government leaders out of our life.

I do have an approach to my goal that includes the groups listed above that I have been working on for a few years.  Not something I can easily provide in a forum post.

As in my question for this forum “will atheists help”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2017 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

My plan in brief is to relegate all supernatural aspects of Christianity to the dustbin of all religious and continue cultural social positives that actually serve the communities of their area.

Atheists could be a positive force if they could change tack from arguing a none solvable argument and adopt an evolutionist argument against the non-event of creationism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2017 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2017-05-15
AMH - 16 April 2017 02:35 PM
AMH - 15 April 2017 05:15 PM

...but does not accept the title of atheist because that title insinuates there was something of substance at the dawn of history that was supernaturally Devine: there wasn’t.

I don’t see how atheism implies that, how do you define atheism?

The only ways I hear it used are: 1. someone who does not believe in a god, 2. someone who believes their is no god
The definition is often contentious in theist/atheist debates due to their differences in burden of proof.  I can’t imagine how either insinuate anything divine + of substance at any time, or outside time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 05:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

Believing or not believing certainly implies credibility of divinity.

Atheists and their counterparts are just opposite poles of the same magnet. Their perpetual polarity prevents objectivity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2017-05-15
AMH - 16 May 2017 05:22 AM

Believing or not believing certainly implies credibility of divinity.

I don’t see how.  Could you explain?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 08:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2017-05-15
AMH - 16 May 2017 05:22 AM

Atheists and their counterparts are just opposite poles of the same magnet. Their perpetual polarity prevents objectivity.

This is a complete oversimplification.  Analogies can be helpful to quickly illustrate meaning, but this one is particularly inaccurate and misleading.  What point on the spectrum of theism and religious belief is the counterpoint of atheism?  Atheists are also all over the map on how they define their own confidence in lack of the divine or supernatural and how important it even is.  Saying theistic belief is anything like a magnet with opposing sides does an injustice to the epistemology of all perspectives on the topic.  Putting people into “opposite” categories and saying their objectivity is confined therein is not likely going to help you with the goals you express in your original post, goals which I take to be some kind of mutual/cooperative care for the world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2017 08:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2017-05-15

If I may go back to that first post:

AMH - 16 May 2017 05:22 AM

Will atheists help?

 

We already do. 
If you think we can help more, or in better ways, I suggest that telling us that our identification as such is “just opposite” and equally myopic as the religions we likely use the label to object to is not the best way to get us to take your point and consider your message.  Atheists are much more likely to agree with you on the truth of evolution, and object to the same “irrational religious dogma” that you spoke of.

Could you tell me if this is an accurate message to take from your original post?:
Believers do not accept or appreciate evolution enough and non-believers do not take spiritual reverence seriously enough, but these views both imply respect for the world and a common goal of caring for it.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2