moonbattery.gif


« At Least Some Have Property Rights | Main | Cornell Student Opposes Thanking Our Troops »


November 26, 2006

Will Natural Selection Cure Us of Moonbattery?

Though attempting to use it to advance their ideology causes progressives to lapse into dogmatic absurdity, Darwinism certainly has some validity. It takes a lot of gullibility to buy into the cherished liberal belief that human life is just a meaningless random accident occurring to no purpose in a mindless void. But that's not to say there is nothing to natural selection, a mechanism that rids the world of species that are unfit to survive — moonbats, for example.

From a recent New York Times interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the moonbattery-infested Episcopal Church:

NY Times: How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
Schori: About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations.
NY Times: Episcopalians aren't interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
Schori: No. It's probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.

A liberal through and through, Schori sides with a hostile religion against her own, opining that Christians have "a terrible history" and condemning the condemnation of Muslim violence.

She's not the first moonbat whose self-hatred has taken the form of discouraging reproduction. A cult calling itself Voluntary Human Extinction Movement calls for a complete end to it. Ecokook Eric Pianka of the University of Texas has proclaimed that the world would be better off with 5.8 billion fewer humans. The leftists at Newsweek are openly pleased that the West is becoming depopulated.

Gary L'Hommedieu of St. Luke's Cathedral in Orlando has this take on Schori's statements:

Katharine Jefferts Schori presides over a denomination whose numbers are falling like lightning from heaven. [...] Maybe it's not the fact that Episcopalians have watered down (or polluted) the gospel. Maybe it's not all the trendy innovations and social experiments. Maybe it's the religious expression of something more sinister from deep within our culture: a death wish.
Well not "death wish" in the Charles Bronson sense; more in the sense of Malcolm Muggeridge: not a form of active suicide or even a passion for danger; more a self-imposed decline, a systemic "failure to thrive". [...]
In nature survival and reproduction are one and the same. The urge not to reproduce is a fundamental negation of the life of that species or group. It's a failure to thrive — a flat, clinical way of saying the beginning of the end. [...]
This is a snapshot of a culture that has lost its will to survive.

Fortunately, the more grounded people are in conservative values, the more likely they are to raise their children instead of aborting them — a clear example of natural selection at its most beneficial.

Less fortunately for Western Civilization, cultural self-loathing and resulting depopulation are not problems the Islamic world needs to worry about. Mark Steyn contrasts Schori's self-satisfied nihilism with Fatma An-Najar, a 64-year-old Palestinian grandmother who recently became a heroine to her fellow Palestinians by blowing herself up in an attempt to kill some Jews. She left behind 41 grandchildren. That's about 40 times the average in some parts of Europe.

Meanwhile, actress Scarlett Johansson frets that if it were up to the President, we would abort too few of our children.

As Steyn concludes:

It's the intersection of demography and Islamism that makes time a luxury we can't afford.

The good news is that Schori's "stewardship of the earth" is not going to fall to the Episcopal Church, or to decadent degenerates like Johansson. The bad news (for us) is that Fatma An-Najar's 41 grandkids may each have 41 grandkids of their own.

Katherine-Jefferts-Schori.jpg
Schori: Onwards toward extinction.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at November 26, 2006 1:53 PM

Comments

What strikes me as I study Scripture is how the pattern repeats itself across history. First, a nation follows the Word of God and as a result, its people become prosperous and powerful. With power and wealth come corruption and decadence, that ultimately leads to their downfall. And when the society becomes decadent, the priests and the clergy become as diseased as the political and social class.

Also, arrogant, as embodied in the statement, "Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations."

Posted by: V the K at November 26, 2006 2:30 PM

Moonbats piss me off as much as anyone but evolution isn't a liberal belief, it's a scientific one with sound evidence to back it up (unlike creationism). Your insinuation that anyone who believes in it must also hold the belief that life is inherently meaningless is also way off the mark.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 26, 2006 3:03 PM

When your organization's members and leadership have become firm believers in the tenets of social liberalism, religious spirituality beliefs are expressed as psychobabble as Schori does when she opens her pie hole. The new age liberal self loathing and traditional religion will have difficulty reconciling within the confines of a religion, other than The Church of What's Happening Now.

I don't know what made me think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs after I read the post. Maybe he should add another level above self-actualization, self-destruction.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at November 26, 2006 3:42 PM

Anonymous, whether believing in Darwinism means believing life is inherently meaningless depends on what you mean by Darwinism. The belief that the existence and evolution of life are totally random accidents unguided by anything other than natural selection is nihilism. Progressives call it Darwinism to give it an aura of scientific authority, though the idea that anyone could prove there is no intelligence in the universe outside our own minds is hardly scientific. Rejecting random mutation as a credible explanation for our existence doesn't require anyone to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Posted by: Van Helsing at November 26, 2006 4:38 PM

Oh man.

Yes, it requires an enormous leap of faith to accept that the universe was created and ordered by a Divine Being of Infinite Power.

It also requires an enormous leap of faith to believe that the universe overcame trillion-to-one odds at the moment of the Big Bang to evolve the precise conditions necessary to create and sustain life.

The difference is that one leap of faith takes you to a place where life is precious and meaningful. The other takes you to a place where life is nothing more than a process by which you are born, you live, you go on some diets, and then you die.

The one path leads you to a place where life is valued and respected. The other path leads you to a place where children can be cloned, grown, and harvested as organ banks for the benefit of those who would choose to do so. (e.g. Michael J Fox.)

Posted by: V the K at November 26, 2006 5:24 PM

V the K, I agree, it does indeed take as much faith to believe that life "evolved" completely on its own with no manipulation by a higher intelligence (whether you call it God or some race of super intelligent beings who created this universe and life on Earth)


Do I believe life "evolved"? Sure. But I also believe the mathematical odds against life forming by completely random processes is so astronomically high as to be impossible. Computers, airplanes and cars have evolved too, but In dont believe they did so thru random processes. After examining the evidence and the periodic bursts of change Im convinced the Earth is one huge genetic experiment. In the last several thousand years humans havent changed at all - no new major or even minor structures - no new eyes, ears, or limbs. If random mutation is still occuring why arent there evolved groups of humans with several eyes (eyes in the back of our heads might be cool---or creepy), 3 arms (arm sticking out your chest might come in handy hauling groceries from the car!), 4 legs, ect? Same goes for all other animals. You do see micro evolution involving superficial features like hair or fur color, but thats about it. Who is behind it - Im sure when they choose to reveal themselves it will be quite a shock (assuming they didnt become too smart and accidentally kill themselves off)

Im sure that man, if we survive the next 1000 years, will be creating our own forms of life on worlds that cannot support human life. I wonder if intelligent life man creates will view us the same way we view our creator(s)? What kind of Gods will we be?


Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at November 26, 2006 6:18 PM

Rip, what you are writing isn't a million miles from some aspects of Mormon Theology.

Technically, you could make the case that the Biblical God is an alien by definition, He is not from Earth, He is immensely powerful and advanced beyond human comprehension, and He has a specific agenda for the Human species.

Meanwhile, Moonbats may not be reproducing, but they are dating

Posted by: V the K at November 26, 2006 8:10 PM

Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals" Essay #2 #24 (excerpt)...

It isn't a choice of G_d or Darwin. It's finding a harmonic mean between them. A place between Anti-Christ and Anti-Nihilist...

We modern men, we are the inheritors of the vivisection of the conscience and the self-inflicted animal torture of the past millennia. That's what we have had the most practice doing, that is perhaps our artistry—in any case it is something we have refined to spoil our taste. For too long man has looked at his natural inclinations with an "evil eye," so that finally in him they have become twinned with "bad conscience." An attempt to reverse this might be possible, but who is strong enough for that, that is, to interrelate with bad conscience the unnatural inclinations, all those aspirations for what lies beyond us, which goes against our senses, our instincts, nature, animals—in short, the earlier ideals, all the ideals which are anti-life and have vilified the world.

To whom can we turn to today with such hopes and demands? . . . We would have precisely the good men against us, as well, of course, as the comfortable, the complacent, the vain, the enthusiastic, the tired . . . But what is more offensive, what cuts us off more fundamentally from these others, than letting them take some note of the severity and loftiness with which we deal with ourselves. And by contrast how obliging, how friendly all the world is in relation to us, as soon as we act as all the world does and "let ourselves go" just like everyone else! . . .

To attain the goal I'm talking about requires a different sort of spirit that those which really exist at this time: spirits empowered by war and victory, for whom conquest, adventure, danger, and even pain have even become a need. That would require getting acclimatized to keen, high air, winter wanderings, to ice and mountains in every sense. That would require even a kind of sublime maliciousness, an ultimate self-conscious willfulness of knowledge, which comes with great health. Briefly put, that would unfortunately require this great health! . . . Is this even possible today? . . .

But at some time or other, in a more powerful time than this mouldy, self-doubting present, he must nonetheless come to us, the redeeming man of great love and contempt, the creative spirit, constantly pushed away from the sidelines or from the beyond by his own driving power, whose isolation is misunderstood by people as if it were a flight from reality, whereas it is his immersion, burial, and absorption into nothing but reality, so that once he comes out of it into the light again, he brings back the redemption of this reality, its redemption from the curse which the previous ideal had laid upon it. This man of the future, who will release us from that earlier ideal and, in so doing, from those things which had to grow from it, from the great loathing, from the will to nothingness, from nihilism—that stroke of noon and of the great decision which makes the will free once again, who gives back to the earth its purpose and to human beings their hope, this anti-Christ and Anti-nihilist, this conqueror of God and of nothingness—at some point he must come . . .

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 5:45 AM

it is written.

*:}

thanks farmer.

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 6:34 AM

"The belief that the existence and evolution of life are totally random accidents unguided by anything other than natural selection is nihilism."

I disagree. Deducing from that proposition that life is therefore completely meaningless and devoid of value is nihilism.

IMHO value is ascribed to things. If your father gave you his broken watch on his death bed that his grandfather gave him, a huge value is ascribed to that modest object even though, in a universal context (and to most other people taken purely on face value), it's near worthless. That doesn't make the value ascribed to it any less real. Just like life human life being "random" doesn't make it any less precious. I believe in evolution and yet I think human life, thought, feeling etc. are the most sacred of things. I'm sure most other atheists and evolutionists share my views.

I have a great deal of respect for Christian views and values so please respect mine and don't try to paint me or people like me out to be bad people with no values.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 6:57 AM

from the Jowett introduction to Plato's "Philebus"...

The theoretical element of the arts may also become a purely abstract science, when separated from matter, and is then said to be pure and unmixed. The distinction which Plato here makes seems to be the same as that between pure and "applied" mathematics, and may be expressed in the modern formula--science is art theoretical, art is science "practical". In the reason which he gives for the superiority of the pure science of number over the "mixed or applied", we can only agree with him in part. He says that the numbers which the philosopher employs are always the same, whereas the numbers which are used in practice represent different sizes or quantities. He does not see that this power of expressing different quantities by the same symbol is the characteristic and not the defect of numbers, and is due to their abstract nature;--although we admit of course what Plato seems to feel in his distinctions between pure and impure knowledge, that the "imperfection of matter" enters into the applications of them.

Above the other sciences, as in the Republic, towers dialectic, which is the science of eternal Being, apprehended by the purest mind and reason. The lower sciences, including the mathematical, are akin to "opinion" rather than to reason, and are placed together in the fourth class of goods. The relation in which they stand to dialectic is obscure in the Republic, and is not cleared up in the Philebus.

---

People may "discount" creationism, but Plato speculated that "before" the "big bang" two "pure" and distinct "elements" were unmixed (existence/nonexistence- "Sophist"). Creation "happened" the instant these two were mixed, and became "interdependent" from that point on. The essence of this idea is best depicted by Aristotle's (or Plato's) theories regarding the nature of existence and "Being" (ontology) and that this current moment in time represents the mixed "union" of those two substances and can best be thought of in terms of the mind-body dualisms Plato's "divided line" (epistemology).

The harmonic "practical" point we must arrive at was at one time symbolically represented as the "Music of the Spheres"... examples for "practical/empirical: astronomy (macro-scale)/ quantum physics (micro-scale) derived & "modelled" from purely theoretical mathematics.

e=mc^2

energy (pure)= matter {potential energy stored in energy bonds} * {big bang kinetic energy released as measured in terms of the C-Speed of Light [max velocity of "matter" w/atomic mass approaching "0" measured as {distance displaced in 2D space} squared to achieve 3D] / time (the other "pure" substance)}

another way to think of it (theoretically) is that Energy = unorganized intelligence (analog)
Time = Organized intelligence (sequenced digital)

and that the Creator was some form of fixed and stable "organization" for energy to be laid over... a Platonic "form"/scaffold over which matter was laid... and can be extracted using "time" as proxy... "empiracally" from multiple (two or more) observations.

Plato's "Beautiful" (from Philebus) were "knowledge of these Forms". Mathematics was "lower" than dialectic/language because language requires use of "absolutes" (words) to which reason is applied (Plato "Cratylus" & "Parmenides")

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 7:43 AM

Your problem, anonymous is that you "over-value" life itself, and don't discriminate sufficiently between "life" and a "good life". You lack a means of discerning the "good", for to you "life itself" represents "the good". It isn't.

Reality is that all matter and life operate on a principle of "Will too Power"... even though there really is no "will".

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 7:49 AM

ooops... that was Farmer John above (not anonymous)

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 7:51 AM

in other words... it takes POWER to make life good. To be "powerless" and alive is worse than death!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 7:52 AM

...and to many Christians (apostles creed)

G_d is (represents) the Power... and the Glory... FOREVER. Amen!

You have no god but "life". And a powerless life...sucks!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 7:55 AM

i was just going to remind anonymous how wonderful it is that we have this outlet and for the time being freedom of speech and beliefs are our G-d and national given rights. there may come a time when we'll have to hold them closer than ever before while not being able to exercise them.

we would not have these freedoms in some other countries.

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 7:59 AM

Lessing's son was the 1st true nihilist. TRUE NIHILISTS ARE DEAD

Nietzsche, "Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense"

It is strange that this should be the effect of the intellect, for after all it was given only as an aid to the most unfortunate, most delicate, most evanescent beings in order to hold them for a minute in existence, from which otherwise, without this gift, they would have every reason to flee as quickly as Lessing's son. [In a famous letter to Johann Joachim Eschenburg (December 31, 1778), Lessing relates the death of his infant son, who "understood the world so well that he left it at the first opportunity."] That haughtiness which goes with knowledge and feeling, which shrouds the eyes and senses of man in a blinding fog, therefore deceives him about the value of existence by carrying in itself the most flattering evaluation of knowledge itself. Its most universal effect is deception; but even its most particular effects have something of the same character.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:05 AM

...and so anonymous is not a lover of his own life... he commits cultural and evolutionary suicide by not reproducing more people like himself, and sacrificing his own kind out of the stupidity that he is doing something "noble" thereby.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:11 AM

moonbats are a withering breed, farmer.

i want to be surrounded by loved ones in my coming old age. it must be horrid to get to the end of your age only to find you have no legacy. strangers robotically tending to your last needs. shameful i tell you.

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 8:17 AM

...he abdicates all POWER to his government... and then enjoy's his petty animal pleasures with the little time he's got left on earth. An animalistic non-reproductive fornication seems to represent the epitomy of his values for life. He has no offspring or posterity (or vision of eternity) to worry about. He'll spend his non-children's inheritance on fullfilling his instinctive pleasures....copulating with sow's in the mud.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:17 AM

His energies (and theories) are all "critical" of existence. He has lost the ability to "create", to build. He can only tear down and destroy. He is Thanatos "unleashed" in pursuit of petty Eros (Hrbert Marcuse)

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:19 AM

...he "loves NOT" his Creator. He emulates no Creator. He is Vishnu, the Destroyer.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:20 AM

and he cannot even take it with him...

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 8:26 AM

Me, I seek the mean...what is "good" for the average man. Family. Friends. Peace (if it doesn't threaten my power). Wisdom. Health. Personal power. Social Power.

But since these value are too "traditional", progressives reject them. The new always trumps the old with them.

they read newspapers and pursue "research" while ignoring "custom" (what has always worked for man) and scholarship.

I'm with you nanc. I don't want a nurse at my bedside when I die. I want my family there.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:29 AM

They represent my eternity.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:30 AM

I only wish some were as smart as Lessing's son. It sure would save the rest of us a lot of grief!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:33 AM

Nietzsche once remarked that man is the valuing animal. anonymous believes that "life" is the summa quo non of values. And since he values life, that makes his values as good as mine.

I'm here to tell him that they're NOT!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:37 AM

That anonymous and his kind ARE bad short-sighted people. They represent Freud's discontents ("Civilization and Its' Discontents"). They are Nietzsche's last men, fat, dumb, spoiled-rotten BRATs that need a good ass-whoopin'!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:41 AM

That anonymous and his kind ARE bad short-sighted people. They represent Freud's discontents ("Civilization and Its' Discontents"). They are Nietzsche's last men, fat, dumb, spoiled-rotten BRATs that need a good ass-whoopin'! All they want out of life is to be tied to Mommy-Governments apron strings while they BOINK everything in the farmyard that isn't tied down.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:43 AM

'F You, anonymous!!!!

Our government doesn't need any pussy CEO/presidents like Kerry who's vision extend to the next quarter's profits or next election cycle's polls.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:45 AM

Rant off.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 8:48 AM

and there you have it, once again - the "morning hours with farmer and nanc". adieu.

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 9:08 AM

I'm impressed.

Posted by: Archonix at November 27, 2006 12:18 PM

Make as many unfounded statements about me as you want but I value my life enough not to squander it posting idiotic diatribes on web site comment systems.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 1:05 PM

Unfounded??? I posted my references...the greatest philosophers the planet has produced. What foundations did you build on?

...none. nada. Quicksand. Opinion.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 1:50 PM

Sorry pal, but cultural relativism... I have my opinion, you have yours is CRAP! Our opinions are NOT equal. Yours are SHIT!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 1:52 PM

...and keep your promise to stop wasting the world's time with your idiotic diatribes! Grown-ups have better things to do than listen to the musings of mental masturbators like you.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 2:00 PM

'scuse me, anon, but aren't these systems made for dialogue?

you just do not understand the farmer. he NEVER squanders and we appreciate his insight.

soooooo, who's going to be wiping your hiney when you're old and incontinent?

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 2:05 PM

p.s. you'd better hope it's someone who has had the benefit of a rightwing nurturing parent/child relationship!

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 2:36 PM

My wife and kids. You really aren't "getting" me are you?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:05 PM

Farmer John: Unfounded accusations against *ME*, you idiot. Such gems as:

"That anonymous and his kind ARE bad short-sighted people. They represent Freud's discontents ("Civilization and Its' Discontents"). They are Nietzsche's last men, fat, dumb, spoiled-rotten BRATs that need a good ass-whoopin'!"

"...and so anonymous is not a lover of his own life... he commits cultural and evolutionary suicide by not reproducing more people like himself, and sacrificing his own kind out of the stupidity that he is doing something "noble" thereby."

"Your problem, anonymous is that you "over-value" life itself, and don't discriminate sufficiently between "life" and a "good life". You lack a means of discerning the "good", for to you "life itself" represents "the good". It isn't."

"Sorry pal, but cultural relativism... I have my opinion, you have yours is CRAP! Our opinions are NOT equal. Yours are SHIT!"

HAHAHA! You really have absolutely no clue about me whatsoever.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:12 PM

don't try to paint me or people like me out to be bad people with no values.

No, I don't know you personally but I've a lifetime experience dealing with "people like you".

F'n authentic idiots of the Charles Taylor variety.

Wa-a-a-a-h-h "You're painting me, you're painting me"

F' You!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:26 PM

So if you don't know me personally then how the fuck can you know that I'm anything like these people you've had a "lifetime experience dealing with"?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:31 PM

and nobody wants to "get you" anon. We just want to get "rid" of you.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:32 PM

Who the fuck cares! You proved yourself an idiot the moment you stated that you had "values", and that this simple fact might somehow might preclude an attack on them.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:38 PM

...or you!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:40 PM

You care. If you didn't you wouldn't still be replying. Why don't you go back to sucking your faggot friend nanc's cock?

Don't worry. Even though everyone else thinks you're a cunt, Jesus still loves you.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:41 PM

So either state and defend your "values" or get the fuck out of here and stop wasting my time.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:41 PM

The sad thing is I probably have the same values as you do (conservative, traditional family, pro-west, capitalist), only I'm an atheist and, unsurprisingly, think creationism is a crock of shit.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:46 PM

Cuz I can defend mine. But I sincerely doubt you have the capacity to defend yours. Prove me wrong, faggot!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:47 PM

Defend them from what?

P.S. "The Bible says so" doesn't constitute a defence.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 3:50 PM

I'm not a Christian... and I can neither prove nor disprove creationism. And neither can you. I choose to believe in Creation on the basis of pure reason, for to deny it leads to the logical conclusion that life has absolutely NO value. Zero. None. And you'd best follow Lessing's son.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:54 PM

Or prove that life has value.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:56 PM

...instead of tearing down creationists and Christian's... try building something... like a foundation for your values.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 3:58 PM

...you said that the world was not created. You don't believe in G_d. So upon what foundation does your claim to hold values rest?

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 4:00 PM

So you believe in creationism based on pure reason, the reason being that not believing in it would damage your worldview?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 4:04 PM

...don't try and change the subject. Build. What is the foundation for your values?

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 4:07 PM

...where do your values come from. Have they a source? What is it?

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 4:10 PM

My consciousness. My values stem from what I've been taught and my critical observations. Which is exactly the same as yours.

And I'm not changing the subject, I'm genuinely interested. You made a statement and I'm questioning it. How is that changing the subject? Or am I not allowed to question you now? So please answer my question.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 4:15 PM

ahem? i'm a girly-girl, anon.

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 4:32 PM

If I may interrupt for a moment...

Would the people who believe that 5.8 billion people need to die to make the Earth a better place please get the fuck off of my planet? Go kill yourselves, we don't have room for ya.

PS - Nanc, you should invite me to these mosh pits more often.

Posted by: Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit at November 27, 2006 4:50 PM

Farmer John,

Don't you know that the taboo against murder arose from an evolutionary process? Apes got tired of picking dried blood out of their fur, and then... whammo... an ape was born without fur.

Humanity hasn't evolved since.

Posted by: Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit at November 27, 2006 4:56 PM

OH MY WORD, BEAMISH!

:0

THIS IS A MOSH PIT?!?

Posted by: nanc at November 27, 2006 6:08 PM

What do you mean my source is the same as yours? I already told you that mine came from a Single, Absolute, Constant and Never Changing, All Knowing Fixed Consciousness contemplating Pure Reason... and yours grew out of your own head, based upon incomplete, un-informed observations in a mixed universe, and the teachings of many un-informed barely conscious animals running around babbling about "law of the one-price" and seeking to fullfill their instincts. Your values change from moment to moment and are "relative". Mine never change, and therefore, are capable of being "known" and passed on.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 6:24 PM

So tell me, if you can, what is the nature of your consciousness? Have I adequately described it, or is it something else? And what is it that is so special about your consciousness, that makes your values any better than what a random chaotic number generator couldn't replicate?

Posted by: Farmer John at November 27, 2006 6:31 PM

Please answer my question. Also please explain to me how your values didn't also "grow out of your own head, based upon incomplete, uninformed observations in a mixed universe, and the teachings of many uninformed barely conscious animals".

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 12:47 AM

Your question: So you believe in creationism based on pure reason, the reason being that not believing in it would damage your worldview?

No. I believe that not believing it would render all mankind less "human".

Nietzsche, "Gay Science"

115

The Four Errors. Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity."

Does that answer your original question?

---

As for the second question: Also please explain to me how your values didn't also "grow out of your own head, based upon incomplete, uninformed observations in a mixed universe, and the teachings of many uninformed barely conscious animals".

Mine didn''t grow out of my own head. They were given to my ancestors by G_d (born from the head of Zeus, so to speak) and written down in books that are thousands of years old. In other words, the tables of values were already established many millenia before I was even born. And when those self-same values got "applied" in each succeeding generation, my ancestors both survived and prospered, regardless of the environments they encountered, fair AND foul, and managed to leave succeeding generations of descendents after them. They were liberal values. Liber: from books.

Does that answer the second?

----

Now, what are your answers?

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 6:04 AM

and btw - Here's another question for you, which is the same question you've been avoiding this whole time.... What is it about your values that makes them... worthy of my respect... cuz I don't give a shit whether you respect mine or not ('cause if you actually DID respect my values, you would probably defer to them rather than attempt to force yours upon me).

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 6:25 AM

beamish... You keep sign-posting me. Thanks!

nanc... You're a girly girl? And all this time I thought we were going to be peanut butter pals. My bad.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 6:35 AM

and not to forget you anon... I'm a cunt? Thanks for the compliment. Most people think I'm a prick.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 6:38 AM

Actually your second answer answers my first question better than your first does. It seems to me you need to spend a bit less time reading Nietzsche and a bit more brushing up on basic logic, in particular fallacies such as "argumentum ad consequentiam" and "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Which of my values do you have a problem with? And where exactly am I trying to force them on you? I was under the impression we shared more values than not. Why do you think I read this website?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 6:46 AM

For when Plato summed up the whole argument about the existence of the One based upon his sample dialectic based in pure reason in his "Parmenides" dialogue...

Then may we not sum up the argument in a word and say truly: If One is not, then nothing is?

Certainly


...but I guess that would depend upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. (Ontology)

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 6:55 AM

...and then others were inclined to comment upon the above conclusion...cogito ergo sum

Of course anon will probably claim heritage from Denmark when he trips over Schrodinger's cat.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. --Albert Einstein.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 7:07 AM

You are complaining about my having logical fallacies? Perhaps you should spend a little time brushing up on your dialectic...and lay off the rote Aristotle logic cool-aid. For every tool has an application for which it may be largely unsuited. Otherwise, why study rhetoric at all?

Nietzsche, "Will to Power"

512 (1885)

Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.

And so, who said that the generally held opinions of men regarding the nature of values and worth had anything to do with truth? I certainly didn't. There is true opinion and there is right opinion. And when we discuss moral values, right opinion is the arena in which we must debate, unless one is capable of arguing inductively as Plato did in Parmenides. Perhaps you need to review Aristotle's "Topics" before we continue this discussion

Nietzsche, WTP 493 (1885)
Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. --Albert Einstein

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 8:28 AM

Like I stated at the outset... this isn't about the foundations of my values. I've examined them. It's about the foundation of yours. The question you avoid, for you cannot build, you can only tear down and citicize others...

And if the foundation of yours is truth, then we ought to revert to the status of animals within 2-3 generations.

for as Nietzsche said...WTP 534 (1887-1888)
The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 8:33 AM

...one cannot argue using deductive logic to a first principle. One must argue inductively. And the existence of a Creator is necessarily, a first principle.

For example... Aristotle's 1st principle: The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect

or Socrate's 1st principle: It is better to suffer an injustice, than to commit one.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 8:50 AM

I mean, it's not like i can't go out and fuck my mother or my sister. The truth is... I can.

It's whether I ought to. For there will be consequences if this practice acquires some degree of value. And no, it won't be a gimpy Oedipus. More likely, I'll take my mother's broaches off her toga and stab myself in my own eyes....

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 8:55 AM

or not.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 8:56 AM

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this discussion exists purely for your benefit. If that was the case I would have stopped replying a long time ago.

If you want to continue this discussion then give me an MSN messenger ID, I'm sick of refreshing this page.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 8:57 AM

I'm also sick of you spreading your reply out over 20 posts so that by the time I've finished composing and posting mine, it's preceded by 10 new posts that I didn't get a chance to read before replying.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 9:02 AM

In which case...as they say out in West Virginney (no offense intended to Mountaineers)...Incest is best!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 9:03 AM

I didn't think you had any foundation for your values that reached any farther than your penis.

Thanks for the affirmation.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 9:06 AM

"The refusal of free inquiry derives from an awareness of the fragility of the basis of religious faith; and since certainty is psychologically preferable to truth, the former often being willfully mistaken for the latter, anything that threatens certainty is anathematized with fury." -- Theodore Dalrymple

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 9:11 AM

For if one was seeking truth... one would have to acknowledge

Nietzsche "Gay Science"...

110 Origins of Knowledge

Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge. It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, cooperated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors. Moreover, those propositions became the very standards of knowledge according to which the "true "and the "false" were determined - throughout the whole domain of pure logic. The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life. Where life and knowledge seemed to conflict, there has never been serious contention; denial and doubt have there been regarded as madness. The exceptional thinkers like the Eleatics, who, in spite of this, advanced and maintained the antitheses of the natural errors, believed that it was possible also to live these counterparts: it was they who devised the sage as the man of immutability, impersonality and universality of intuition, as one and all at the same time, with a special faculty for that reverse kind of knowledge; they were of the belief that their knowledge was at the same time the principle of life. To be able to affirm all this, however, they had to deceive themselves concerning their own condition: they had to attribute to themselves impersonality and unchanging permanence, they had to mistake the nature of the philosophic individual, deny the force of the impulses in cognition, and conceive of reason generally as an entirely free and self-originating activity; they kept their eyes shut to the fact that they also had reached their doctrines in contradiction to valid methods, or through their longing for repose or for exclusive possession or for domination. The subtler development of sincerity and of skepticism finally made these men impossible; their life also, and their judgments, turned out to be dependent on the primeval impulses and fundamental errors of all sentient beings. The subtler sincerity and skepticism arose wherever two antithetical maxims appeared to be applicable to life, because both of them were compatible with the fundamental errors; where, therefore, there could be contention concerning a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and likewise where new maxims proved to be, not necessarily useful, but at least not injurious, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to play a game that was like all games innocent and happy The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power. Not only utility and delight, but every kind of impulse took part in the struggle for "truths"; the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a calling, a duty, an honor; cognizing and striving for the true finally arranged themselves as needs among other needs. From that moment not only belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust and contradiction became forces; all "evil "instincts were subordinated to knowledge, were placed in its service, and acquired the prestige of the permitted, the honored, the useful, and finally the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power; until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.

or as put by others...

Gen 2:17 — But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 9:24 AM

Here I am enquiring freely... whilst those of more progressive religions run away...

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 9:26 AM

Guess they couldn't handle the truth!

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 9:48 AM

No, you're not "enquiring freely", you're just pasting Nietzsche and being a cunt. Is it really that hard to believe that I have better things to do than sit refreshing this page all day? Do you have a job? A social life? You seem to have an awful lot of free time which is great, just don't expect other people to bend over backwards to help you fill it.

You claim my values "grew out of your own head, based upon incomplete, uninformed observations in a mixed universe, and the teachings of many uninformed barely conscious animals" and then go on to state that yours "were given to my ancestors by God and written down in books that are thousands of years old."

Congratulations, you win. God must really love you.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 9:58 AM

P.S. I'm not a liberal, fucktard.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 10:04 AM

I am.

...and don't worry, I'm not lookin' for any peanut butter pals, so you can unclench your buttocks.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 10:08 AM

...and I thought you'd like Nietzsche. He was, after all, the quintessential atheist.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 10:56 AM

...but then I suppose, you aren't really an atheist. Otherwise you'd understand its' limitations and consequences.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:00 AM

..more likely you're agnostic.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:02 AM

...in that case, I probably should have stuck to the Plato. Nothing beats insight into the Beautiful!

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:08 AM

...for truth is such an ugly thing. A mole on Beauty's cheek... a spot of the Yang in the midst of Ying.

Beauty. Symmetry, Proportion, and truth.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:15 AM

Emerson, "Beauty" (On the Conduct of Life)

The spiral tendency of vegetation infects education also. Our books approach very slowly the things we most wish to know. What a parade we make of our science, and how far off, and at arm's length, it is from its objects! Our botany is all names, not powers: poets and romancers talk of herbs of grace and healing; but what does the botanist know of the virtues of his weeds? The geologist lays bare the strata, and can tell them all on his fingers: but does he know what effect passes into the man who builds his house in them? what effect on the race that inhabits a granite shelf? what on the inhabitants of marl and of alluvium?
We should go to the ornithologist with a new feeling, if he could teach us what the social birds say, when they sit in the autumn council, talking together in the trees. The want of sympathy makes his record a dull dictionary. His result is a dead bird. The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relations to Nature; and the skin or skeleton you show me, is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington. The naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power,--that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:22 AM

...I am warned by the ill fate of many philosophers not to attempt a definition of Beauty. I will rather enumerate a few of its qualities. We ascribe beauty to that which is simple; which has no superfluous parts; which exactly answers its end; which stands related to all things; which is the mean of many extremes. It is the most enduring quality, and the most ascending quality. We say, love is blind, and the figure of Cupid is drawn with a bandage round his eyes. Blind:--yes, because he does not see what he does not like; but the sharpest-sighted hunter in the universe is Love, for finding what he seeks, and only that; and the mythologists tell us, that Vulcan was painted lame, and Cupid blind, to call attention to the fact, that one was all limbs, and the other, all eyes. In the true mythology, Love is an immortal child, and Beauty leads him as a guide: nor can we express a deeper sense than when we say, Beauty is the pilot of the young soul.

-finis

Posted by: Farmer John at November 28, 2006 11:29 AM

There is no guarantee that natural selection will encourage or provide traits that we as human beings may find favourable.

In other words, there is no rule in natural selection that says that intelligence will be considered favourable. Afterall, there are many successful species (according to numbers in the population) which are extremely successful if the measure of success is purely the ability to survive and to breed.

If intelligence through natural selection, is disadvantageous to survival of the species, we could very well find that it is slowly bred out of the species.

Natural selection is not concerned about what qualities we as human beings admire, or find favourable in ourselves.

Artificial selection, eugenics, and social darwinism have as their primary consideration what HUMAN BEINGS find favourable. In other words they express human intentionality. Natural selection as espoused by darwin, does not.

Posted by: beepbeepitsme at November 30, 2006 8:58 PM