Richard Dawkins says eugenics works because he assumes we are just like animals

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 17, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

But we should oppose it on moral grounds, he hastens to add:

In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Paul Bols, “Famed Atheist Richard Dawkins Bizarrely Defends Eugenics: ‘Works For Cows, Horses, Pigs,’ But ‘Fight It On Moral Grounds’” at DailyWire

At one fell swoop, Dawkins exposes another frequent weakness of naturalist atheism: direct conflict with facts. Eugenics does not work for humans. Unlike animals, we make personal choices, which could be based on reason and free will or on the apparent lack thereof. And those choices confound the ambitions of others.

Put simply: Beagles beget beagles; that is all beagles can do. So if you want a beagle, you need only go to the source.

By contrast, not only do few geniuses pass on their gifts to any extent but wise and prudent parents often have foolish and imprudent children. Much great literature has featured such “fall of the house of” themes.

Do Dawkins’s remarks have anything to do with Darwin Day (February 12) or Evolution Weekend (grinding onward, with the sheer dullness one would associated with dying liberal churches)?

See also: Darwin Reader: Darwin’s racism

How Jonathan Wells is celebrating Darwin Day. Wells: A biologist wrote years ago that we should celebrate Darwin’s birthday instead, because Lincoln only freed some slaves while Darwin freed our minds. [eek!]

Everyone is bugging us to do something for Darwin Day (today). How about a brief reflection: Darwin is the village atheist’s answer to serious thinking about origins.

and

Evolution Weekend downplays Darwin, morphs into climate concern, muffles racism issue. Remember, anyone can be a racist if all he must say is: My ancestors were gods, yours were gobs of clay. Absent evidence, he might prevail by force of arms and entrench his view. Darwinism led to racial theories with the trappings of science. That matters and it has never been dealt with honestly because dealing with it honestly endangers the basic ideas of Darwinism.

Comments

That definition that you yourself provided is basically useless as a scientific tool.
Well, I'm using it for a conservation biology project just now, and I am sure the breeders that I've worked with willl be interested to hear that The Breeder's Equation is useless to them :) I know anything I type will fall on blind eyes, but I think it would be much more useful to try to understand what people are saying that reflexively regurgitate these links every time.Mimus_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H: OK, so you’re an amoral materialist. I’m not, so I think I can disregard your ideas, which are, frankly, repugnant. So what? Chocolate vs vanilla. It's adorable that you think your repugnance matters in the universe of mere molecules in motion.mike1962_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Truthfreedom
you can not get a whale from a hippo. A bat from a flower. Bacteria from nothing.
But that is precisely the claim from Darwinists. i.e. unlimited plasticity. Yet that is not what we see. What we see, as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig termed it, is 'the Law of Recurrent Variation'
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany. Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-09T17_31_28-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-11T15_59_50-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-13T16_47_09-08_00
Of supplemental note to just how inadequate Bob's model of 'averaging' is to actually explaining the complexity of life, i.e. Bard's grievance which was mentioned in post 53:
“As of now, we have no good theory of how to read networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes and so provide the basis for a full 21st century model of evolution. As T.S. Eliot almost said: “Between the phenotype and the genotype falls the shadow”.
The following article gives us a realistic glimpse of just how hard it would be to develop a realistic mathematical model for life< "Physicists can use statistics to describe a homogeneous system like an ideal gas, because one can assume all the member particles interact the same. Not so with life. When describing heterogeneous systems each with a myriad of possible interactions, the number of discrete interactions grows faster than exponentially. Koch showed how Bell's number (the number of ways a system can be partitioned) requires a comparable number of measurements to exhaustively describe a system. Even if human computational ability were to rise exponentially into the future (somewhat like Moore's law for computers), there is no hope for describing the human "interactome" -- the set of all interactions in life."
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: In a recent Perspective piece called "Modular Biological Complexity" in Science, Christof Koch (Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle; Division of Biology, Caltech) explained why we won't be simulating brains on computers any time soon: "Although such predictions excite the imagination, they are not based on a sound assessment of the complexity of living systems. Such systems are characterized by large numbers of highly heterogeneous components, be they genes, proteins, or cells. These components interact causally in myriad ways across a very large spectrum of space-time, from nanometers to meters and from microseconds to years. A complete understanding of these systems demands that a large fraction of these interactions be experimentally or computationally probed. This is very difficult." Physicists can use statistics to describe a homogeneous system like an ideal gas, because one can assume all the member particles interact the same. Not so with life. When describing heterogeneous systems each with a myriad of possible interactions, the number of discrete interactions grows faster than exponentially. Koch showed how Bell's number (the number of ways a system can be partitioned) requires a comparable number of measurements to exhaustively describe a system. Even if human computational ability were to rise exponentially into the future (somewhat like Moore's law for computers), there is no hope for describing the human "interactome" -- the set of all interactions in life. "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. " Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake: "Allen and Greaves recently introduced the metaphor of a "complexity brake" for the observation that fields as diverse as neuroscience and cancer biology have proven resistant to facile predictions about imminent practical applications. Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge." Why can't we use the same principles that describe technological systems? Koch explained that in an airplane or computer, the parts are "purposefully built in such a manner to limit the interactions among the parts to a small number." The limited interactome of human-designed systems avoids the complexity brake. "None of this is true for nervous systems.",,, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
bornagain77_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

What happened to "the blind watchmaker", dawkins? I bet he is retired. 'He', coyne and you are the perfect trio to go feeding pigeons in the park.
"The reason for natural selection’s great success is that it provides a satisfying explanation of how evolution might have occurred: individual organisms vary and if those variations are inherited, the successful ones will survive and propagate and pass down their desirable traits to succeeding generations". "But this process alone does not explain all of evolution; all it can claim is that it could do so in theory. To argue for its total universality one would have to prove that each instance of a trait that characterises such a step in evolution arose through selection. This is an impossible task".
When Darwinism Fails. YES, the author uses the term 'darwinism'. NO, the author is NOT an ID proponent.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

@85 Bornagain77:
Moreover, to repeat, this evidence from selective breeding runs directly counter to the Darwinian claim for ‘unlimited plasticity’.
What is not there can not be bred into an organism. So both breeding and natural selection (SILLY NON-DIFFERENCE, EVERYTHING IS 'NATURAL SELECTION ) are both limited to what is programmed in the DNA of each subject. And you can not get a whale from a hippo. A bat from a flower. Bacteria from nothing. Life from chemicals. Because if the programming is not already there than neither is the possibility for something different to be bred. Darwinism is dead. They are experts at concocting just-so stories and they even contradict their own 'science'.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Bob 83, since this is your field, I can see where you want to 'sell it', but again, I don't see this as that much of an improvement over what ranchers have already done in the past. Ranchers have been well aware of the pitfalls of inbreeding and have long taken measures to insure against it:
This problem has been the same challenge for the past century. In the past there were concerns about too much concentration of the Holstein bloodlines when Rudolph, Blackstar, Valiant, Elevation, Astronaut, Rockman, the Burkes and the Montvics were in their hay days. It is not new in 2013. ,, http://www.thebullvine.com/inbreeding/6-steps-understanding-managing-inbreeding-dairy-herd/
Sure genetics helps, but it is just not that much of an improvement over what was already being done in the past. Moreover, to repeat, this evidence from selective breeding runs directly counter to the Darwinian claim for 'unlimited plasticity'.bornagain77_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

@82 Bornagain77:
Natural selection produces the same degenerative results as artificial selection does, it just takes longer to accomplish with natural selection.
Naturalists can not coherently explain the alleged difference between these two, because THERE is NONE according to their paradigm . EVERYTHING is 'nature', we are 'nature', therefore EVERYTHING is *natural selection*. More non-sense from that corrupt philosophy.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

ba77 -
Besides the exceedingly trivial, I do not see where such an incomplete genetic model, an incomplete model that cannot explain the generation of phenotypes in the first place, is that much of an improvement over and above what the ranchers do in breeding for desired, and already existing, traits that they want to enhance in their stock.
That's probably because you haven't studied any quantitative genetics or modern breeding techniques. Basically, you want to focus on traits that have heritable variation, and then select animals that have a higher genetic quality ("breeding value"). These may not be the ones with the highest phenotypic value. The breeding value can be estimated by comparing the phenotypes with patterns of relatedness (the details get complicated I'm afraid). This is more efficient than breeding based on phenotype, because the focus is on selecting individuals with a high genetic value, i.e. a value that will be passed on to the offspring.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Bob at 81:
you’ll see that my argument is that we don’t need to have complete knowledge. It’s simply not necessary if we want to use selection to change a phenotype.
Besides the exceedingly trivial, I do not see where such an incomplete genetic model, an incomplete model that cannot explain the generation of phenotypes in the first place, is that much of an improvement over and above what the ranchers do in breeding for desired, and already existing, traits that they want to enhance in their stock. And as mentioned previously in post 13 and 14, this type of artificial selective breeding is not without its pitfalls. To repeat,
“This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create….” (Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011) “The real number of variations is lesser than expected,,. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. …However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability… [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism.” – IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009, The Dog Delusion – October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: “Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution — the enormous variation in dogs — actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?” The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig’s prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html Inbreeding – Pros and cons Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm Due to population bottlenecks, inbreeding and stringent artificial selection by humans for particular traits, it was long suspected that modern dog breeds harbor more deleterious mutations due to low effects of natural selection. This research took larger number of dog genome samples than ever did before. The prediction is true. The researchers performed 90 whole-genome sequences from breed dogs, village dogs, and gray wolves including golden jackal. After comparing the data, it was found recent dog breeds have 2-3% more deleterious allele variants than wolves. Human’s persistence for desirable traits and low population size have resulted in less efficient purifying selection. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/17/1512501113
Natural election produces the same degenerative results as artificial selection does, it just takes longer to accomplish with natural selection
“…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…” Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.” Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa – October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans’ anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the “Out of Africa” expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world – October 1, 2015 Excerpt: “When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people,” says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,, African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151001094723.htm
As with you dodging the issue in this thread that you have no basis within your materialism for your objective moral belief that eugenics in humans is bad, here to you are dodging the fact that you have no basis for your belief in Darwinian evolution. In other words, none of the evidence from selective breeding supports the grandiose claims of Darwinists. In fact, the evidence from selective breeding directly contradicts Darwinian claims for 'unlimited plasticity' within species.bornagain77_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 78 -
Bob O’Hara at 58, you are dodging the issue once again. Since you do not have “a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes” then you cannot possibly have complete knowledge as to how genes, even on mass average, effect phenotypes.
If you read my post 53, you'll see that my argument is that we don't need to have complete knowledge. It's simply not necessary if we want to use selection to change a phenotype.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 74 - ah, thanks. The paper you link to makes that assumption to pursue the model, but the paper they link to shows a correlation in the phenotype, not a genetic correlation.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

I am Stephen Hawking resurrected! Bob O'H the atheist materialist grammar-twister believes in resurrection! :)Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Bob O'Hara at 58, you are dodging the issue once again. Since you do not have "a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes” then you cannot possibly have complete knowledge as to how genes, even on mass average, effect phenotypes. What you have got, as Berlinski quipped in an interview, is a room full of smoke where nothing is clearly delineated (as one would expect from a hard science)
David Berlinski: Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
For prime example of the fact that you cannot make concrete predictions of phenotypic behavior from a genotypic description, I refer to the infamous and mythical 'gay gene'
There’s no evidence that a single ‘gay gene’ exists - Aug. 2019 Excerpt: First reported at a genetics conference in 2018, the study found five genetic variants associated with having a same-sex sexual partner (SN: 10/20/18). But those variants, called SNPs, don’t predict people’s sexual behavior, researchers report in the Aug. 30 Science. “There is no ‘gay gene’ that determines whether someone has same-sex partners,” says Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of Helsinki. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists Born gay or transgender: Little evidence to support innate trait, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Excerpt: "a report finds scarce scientific evidence to conclude that gay and transgender people are “born that way. The 143-page paper, published this week in The New Atlantis journal, combs through hundreds of studies in search of a causal, biological explanation for sexual orientation and gender identity, but comes up empty. “The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property — that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” says the report, written by a psychiatrist and a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University. “Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex — so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or a ‘woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,”" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/
bornagain77_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

@75 Bob O'H the materialist liar:
Err, no. You’re someone who’s unapologetic about calling people ‘scum’.
Err, sorry way to announce you have nothing. Your materialist doctrine is illogical and you can not stand it :)Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Suppose Person One (Bob O'H) disagrees with Person Two's (Truthfreedom) argument on a topic. In an effort to discredit Person Two (Truthfreedom) Person One (Bob O'H) first starts by quoting Person Two (Truthfreedom) completely in context with Person Two's (Truthfreedom) original argument but with an added emotional spin. Little by little, Person One (Bob O'H) steadily mutates the original quote and position of Person Two (Truthfreedom) into something that is completely out of context and logically fallacious using a steadily increasing emotional theater. This theatrical performance is littered with Person Two's (Truthfreedom) formerly logical argument, carefully repackaged through verbal "slight of hand", until the audience is fooled into believing that the contrived stance that Person One https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30223/what-is-the-term-for-twisting-an-argument-so-that-it-can-be-defeated> (Bob O'H is really desperate) presents is really what Person Two (Truthfreedom) believes.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

So I am Stephen Hawking?
Err, no. You're someone who's unapologetic about calling people 'scum'.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Bob’Oh @50 No no I know it exists that was driving me crazy but I found it Pekalski uses the example of a coercive government eugenics program that prohibits people with myopia from breeding but has the unintended consequence of also selecting against high intelligence since the two go together.[94] Close [94] Jones, A. (2000). "Effect of eugenics on the evolution of populations". European Physical Journal B. 17 (2): 329–332. Bibcode:2000EPJB...17..329P. doi:10.1007/s100510070148.AaronS1978_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

@Bob O'H You have nothing of substance. Your own doctrine is killing you. Because materialism = cancer.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

@Bob O'H
More to the point, why are you calling people ‘scum’? You’ve already made the link to Hitler, so do you realise how that makes you appear? If your point is that people who call other people ‘scum’ are terrible, you’re condemning yourself.
So I am Stephen Hawking? I told you: semantic tricks/ twisting grammar won't work.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Yes. What is the difference between Hitler ‘s doctrine (certain humans = jews are ‘scum’) and Hawkings’s doctrine (all humans are ‘scum’)?
More to the point, why are you calling people 'scum'? You've already made the link to Hitler, so do you realise how that makes you appear? If your point is that people who call other people 'scum' are terrible, you're condemning yourself.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Bob- And those morals came from religions. There is no such thing as a materialistic moral.ET_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

@66 Bob O'H
And yet I have morals.
Nop. You have the "illusion" of being a moral agent (according to materialism).
Very recently you wrote “Did not Hitler say jews were ‘scum’?”.
Yes. What is the difference between Hitler 's doctrine (certain humans = jews are 'scum') and Hawkings's doctrine (all humans are 'scum')?
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies”. Stephen Hawking
Do you realize that Hawking came over as an utterly horrible person? Do you despise Hawkings? Advice: your semantic tricks won't work. We are all adults here.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Indeed no, ET. My morals come from my parents and the community I grew up in.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

If you have morals, Bob, they did NOT come from materialism. Materialists are more than happy to hitch onto the religious morals of the day.ET_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

There is no difference. Materialism is amoral.
And yet I have morals.
Grow up and own it, you useless ‘scum’
Wow. Very recently you wrote "Did not Hitler say jews were ‘scum’?". Do you realise that you come over as an utterly horrible person? I've no idea if you're like this in real life, but I hope not. I know the online personas tend to be rather different to what people are like off-line.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, according to his own philosophy, "does not exist".
Who do you think you are? Why your sense of self is an illusion. "Most of us are convinced that we're coherent individuals who are continuous in time. There's just one problem with this sense of self – it can’t exist". https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432601-000-who-do-you-think-you-are-why-your-sense-of-self-is-an-illusion/amp/
Bob O'H, according to his cancerous doctrine, is not "a coherent individual continuous in time" :) And he is a liar, playing semantic games to hide the fact that he is ashamed of his materialist doctrine.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Yawn.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

@62 Bob O'H
I haven’t stated that I’m not a materialist. I did recently state that I’m not an amoral materialist. I hope you can understand the difference.
There is no difference. Materialism is amoral. Grow up and own it, you useless 'scum' (yes, Hawkings was at least intelligent enough to follow his own philosophy to its logical conclusions). You can not have your cake and eat it too.Truthfreedom_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

TruthFreedom @ 57 -
Some reading comprehension would be helpful. According to materialism, that is how things work.
Indeed. This is what you wrote:
And? As if you had any merit. Let me explain you how things work: a bunch of neurons computed some entering information and gave an output. Then they created an illusory “person” (Bob O’H) that got informed about the ‘output’. But there is not any real person making a moral choice here. Bob O’H is an illusory spectator who believes he is making a moral choice. That is what materialism entails.
Note the lack of "According to materialism", or anything similar. All I could go on was what you wrote.
Bob O’H, you are a liar. You say you are not a materialist, but you are one.
As someone wrote recently, some reading comprehension would be helpful. I haven't stated that I'm not a materialist. I did recently state that I'm not an amoral materialist. I hope you can understand the difference.Bob O'H_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

MattSpirit:
And how about ET? Do I even have to list his many transgressions?
You would only due so in a quote-mining fashion. You would NEVER list the transgressions I was responding to. And THAT is very telling.ET_{February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply