Anti-Humanism Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Interesting that sickle cell-sufferers have no problem with malaria. Perhaps something taken from there can be used to help combat malaria in non-sickle-sufferers. However I think I disagree that only in an artificial body can we prevent all illness; quite a lot of DNA-meddling might be possible. I'm no biologomagist, but it doesn't seem off-limits for human ingenuity. And typing human ingenuity gives me an angle to argue from here; I'm going to argue that humans CAN be better than animals simply because humans can put themselves partially outside of
Pharaoh Llandy said:
the way 'nature' works
simply because humans can make sure there is no equal trade-off between gaining an advantage and gaining a disadvantage as you presented with the sickle-cells.  Humans can guide the evolution of humans.

Hospes fori said:
Úlfr said:
in short "Anti-Humanism is the belief that we are just like animals. Only through technology do we excel past the rest of the animal kingdom."
That does not exactly appear to be an entirely new perception. At least every secular person agrees that humans are first of all a faunal specie amongst others. What else could humans be? They consist of the same materials like other animals and developed in the course of evolution as well.
Another problem this anti-humanist codswallop presents is that it pretends that because humans are animals they can't be cool. Idiocy, of course, animals can easily be cool and there is nothing which prevents humans from being cool.
 
I think ideals like such as this are born of people's dissappointment in humanity being nothing more than what it is. Then they go *****ing about it. That's what it is in the nutshell. Much similar to what's the case with really enthusiastic atheists.
 
Sound Chaser said:
I think ideals like such as this are born of people's dissappointment in humanity being nothing more than what it is. Then they go *****ing about it. That's what it is in the nutshell. Much similar to what's the case with really enthusiastic atheists.

You're right!
 
Gamerwiz said:
Orion said:
Also, there are two typos in your sig. It's "believe," not "belive."
Well, since you brought it up, there's actually 4:
Úlfr said:
''Dont Don't belive believe in God, Belive believe in youreself yourself.''

You ruined my surprise. I wanted to see if he would notice those himself and fix them on his own, or if he would just fix what I pointed out. :sad:
 
FrisianDude said:
However I think I disagree that only in an artificial body can we prevent all illness; quite a lot of DNA-meddling might be possible. I'm no biologomagist, but it doesn't seem off-limits for human ingenuity.

The problem being of course that even though the human genome has been 'mapped', we only understand a small portion of how it works. Before you can start giving immunity to all diseases by splicing the DNA of a human with that of a cuttle-fish, you have to first eradicate all traces of genetically inherited diseases and genetic abnormalities.

Even if you did manage to get rid of every single inherited disease, every 'faulty' gene which is capable of causing a genetic problem, DNA just doesn't work in the way you seem to want it to. There is just so much non-coding DNA present in our genome that all it would take is one single base pair substitution, one single error during transcription and translation, that you could end up with an even worse situation than the one you tried to avoid. DNA duplication whether by mitosis or meiosis is not a perfect system, which is one of the ways evolution works, and allows us to have such genetic diversity.

To ensure that every single human had the same ability to fight disease you would literally have to either manufacture and observe every growing embryo to ensure that no errors occur during its conception, or reduce all of humanity to a single genetic template, thus dooming it to evolutionary stagnation due to bottle-necking. Either way you're talking about eugenics on a massive scale.

And typing human ingenuity gives me an angle to argue from here; I'm going to argue that humans CAN be better than animals simply because humans can put themselves partially outside of
Pharaoh Llandy said:
the way 'nature' works

I beg to differ. Everything we do, everything, has an effect on something else. The world is one massive web of life, completely interactive. No living thing can possibly operate outside of it. It's butterflies and hurricanes all over again.

Humans can guide the evolution of humans.

To some extent, we can, but I doubt it's to the extent you're thinking.

 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
Arzeal said:
@Llandy: we are not strongest, fastest, top of the food chain animal but we are the ones who survived and adapted to the current environment on earth.

Are you kidding me? Humanity has been 'dominant' for less than ten thousand years. Do you know how many millions of years the dinosaurs were dominant for? In another 3 million years, some dominant avian species parent is going to look back and say to their nest of avian kids "Let that be a lesson to you. We don't want to go the way of the mammals."
Ah man, wish dinosaurs were still around to **** our **** up. Would we have survived that?
 
Sound Chaser said:
I think ideals like such as this are born of people's dissappointment in humanity being nothing more than what it is. Then they go *****ing about it. That's what it is in the nutshell. Much similar to what's the case with really enthusiastic atheists.
A remarkable trait of many atheists is, that they do not notice, that they actually contravene their own logic. There are some atheists, who just do not believe in a divinity, because they conceive its existence as highly unlikely, which is an acceptable opinion. However there are other atheists, who argue that the missing evidence for any divinity, which is indeed disappointing many people, is reason enough not to believe in its existence. So basically these atheists criticise theists for believing something without evidence, while they themselves have objectively no clear evidence for their beliefs as well. Hence I am pretty inclined to think that most atheists are actually only agnostics without being aware of it.

Pardon me for leading the discussion in a totally different direction than originally intended, but I could not resist the urge to point this out.
 
Hospes fori said:
So basically these atheists criticise theists for believing something without evidence, while they themselves have objectively no clear evidence for their beliefs as well. Hence I am pretty inclined to think that most atheists are actually only agnostics without being aware of it.
Don't be a retard. Religious person believes in something without any evidence. Atheist person does not believe in something without any evidence. These are not the same thing, not by far, not at all.

As to OP, hang out with friends, get laid, start a new hobby. Since you only copy&pasted that stuff, you come across as a bored, angsty teen.
 
I can assure you, I am not a retard. Atheists and theists both follow the same logic, though. If atheists are just atheists out of the principle, not to believe anything without evidence, their perception contradicts itself. Atheistic and theistic perceptions are based on the same reasoning, namely faith. Both beliefs are not logically reasoned. Therefore atheists can not use the lack of logic as argument against theistic beliefs, because their own beliefs lack it themselves.
Nevertheless many people, who believe nothing in general and consequently criticise theistic beliefs for this lack of logical reasoning, call themselves atheists, because they are not aware of the religious component of being atheist. The same way, they are criticising theists, they have to criticise atheists as well. The same way theists do definitely believe in a divinity do the atheist definitely believe, that none is existing. The difference to agnostics is that these, although they do not believe in any divinity as well, do not categorically deny its existence. Briefly worded, theists believe in a divinity, atheists believe in a non-divinity and agnostics do neither believe the one nor the other.
 
The faith of atheists says that there is no god. But that science is not able to supply evidence for the existence of any divinity is not automatically evidence against its existence. Hence they need to rely on faith to reason their perception.

Edit: Both convictions, that a divinity does exist and that it does not exist, are absolute and every absolute opinion finally relies on faith.
 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
Hospes fori said:
Atheistic and theistic perceptions are based on the same reasoning, namely faith.

Most atheists I know believe as they do because of science, which does not require faith.
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. They are (as of yet) completely compatible with each other. Thus, science should not have any impact on whether or not a person is an atheist.
 
Untitled. said:
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. They are (as of yet) completely compatible with each other.

Depends. If the religious person in question is one of those crazy "the bible is 100% right and the Earth is only a few thousand years old" people, then they very incompatible.
 
Hospes fori said:
The faith of atheists says that there is no god. But that science is not able to supply evidence for the existence of any divinity is not automatically evidence against its existence. Hence they need to rely on faith to reason their perception.

Edit: Both convictions, that a divinity does exist and that it does not exist, are absolute and every absolute opinion finally relies on faith.

Oh, well, since we're just going with "faith", I say screw all this Christian stuff. Hmm, let's see. Hinduism. Yes, that's a good one. Let's go with that. I mean, surely if the Christians are right about there being one good, the Hindus could be just as right about there being many gods, yes? It requires only as much faith to believe in multiple gods as it does in one god.

HAIL HINDUISM!
 
Hospes fori said:
The faith of atheists says that there is no god.
That would make sense if the claim is 'no god' rather than the default. If an atheist has no evidence that there is a god, then the default conclusion is that there is no god, yes? Therefore, there is no faith necessary to believe there is no god. Mind you I am using "faith is the denial of observation so that belief may be preserved" as skeleton for this argument, not sure how you're using the term. An atheist who does not deny the observation that there is no evidence for god is then not using faith. In this case the evidence rather than the faith is used to preserve the belief.

Edit; Llandy, I'm going to try to respond to your response of my previous post in this thread later, I'm far too busy to even be here. <_<
 
Back
Top Bottom