[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 124 KB, 363x549, 137702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13724922 No.13724922 [Reply] [Original]

Alas, Poor Darwin. Why are you athesists so angry: 99 things that piss of the Godless. Darwin on trial.

>> No.13725016
File: 118 KB, 674x505, 1565223446644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13725016

>>13724922
if evolution is fake then why most people act like animals?

>> No.13725041

What? Darwin was a theist

>> No.13725059

>>13724922
Atheists don't worship Darwin like cretins worship jesus. If darwin were wrong then he's wrong and that is all there is too it, we would find a new explanation and nobody would really get hung up on it. Remember darwin? Man that was some insane bullshit. Kinda like Parmenides.

>> No.13725179

>>13724922
Darwin has almost nothing to do with atheism. Most theists believe in evolution too, and it wouldn't make someone less of an atheist if they didn't believe in evolution. It's not like finding far-fetched claims in the Bible is especially difficult.

>> No.13725276

>>13724922
It's a bizarre neurochemistry thing.
It seems the gut, social skills, sleep, happiness, psychosis, depression, dreams, pessimistic thinking and a whole host of other weirdnesses are interrelated.
Atheism is probably a result of a bunch of modern biological factors such as poor diet and light pollution which causes poor sleep.
Such factors mess with the brain making you more realist or more optimist or autistic or psychotic.
But they have nothing to do with the reality of religion or Christianity in particular.
People assume the natural healthy and normal state of humanity is to be logical.
But this is silly we aren't Vulcans.
I feel it is probable that the natural and healthy state of humanity is to be religious.

>> No.13725443
File: 170 KB, 851x315, banner-TamzinBookmark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13725443

>>13725276
I see. And the fact that atheists are better educated and have higher IQs on average?

>> No.13727175

>>13725443
He said the healthiest state, not the smartest state.

>> No.13727180

>>13725016
Animals can't discern the difference between right and wrong, unlike humans. Humans may choose to act like animals, but they have the mental capacity to at least choose, whereas animals are slaves to their instinct. This is what sets humans apart from animals.

>> No.13727189

>>13725443
Well when a huge majority of christcucks are from third world shitholes it kinda skews the average

>> No.13727199

>>13727180
There is no such thing as right or wrong. Morality evolves with every society, but the core principals are animalistic in nature. That is what's beneficial to the tribe.

Thou shall not murder: Animal packs will not randomly kill one and other for pleasure, they will kill if it serves a purpose like food or a change in societal structure.

Thou shall not steal: Steal from the pack and the pack dies. It is reliant on the equal work and sharing of food amongst the pack in order to survive. They hunt together and eat together. Stealing from the hunt would not be condoned by the pack.

Thou shall not commit adultery: It is completely normal for animals, who you claim have no morality, to choose a single partner and spend the rest of their lives together until death since this is beneficial to them. Wolves, beavers, swans etc.

All else are subsequent to the time period. If a woman were to sleep with another man besides her husband 2,000+ years ago, it would be morally acceptable for a husband to kill her. That would not be even tolerated in the slightest in today's society. If a man were to insult another's honour 200 years ago, it would be morally acceptable for him to challenge him to a duel and possibly kill him. That would not be tolerated today either. There are countless examples of this.

Morality, in its essence, is identical to what the animal kingdom abides to by nature.

>> No.13727206

>>13727180
There is no such thing as right or wrong. Morality evolves with every society, but the core principals are animalistic in nature. That is what's beneficial to the tribe.

Thou shall not murder: Animal packs will not randomly kill one and other for pleasure, they will kill if it serves a purpose like food or a change in societal structure.

Thou shall not steal: Steal from the pack and the pack dies. It is reliant on the equal work and sharing of food amongst the pack in order to survive. They hunt together and eat together. Stealing from the hunt would not be condoned by the pack.

Thou shall not commit adultery: It is completely normal for animals, who you claim have no morality, to choose a single partner and spend the rest of their lives together until death since this is beneficial to them. Wolves, beavers, swans etc.

All else are subsequent to the time period. If a woman were to sleep with another man besides her husband 2,000+ years ago, it would be morally acceptable for a husband to kill her. Marrying a girl aged 13 would be morally acceptable 1,500 years ago. That would not be even tolerated in the slightest in today's society. If a man were to insult another's honour 200 years ago, it would be morally acceptable for him to challenge him to a duel and possibly kill him. That would not be tolerated today either. There are countless examples of this.

Morality, in its essence, is identical to what the animal kingdom abides to by nature.

>> No.13727208

>>13724922
Here you go OP, someone who rebuttals what this book teaches: https://ncse.com/library-resource/darwin-prosecuted-review-johnsons-darwin-trial

And there's someone who will rebuke him, and then him, and then him, and then him. On and on and on.

>> No.13727210

https://ncse.com/library-resource/darwin-prosecuted-review-johnsons-darwin-trial

Here you go, OP.

>> No.13727249

>>13727180
They can't discern the difference because they aren't quite delusional enough to invent these concepts in the first place.

>> No.13727292

>>13727199
>There is no such thing as right or wrong.
>There are countless examples of this.
You're confusing subjective and objective morality.

For example, you may subjectively feel justified in taking someone's life if they are trying to kill you, but it is still objectively wrong to take someone else's life. Animals don't make this distinction. They merely kill each other with impunity, sometimes for just territorial reasons instead of sustenance.

>> No.13727303

test

>> No.13727340

>>13727303
c

>> No.13727359

>>13725016
stop feeding him

>> No.13727379

>>13725059
>Atheists don't worship Darwin
false

>>13725179
>Darwin has almost nothing to do with atheism.
false

>> No.13727471

>>13727379
Based

>> No.13727575

>>13724922
Darwin was a nigger, Lamarck was right

>> No.13727859

>>13725443
A degree in tranny socialism doesn't make one "educated"

>> No.13727950

>>13727379
Darwin has nothing to do with atheism, though. Soibois just worship him because "science is awesome xD"

>> No.13727958
File: 63 KB, 480x748, 1536888479705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13727958

>>13727292
There's no such thing as objective morality.

>> No.13727963
File: 315 KB, 500x749, gen-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13727963

>>13724922
OP author wrote the intro to this book and it's 100 pages long. Lots of great resources in this text to address the heresy of evolution.

>> No.13728016

>>13727958
>Another episode of the relativist ignoring the dissonance of his worldview
>>13727208
>Writes book refuting darwinism
>Refutation is only 11 page superficial article
Woah btfo