We now know, That socialist tendencies are in the genes, We, As people know, That we can`t become masters of everything during our lives, So naturally we become social, To benefit ourselves, And in turn others.
"God made flowers out of sunshine"? In 1954? so we've had basically a few of decades of relatively free and dominant science recently, but now the Creationists are renewing their campaign to drag us back into the superstitious darkness where they've managed to hold us for so many centuries already?
Have to wonder what level of science and technology, just how Star Trek we could be, if religion could have been stamped out at the turn of the century.
@theantiismist "however the origin of this philosophical doctrine or mind set derives from secular materialism"
Not so, part of the reason Darwinism (via Haeckel especially) was suppressed in Nazi Germany was because of its materialist implications
"The common position of materialistic monism is philospically rejected by the Volkisch-biological view of National Socialism"-Gunther Hecht (Rassenpolitischen Amnt der NSAP)
@theantiismist "is that it suggestion that some humans are more evolved then others by the Darwin model of natural selection."
Evolution doesn't state that any more than creationism since Evolution unequivocally states that all humans are descendents from a human common ancestor
No part of Origin of Species advocates a hierarchy of extant racial types
@theantiismist "You have to explain the full content to make sure you understand what your reading"
The full content is the instructions on how to keep and purchase slaves, including how to sell your daughter into slavery and a reminder by Peter to all Slaves to be obidient to their masters
"The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others."
Darwin did not come up with the concept of selective breeding. Darwin applied the law to nature not the other way around
Hitler refers to lower races but evolutionary theory does not. Do you see the problem with your accusation based solely on that fact?
"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker..."Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
He also says that he is doing the work of the Lord and acting according to the will of the Almighty creator. There is no explicit imposing of evolution here.
In the same chapter he ridicules the notion of evolution (I souced the quote in PM)
@theantiismist Since you felt it necessary for me to have a comment thread open on my channel for you to allow for comments I have opened it up.
In exchange I would request you unblock me and allow for me to present my evidence of official Party Doctrine of National Socialism (as well as the personal beliefs of Hitler) expressedly forbidding Evolutionary theory on both its scientific and philosophical forms.
@theantiismist "@theantiismist LMOAL Another failed attempt by Mr pseudo intellectual."
I really enjoy the irony of this error on your part. Anyway if you would like me to give further citations concerning the actual inspiration for Nazi atrocities (And the antievolutionary Nazi policies and quotations by Hitler in text and speeches)
you need only temporarily turn off the censorship filter of your message box.
Unlike you I am not interested in restricted exchange of information
@theantiismist "The reason you can't a logical factual claim"
I did make a logical factual claim. You asked for biblical passages suporting slavery and I gave them.
Now you are claiming they don't count because I "don't explain the full content". Why would I have to? Any observer simply has to look them up and see the full verse in proper context.
Theres nothing subjective about encouraging people to find out for themselves
@theantiismist "Explain the full content of these passages, or are you just hoping that make a random reference proves your point.. "
Anybody has the freedom to look up these passages for themselves and see how they confirm me. There's nothing baseless or emotional about taking the time to make citations.
In fact this is as little emotion as possible as I am adding no distorting commentary to the citations. Just look them up and see
Also LMOAL is not a legitimate abbreviation, stop using it
@theantiismist "LMAOL Show me the biblical text that advocates slavery"
Leviticus 25: 44-46
Exodus 21: 2-11
Ephesians6:5
1 Timothy 6: 1-2 to name a few
You were the one initially insistant in grouping Americans together as a single legion of believers. Now that I point out that America has a racist history you contradict yourself again by insisting they be divided.
Did you really not know that the bible advocates slavery?
@theantiismist "censor key points that refute your claims that Rome never was Secular state..."
I haven't censored anything. I want your text to remain on record as a testament to your prejudice and ignorance. As I pointed Out Rome was not a secular state at any time (it even taunted Christians with the title of 'Atheist')
You haven't shown me up at all which is why am so eager to keep these up. Your unstable and erratic rants have not been able to overturn my citations.
@theantiismist "Creation science was never used by Hitler to Genocide the Jews it was none other then your planted of the Ape science fiction mythology of Evolution...."
I can give several examples of policies and statements made by Hitler in which he supports creationism and berates against evolutionary theory and applies his belief in christian mythology to justification of his pogrom.
However he never made any reference to Darwin at any point in his life let alone as justification
@theantiismist "Don't play dumb you know what the Theory says or do you?"
You are still confused between what is actually understood by people and what you expect people to believe based on your erroneous prejudices.
Hitler believed that humanity was created as is an testified to this several times. He even referred to the jews as 'atheistic'. Hatred of jewish people has a deep seated history in christianity ( you know what a pogrom is?) but evolution does not rank races
@theantiismist "Again you make a baseless argument in hopes of diverting from the facts. typical leftist negation tactic..."
Its baseless to assert that all races are equal? Geez..
Anyway it is shameless projection to accuse me of that since I have consistently addressed your rants directly whereas you have had no problem in erratically changing the subject. Even to such an extent of irrelevence as President Obama, Climate Change and the misdefinition of terms
@theantiismist "Eurepeans aren't a race of people there many euro races.."
Actually there is only one race of humans, diversity between alleged 'races' are not consistent enough for us to differentiate racial groups (Darwin was one of the first to point this out). You are the one insisting that Europeans (or euo materialists as you call them) are some kind of inferior rung ona ladder whereas I point out that evolution actually demonstrates equality between ethnicities.
"this is why Americans don't accept this racist philosophy m we believe all humans are equal.."
At the time Darwin was writing scathing criticisms of slavery and his belief in equality of human beings the creationist Louis Agassiz was touring America with his "polygenism" theory that taught different races of human were created seperately and were different species. The Americans used this (and the bible) as justification for slavery while England abolished it.
"evolution is based on Euro Materism made to put the Euro man on top of the evolutionary chain"
No it doesn't. When do you think it does this?
Evolution suggests that all humans descended from an ancestral stock of humans and are therefore all 100% human genetically. The fact that all humans are also primates was revealed by Linnaeus 100 years before Darwin.
Only you are suggesting there is a racial chain, not me or any evo. biologist. Creationists are typically more racist.
@theantiismist "LMAOL The one who suggestion there is superior Race is your theory of evolution"
I already explained to you that evolution was a rsounding blow against prevalent scientific arguments for racism at the time.
Hitler never referenced Evolutionary theory except to ridicule it saying that humans could not have evolved by natural processes and that development outside of a "kind" is impossible and an insult to God the creator.
"is it the Euro Materialist who where living in the dark ages or....the Jews, The Mayans and Egyptians that held a higher level of consciousness"
hang on...let's ignor the fact that you are confusing the ancient era with the middle ages and ignore the now outdated idea of "Dark Ages" all but universally rejected by historical scholars and just look at the argument form face value.
Are you actually implying that there is a superior race?...or at least an inferior one in the Europeans?
@theantiismist "The Flaw of evolution is that if its true who's the supreme race according to natural selection humans can't all be equal."
Of course they can. In fact Modern evolutionary biology allied with genetics shows that is a superficial and archaic view to divide humanity into 'races' anyway due to closeness of genetic relationship
IN fact the theory of evolution was a decisive blow against racism (In oppose to creationist scientists at the time such as Louis Agassiz).
The Nazi persecution of non Aryans came from a number of figures but in all of Hitlers speeches outlining his philosophy, heroes and motivations Darwin never once came up, even as a footnote to a footnote. Instead figures like Martin Luther are revered.
Hitler was in fact opposed to the same as you: socialism, catholicism, communism, atheism etc
@theantiismist "The argument many true scholars have is that the Darwinian model of Evolution was used to promote Nazi eugenics"
It wasn't though, The argument that Jews were not as "evolved" was never an argument.
No 'true' (?) historians have claimed that only creationist Weikart has seriously tried and was refuted by both the ADL and the consensus of reputable historians.
"Origin Of Species" was even outlawed from Die Bucheri and expressedly ridiculed by Hitler
@theantiismist "that doesn't mean you can't watch him on the internet..."
It certainly doesn't but the fact that I can watch him on the internet does not mean that I should. In fact you accuse him of brainwashing so why are you recommending him?
I think the problem is that want to try and put me into a box because I disagree with your crackpot distortions.
However you understand so little of the subject at hand you have split the conversation up into 6 disparate rants
@theantiismist "To say humanism focus on humans values your right but thats called spiritual humanism, secular humanism focuses on human values like murder, theft adultery, you know the normal kind of thing humans do when they have no moral conscious."
No, both address the same issues
A spiritual humanist integrates humanist principles with religious practise
A secular humanist addresses humanist principles without religious practise
@theantiismist "When the state imposes A state religion in politics its considered a secular state"
Secularism is the word for a lack of religion. If you want to say that secularism too is a religion then by definition no word can exist to describe lack of religion.
@theantiismist Its probably too late for to to regain your composure concerning this point at this stage but I am not European.
You are beyond scatological in your silliness here by first accusing me of being brainwashed by a show that doesn't broadcast here and then saying that it must be communist oppression (rather than the fact it is a foreign show that won't fit in network schedules) that prevents me from watching it. So I must have access to the show and then chose not to watch it?
What political agenda? I haven't endorsed or condemned any political system.
In fact the only person who has shown any passion to any politics was you and they turn out to be based on a fundamentally flawed and skewed view of history.
As I said before though I am beginning to doubt you understand half the 'isms' you are trying to criticise.
For instance humanism isn't the worship of a single human, its a focus on human values and issues
You seem determined to want to duck out of the issue at any cost other than admitting that you came to an intellectual gungight unarmed,
You think that Ancient Rome was secular when it imposed state religion (the closest it got to secular was when it allowed other religion such as Judaism to practise for a small tax after 70yrs) and seem to confuse marxism with capitalism
@theantiismist "automatically assume one would have a vendetta against the president to make a secular comparison"
did you not say the 'the left' worships "Ob-mama"? purposefully mispelling his name for the point of ridicule?
See, you are the one who brought up the American President in the first place, what makes you think you can criticise me for addressing your spurious points?
@theantiismist Material comfort? but capitalism seeks material comfort too...
For that matter if you want to use a definition of philosophy that broad then it is meaningless. If mathematics is also a philosophy then you can't really use philosophy as a point of criticism
Okay Rush Limbaugh, let's cut through the unfunny vox pops for a minute and think about what you're saying.
Are you really willing to use an apparent personal vendetta against a democratically elected President by attempted to use him as an example of a Caesarist Dictator?
For that matter are you really suggesting that the political left universally reveres Barack Obama? (for that matter to the exclusion of the political right?)
@theantiismist Can you recommend a credible source that even tries to link Ancient Rome to Secularism? There were some Roman Secular philosophers such Marcus Aurelius but he certainly wasn't caesarist. Caesarism has nothing to do with materialism, they are disparate topics. Caesarism isn't even a philosphy, its a government system!
I'm beginning to doubt you know what secularism even means to that effect..
@theantiismist Rome wasn't secular, rather the Emperor and even the Empire were deified and various religions were adapted to imperial needs, collectively referred to as Sol Invictus and later Catholicism. Rome worshiped the sun, itself, and later the Holy Trinity. The last Vestige of Roman Authority is in the Roman Catholic Church, not very secular. (I know the donation was faked)
@Darkestaxe Yeah, it was so weird when he called Rome secular.
This was the time when State Religion was pretty much at its peak. Its amazing the number of levels on which a person attempting to oppose evolutionary theory can be at once.
@theantiismist "For one who knows the origin of philosophy I find many holes in evolution."
You clearly have a less than remedial knowledge of philosophy and the holes your purport to evolution appear to be no more than holes in your own knowledge.
You can't pretend that evolution isn't taken seriously when it is unanimously accepted and relied upon by the scientific community and denied by zealous ignoramuses who don't know the difference between 'accept' and 'except'
@theantiismist "As Far as science goes evolutionism can't even be considered science"
It can and is, in fact it is considered one of the strongest sciences in practise. That's why it publishes so well. And we have seen mammalian species evolve. Look up observed species of mammalian speciacion.
Its also why there has never been a viable alternative hypothesis for evolutionary theory that has stood up to a fraction of scrutiny
@theantiismist most of "Secular Roman science and philosophies was highly influence by semitic cultures like Christians, Jews, Egyptian and Babylonians..."
Not really, Rome's main influence was Greece which was also the major influence of Christians (Aristotle especially).
There's no such thing as evolutionism, it is a bogus person made up by people who don't understand what evolution is and want to deny that it happens
"It says he replaced theistic religion with atheistic secular materialism"- That's a rewording of what I just said. Only a less accurate one.
"Secular Materialism is thousands years old and embraces evolution...."
It also embraces gravity, Cell theory, geosphericity, the germ theory of disease and is RESPONSIBLE for each and every one of them and all of their breakthroughs and virtues.
Rome was foundational to free market economics far more than Marxism, it was also very religious
You seem to throw a lot of inaccurate red herrings around that it is clear you are not so much opposed to that which you claim to be, You're simply conditioned to react negatively to specific words like a cross between Fox News and Pavlov's dog.
You seem well in over your head when it comes to socio-political history and its consequences. I know you want to try and look intellectual or at least well informed in your dubious criticism but you merely come across as unpleasant and quite silly
@theantiismist Although he doesn't "make his atheist proclamation" the Communist Manifesto states that religion under it would be made obsolete.
But that isn't the point either. This video is not about atheism or communism but the ridiculous statement that Darwinian evolution was used by Dictators to justify atrocity.
The irony is that while Marx was as admirer of Darwin's work, Stalinist Russia implicitly outlawed it under Trofim Lysenko
@studentoflife01 if you have a criticism you are certainly welcoem to share it. Though your first impression leaves me with little hope I am to be engaged in an intellectually stimulating discussion.
I am willing to be proven wrong on this judgement if there proves to be more to you. Willing but not optimistic
@ProcInc You where basically making a point against idealism. That persons like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck where out to lunch. Well I wanted to make the point that idealism stems from a philosophical idea that the universe started but will never end. If you are against idealism, are you saying you have a dualistic (The universe has a beginning and an end), a monistic (The universe has no beginning, just an end), or an eternalist (The universe has no end, and/or no beginning) look on the universe?
Idealism has more than one meaning. In fact ALL of those isms do, none of them match anything I have mentioned at all. Idealism in the context I clearly outline is opposition to materialism. The disbelief in that which is objectively perceived in favour of that subjectively imagined.
Belief in lew of and contrary to evidence is a point WORTH making against. Idealism stems from no such philosphy of an immortal universe nor does it rely on it
@studentoflife01. So if you want to believe that the universe began but won't end, 'fill yer boots'. It has absolutely no bearing on *anything* discussed nor is it the proper definition of idealism.
In order to adhere to any such dogma you would first need to establish what you are defining as "the universe" and what criteria of "being" it has. Otherwise I don't hold any of those misnamed philosophies over any other
@ProcInc I didn't say the universe be's - (Kinda weird how I said that). I said that the universe is defined by its origins, and its intensions. Weather it has one, another, none or both. As these terms relate to the microcosm - that's where you get these 'modern' philosophical definitions of (Monism, dualism, ect). They are pretty shallow definitions Id give you that, but they all do relate. Idealism respects the creation (The created universe, the errective power that made it).
@studentoflife01. What are you talking about? by criteria of being I am saying what criteria has to be met to say the universe is existing? does the pre-big bang quantum flux meet the criteria etc
Where are you getting these definitions from? You appear to be making it up as you go along.
To put it simply Idealism is the antithesis of realism, realism being the standpoint that there is an objective reality from which truth can be incepted
@ProcInc Yes, what you are saying fits either an eternalist, or monistic model. You are saying that there was basically this 4d box that is being broken down and that process is what causes the universe. You are not talking to the idea of a beginning (IE What caused 'the pre-big bang quantum flux'). Idealist believe that the universe began, but will never end. There is no 'Being' there is only 'Growing'.
@studentoflife01 also "growing" precipictes "being". In order to grow you would have to be. Did I really have to point that out?
So please stop being irrelevent and try to engage to the proper topics If you don't accept that your definitions are wrong at least accept the fact that I was never using those definitions (and neither has any philosopher including those which coined each respective term)
@studentoflife01. OKay, so using my definition (particularly of idealism) is there anything you disagree with in anything that I have mentioned in this video when I berated idealism?
@ProcInc You never defined idealism. But besides that I don't like the idea of evolution being a better theory than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory. Evolution says that we just randomly change out genetics. At least Lamarck has a reason for his conclusion. A materialist reality does not in general recognize the force of creation. Idealist praise this force, dualism work with this force, but if you don't recognize it then how can you say things like "It's an absolute fact"?
You said your definition of idealism is personal beliefs can be considered viable constructs of reality. That's what my definition of idealism is for the microcosm. That the microcosm is defined by intension. But as idealism relates to the macrocosm it's basically saying that the universe began, but will never end. The connection of these definitions is this. When you make something up in your head. You need material to make it happen right?
It is perfectly possible to imagine something that isn't true, it is not only plausible but likely that something concocted in the imagination has no physical basis.
Evolution does say that we randomly change our genetics, we have also proven that happens and that Lamarck was wrong. QED
@ProcInc How can you make up a color if you have been blind your entire life? Okay, Lamarck was wrong... But everyone was wrong 100 years ago, and to say that Darwin was right is pretty frivolous. Because although he gives an explanation of what happens because of evolution; he doesn't recognize a reason why it works. And I think he doesn't deserve praise for that at all. Especially after 100 years of contemplating/'research'. I believe Lamarck's concepts can be fixed.
You obviously never read any of Darwin's work. The point of Origin of Species is an explanation of the mechanism. Lamarck's concept has been fixed, by being mostly discarded, The stuff that worked has been kept.
So yes, Lamarck was mostly wrong and Darwin was mostly right, modern evolutionary theory is even more right and science will press on to improve further no matter how much you want to cling on to erroneous philosphy
@ProcInc You said that Evolution is a fact. How is this so if they don't have a clear reason why it works. If I said you are sick because of 'evil spirits' - I would have to atleast give a reason why. Even though when I say that fresh raw garlic keeps evil sprits away that still isn't a conclusive reason to say that "Evil Spirits make you sick". That's what the Origin of Species did.
Perhps you should read origin of species before attempting to interpret it. Origin of species collects evidence from a wide range of fields and harmonises it into a working explanation for how and why species arise. How and why being what you ask for.
Also I would suggest you look up the scientific definitin of theory before saying evolution is "just" a theory.
Theory - A hypothesis becomes theory by becoming widely accepted because of testing. It is a proposed explanation for how or why something happens and generally cannot be proven.
@studentoflife01. A theory is a framework, a way of synthecises all facts together in a way that they make sense and are useful. That's the definition that evolution as a theory works out as. Evolution is also a fact in another sense in that we can diretly observe its effects.
It says both how and that its random, randomness isn't a lack of explanation, its understood as the right answer. Epigenetic variation does not take away from this
Yes it does, because once you get into the world of epigenetics; you lose your absolutist credibility. Just by acknowledging that intension can affect your genetics is recognizing that the theory of evolution is just made up, and that the Lamarck's intensions where correct, and that the intension of Darwin was incorrect because you are saying that you genetics are not in a definite, absolutist form.
@studentoflife01 also, its spelt "intentions" and epigenetics in no way vindicates Lamarcks ideas nor "intention". Everyone who accepts the modern evolutioanry synthesis also accepts the mechanism of epigenetics.
Furthermore epigenetics is evidence based and therefore realist, why were you using it as an argument for idealism?
No, Darwin said that you can't change your genetics. That that's what you've got unless a 'Random Event happens'. Lamarck said hey look the giraffe is lifting up his head higher and higher, maybe that's why the giraffe's neck is so long. They were both wrong but I used terms such as 'Idealism, and monism' to outline their intent. The intent of Lamarck (Which was that you are in control of your DNA) was proven right by the study of epigenetics
@ProcInc Epigenetics is an expression of the cell that is based on the enviroment of the cell membrane....What the cell membrane experiences..... That includes the nervous system's electronic system. This does have an effect on the DNA. Mutation does not equate to a random event. Random events would not include genetically engineering plants so they produce insecticides, but genetically engineering is a mutative process.
@studentoflife01 By definition any changes in the underlying DNA of an organism is not epigenetics because on of the criteria of epigenetics is not genetic change (Adrian Bird 2007). So your attempted definition is (ironicalyl BY definition) wrong.
Its astonishing that you want to try and argue when you can't tell the difference between a *mutation* and a *mutative process*...
@ProcInc Um... Epigenetics affect methylation. <- Evidence enough, case closed, Idealist win, Monists lose. How can you stand behind the idea that Epigentics don't have anything to do with ones DNA when I just said "Epigenetics affect methylation"? You can't. Because this puts your world upside down so agressivly that you don't know. You don't know anything for a fact just because of its function. You will now look towards intent. You are now an idealist. :-) Welcome to the club!
I don't believe you have any idea what you were just saying then...
firstly I am not a monist I pretty much nipped that strawman in the bud yet you persist for some reason. Secondly methylation has nothing to do with genetics, only gene expression. Third methylation affects epigenetics, not the other way around (lol so speaking of putting the world upside down)
Its amazing how you could be so wrong at every point and put so much hubris into being wrong :S
It seems as though you wanted to get away with arguing that the deires and wants of an organism affected their epigenetic code and that that in itself affected 'methylation'. But you don't seem to know what methylation even is.
Instead you just said "epigenetics affect methylation" (sic) and started gloating as if thsi entirely wrong statment meant somethign other than how over your head the whole business of thinking is to you
I am a rationalist. Your silly list doesn't make any sense you just made the definitions up. You further show your incompetence by insisting that those four fictional "options" are the only possible options in existance.
You have no idea what epigenetics, mutations, any of the so-called philosophies you list or methylation mean. So stop trying to formulate challenges and questions with them.
So either source justification for your definitions or stop using yor bogus terms
@ProcInc Do you believe in a beginning, and/or an end, or do you not believe in either a beginning or an end? How else can you define something if not through a question of their origins and function? If you can't then there seems to be 4 posibilities...
@studentoflife01. Firstly it is very easy to define something without determining its origin in fact in the case of the universe you need to be able to define it BEFORE you determine a start or end. Secondly there is not intrinsic link at all between Lamarck or Epigenetics or Idealism etc that relies on whether or not the universe has a beginning or an ending. There is a literal free-for-all in linking any of those since for instance idealism does not rely on if the universe started or ended.
The universe began from another state meaning is only arbitrary if and when it had a beginning and will deteriorate into a state which we would not call a universe because there would be no galaxies or even matter, just electrical energy or a regress of everything but to the quantum point of origin.
The Universe therefore will technically will exist for a finite time but at the same time has no definitive nor end meaning all four are equally wrong.
How can you define something without understanding it's origins. For if that was the true model then we could say aphroditie controls all love. < - What the fuck can you say to that logic? Nothing unless you define a whole different system, a whole different origin. Idealism does require a beginning energy, because without a beginning energy then there is nothing to think about. The word define is an ending energy. "You are defined by your function" <- ending energy. You end withadefition
@studentoflife01 as I said, it is easy to define something without divulging its origins
check a dictionary, nearly if not every definition does not rely on discussing the noun's origin .
Idealism does not require a beginning energy: Its is the belief that reality is subjective, that's it. That's all it is, check any dictionary, check any writings of idealist philosophers from Antiphon to Neujhar.
@ProcInc and your aphrodite crap is another display of your total incompetence in drawing analogies. You made a complete non sequiter. In fact you made a totally random and absurd statement. In fact most everything you say is a non sequiter.
Was it an attempt at being satirical or humourous? Seriously it was totally embarrassing. Nearly as much as you gloating about disproving me with a totalyl wrong interpretation of epigenetics. I feel like I'm dealing with a high school student here
No because you can use it in a macrocosm tense, and a microcosm tense. You would only use it in the microcosm's tense because you are giving a subjective view. But Objectivly idealism says that the creative force of the universe is building a universe. Therefore It cannot be a monist philosophy because it is not one world. It is a constatnly changing one. Not defined, or no end in sight, but we know of the creative force because we are here!
@studentoflife01Even if it were true (and even if the terms macrocosm and microcosm even applied to a monist philosphy) it would apply in the same way. A subjective view? of a subjective philosphy? How else can that be expected to work?
Idealism doesn't objectively say anything (geez, you obviously don't know the definition of objective). Also idealism is sayig no such thing
Name one idealist philospher who ever said that. And yes it is a monist philosphy, look it up, don't MAKE it up.
I'm not saying that monism, or idealism has to be viewed subjectively or objectively. They can, but I am saying that the microcosm is the subjective view; the macrocosm is the objective view. A monist ideology would be that of a professor teaching the theory of the universe of 'inflation'. An idealist ideology might be a preacher using the model god as the beginning force.
No, Microcosm doesn't have to do with size; instead it has to do with self. Vs the macrocosm which refers to everything out of self. That is the definition of objective, and subjective right? For example: If I was a mouse I would be objectively from another mouse. But as a mouse I would look subjectively towards myself (Microcosm). I don't believe that we are in god's image, rather just another in the rat race. Does that make sense?
@studentoflife01 Macrocosm DOES have to do with size (look it up) but let's use your misuse of the terms and apply it shall we? You are saying that the microcosm is everything to do with onese'f whereas the macrososm is everything else. That is NOT the definition of subjective and objective but even if it was then idealism can't by definition apply to the "macrocosm" because idealism is based on the philosophy that reality is exclusively subjective
@ProcInc Furthermore why refer to yourself as a mouse? You coudl have just as easily kept referring to yourself, making an analogy where your a mouse serves no purpose at all (especially since a mouse has no concept of objectivity or subjectivity).
And wrong again anyway since it is perfectly possibly to view oneself objectively and to view the external world subjectively, since your terms can have the polar opposite definition successfully used your stunted "philosophy" doesn't work
Ignoring ALL of that I have fallen for hearing out so much of your crap I have allowed the continuation of all sorts of new crap without rectifying your old mistakes and not admitting to them.
Do you for instance now understand that Idealism by definition can not be objective despite your silly mouse analogy?
Do you at least admit that your "understanding" of epigenetics is so wrong that you get it backwars at its most fundamental point?
Can your cite use of your definitions to terms used?
@ProcInc A rock can't be subjective right? How is it that we can be completely subjective if we are sensitive enough to see hear taste smell the world around us? We could only control things after we know of them. The question of idealism is weather or not your intentions matter in the world. I say they do because there is always creation happening so your intentions (Which are based on the world) are always going to be able to change the world to suit your needs.
@studentoflife01 Again you don't understand what you are saying. You can be subjective about the world entirely if you believe that everything is filteed by your own perception including sight, sound and taste etc. If you DONT believe that reaqlity is entirely subjective then you are not an idealist!
If you believe reality is a combination of the two then you are a dualist.
You have no point and are no longer arguing about the nature of reality. Just trying to justify your ramblings
@studentoflife01 You don't even kno wwhat an idealist is and I have corrected you various times as to what an idealist would have to believe and why I don't believe it.
Not only am I not an idealist but you are not one either as you apparently believe in an external quality to the universe. You are just an ignorant child obsessed with labelling without denying.
Is this all just a ploy to cover up being spectacularly wrong about epigenetics, methylation and lamarckianism?
I'm right, but I wanted to tell you why i'm right by going deep into my core beliefes. "you apparently believe in an external quality to the universe. You are just an ignorant child obsessed with labelling without denying." - doesn't that mean i'm not ignorant?
@studentoflife01 No, you are not right. Not only that but you didn't even know what you were arguing. You did a little dance after saying epigenetics affects methylation for instance. When not onlt is it the other way around but methylation does not affect genetics!
It means you are ignorant (denying was I typo, I meant defining). You kept trying to call both me and yourself an idealist without even knowing what that word meant. When I cited what it meant you challenged it without indication
okay you said "You can be subjective about the world entirely if you believe that everything is filteed by your own perception including sight, sound and taste etc. If you DONT believe that reaqlity is entirely subjective then you are not an idealist!" - as if that is the defition of idealism. But you decide to not get at the core argument presented. HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN FILTER ANYTHING FROM AN OBJECTIVE WORLD? You're not making anysense. You're just building off of the coreideaandmutatint
@studentoflife01 It is the definition of idealism (look it up). The question is not how you can filter anyting out form an objective world, that can't be helped. Its how you can accurately perceive the objective world, that's where methodologcial naturalism comes in.
I won't even pretend to imagine why you apparently had a spasm on your keyboard producing that last sequence of letters
That can't be the defition of idealism because it doesn't get to the direct core of the idea. It just indirectly defines it a step fearther than it needs. You see it is wrong because it relies on the material world. You need to be attached to the material world in order for you to 'filter' it out. You have to change you perspective completly, and look at intent, rather than function. Although looking at the world through a funcitonal perspecive gives you freedom it's not ideal.
You keep saying it can't be even though it is and I have even sourced a philosopher for you to research and confirm that. Now you say it doesn't get to the core (while at the same time says it takes it too far). Doesn't get to the core?? You think it means the universe has a beginning but no end! That's not even the superficial basis of a philosophy!
Reliance on the material world is not a shortcoming and we ARE attached to it. That's the point, its the only thing we can objectively verify.
Its not a change of perspective to look at function over intent. The default prspective IS function! intent is a supplementary assumption based on nothing but a flawed argument form analogy. Furthermore any perspective of intent requires the previous perception of functionality.
Objectively perceiving the world's function rather than subjectively shoehorning intent doesn't give you freedom. It restricts your reality to reality itself rather than imagination
Its difficult to summarise or undermine exactly how incredulous you are about the whole concept o philosophy. Its clear that considering the physical itself lat alone the schools of thought of the metaphysical are well over your head and your lack of knowledge in the basics of subject you claim expertise in is stupefying the the point of actual outrage.
You are philosophically and scientifically inept to the point of unabashed stupidity without exaggeration
To be objective is to restrict what you accept as reality to what can be verified as real. That means you can't believe things for which there are no evidence no matter how much you don't want to and you must believe things that are unambiguously evident no matter how much you don't want to.
Being an idealist and taking the ultimate nature of reality as based on ideas means the major filtration process of the real and unreal is personal preference.
Not so, it makes you more creative because you need to actually apply yourself to find the right answer rather than just imagine one up and keep it unquestioned.
Facts, truth and logic are harsh slavemasters but the intellectually honest accept its absolute mastery. I much prefer it to your tyrant of ignorance and delusion.
It could only take away my freedom if freedom is dependent on fallacy. I don't believe a correlation drawn between them is justified.
@studentoflife01 Because science is about trial, error and lateral thinking. Its about thinking up new explanations and testing them for their accuracy and effectiveness. You need to be able to come up with hypotheses before testing them
Making stuff up and stamping it forever as infallible is not creative at all. Its simply a good way to be wrong forever.
Oh, so you're saying that there needs to be a balance of creative thinking with your position? Why don't you recognize other people's intentional view? I mean if you trying to balance the views...
@studentoflife01 You misunderstand (probably intentionally). Creative thinking is a device used to look for the answer not MAKE the answer. I don't recognise views that are wrong.
Yea, you look for an answer. But the deep line between you and me is that I believe that the purpose of everything is to grow. You believe the purpose of everything is to be. So I believe that as I objectivly view the world I can see that I am a product of my environment (Growing). So what I creativly think up has to be correct because there is no (Negative, wrong, end). So the posibilities are open for me based on my environment.your opsibilities are open based on your environment(Nogrowth
Well it is determined that you cannot immagine a new color. All that you can imagine is soly based on what was around you before. I am not saying we can control the universe. I am saying that the universe controls us. But that the universes driving force is based on growth, not balance. We are not the center of the universe...Why did you think that's what I meant? Is it because your theory gives you absolute freedom in the universe? I will stop bracketing.
@studentoflife01 It seems 'determined' that you don't know what a colour actually is. Colour is merely a limited portion of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is only possible to imagine colours that exist. So bad example.
What we are talking about is not a theory, but a philosophical basis. And it doesn't give me absolute freedom in the universe. There's nothing to begin to suggest what that even means.
The universe is based on growth is an insubstantial vox pop
"It seems 'determined' that you don't know what a colour actually is. Colour is merely a limited portion of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is only possible to imagine colours that exist." Don't you understand that when you see something you are looking at the absent of that color. A leaf is green, you look at a leaf you see the absent of green. This is a good example because your mind cannot create a new color envisioned. Are you saying you can see a new color?
@studentoflife01 No you fool you do not see the absence of that colour you see the colour reflected. Geez, how many times must I remind you that being scientifically and philosophically incompetent does not give you an edge against those who know what they are talking about.
"I'm stupid therefore I'm right" Is an obstructive and frustrating tactic I expect from creationists but you have no excuse whatsoever for wasting my time with your lack of coherence and knowledge
@studentoflife01 You never said I was stupid, you are making YOURSELF out to be stupid and therefore difficult to address on every point.
And when you don't try to look stupid your attempts at feigning competence are even more ridiculous when you contradict yourself at every opportunity.
For instance does my philosophy enslave me or give me absolute freedom? You've suggested both.
you haven't been able to form a single objective coherent statement and now avoid epigenetics like the plauge
I never suggest that your philosophy enslaves you....I asked if that is what you meant..."You said that you're position makes you uncreative, and enslaves you (Takes away your freedom)?" - I was clarifing your position. Your position gives you unlimited freedom. You don't have a position of growth, you have a position of balance. So You (Being the center of the universe) can change the universe to suit your needs in any way you want to...Now laws to govern your change.Mypositionrulesbygrowth
The universe...Matter, energy everything! The point is to grow. So in order for you to do that you have to kind of play along with other matter. That's where you get this negative and positive thing. It's not (-) vs. (+) in a battle of life and no life or neutral. Rather matter sees other matter and there for acts in order for it to keep growing. Cucumbers grow up, if there is a fence they try to grow along it not lift it up. The meaning of life is to grow.
@studentoflife01 Matter and energy isn't growing for a start, it is moving further apart (in galactic clusters). You could be generalising that the universe is growing but that's not strictly true, just expandign apart. And even interchagning those terms that is not a philosophy, just a philosophically inconsequential fact.
Yes things get bigger as they get older until they pass reproductive age, that's not something to build a philosophy off of and its not even universally true.
Where's the philsophy behind such an elementary observation? How do you account for lifeforms that don't grow? In what sense is this meant to be idealism?
The sheer array of problems with your so-called philosophy even outnumbers your elementary errors in science.
This is why I'm saying that these fields are not your forte and that you are in no position to criticise. Because you are incompetent philosophically and studiously. I can not stress that enough
@studentoflife01 Wrong again. Thanks to the current philospophy of science we have gone from not knowing atoms exist to the multitude of knowledge we have of them now. The scientific method has taken us from strength to strength.
We don't know everything about the atom because we have limited technology and science is about baby steps. Do you expect us to know EVERYTHING about satoms one day anyway? What would that even mean?
@studentoflife01 You can't quote Darwin in saying that because he didn't say it (Darwin didn't know nor particularly rely on knowing where variation came from).
I can't really quote anybody on particularly saying it but its just a fact that intentions (please spell it right) do not affect your DNA, that's just wishful thinking disproved by Weissman et al. Ironically epigenetics does not affect the DNA either only an organism's phenotype and not due to intent of said organism
@ProcInc That Eugenetics can't say "Oh well of course you can go to kantsaywhere because your genetics are pure, and they will stay pure for the rest of your life no matter what".
@ProcInc No it never says how. It says its random. Just like a wizard would say its ghosts. All he's trying to promote is this idea of separating yourself. Hardcore, he says that not one bit of intension goes into your genetic make up. When its already been proven that your epigenetic have way more of an impact than you DNA. And not only that but your DNA is affect by your epigenetic code.
@ProcInc It doesn't prove shit. It's just a theory that everyone takes so to heart because they want to believe in what (Things, people, ect) are, rather than what they can be
@studentoflife01 I find it especially silly that you say people take evolutionary theory to heart because they want to believe what they are. What they are is what they are and there is no denying that!
That's the difference between realism and idealism, you believe based on imagination and I accept based on reality.
I am what I am, so are you. You really wanted to argue against a self evident tautology?
Well in a universe that is constantly 'Growing' you'll be open to all the material you need. For you cannot create ideas without there being a physical basis for it. You have to be able to see the color purple in order for you to recognize it.
@ProcInc These definitions are in the objective form for each of these terms (IE they don't have there roots in the microcosm, but rather the macrocosm). Each of these terms have a significant impact on the view of the natural sciences, politics, ect....
@studentoflife01 the definitions are not in objective form (not least because definitions of a philosophical nature can in most cases not be objective anyway). Source from where you got the connections from these disparate terms and definitions from. Your definitions are wrong. If you could at least cite where you got the from it would be something but you then make up that they are "objective" which is entirely meaningless. You are wasting both of our times
@ProcInc Monism basically says there was a block and now it's being broken up, so there is no beginning just the end. Because of this errective power there is no deterministic 'end'.
Excellent video! My only suggestion would be to use a breath protector on the mic to prevent the frequent "poosh" sound. Otherwise, intellectually solid and informative.
indeed, wish you could post your vids under the series "Blloody History of Communism", as that series is total crap and lies. At times, it tends to mix Darwinism with communism, it's insufferable christian fundamentalist garbage
Indeed it is such garbage, this video neither condones nor condemns communism in my opinion (since I myself do neither personally) but its clear that fundamentalist etc criticism of communism has always come from deliberate misrepresentation of it as has the criticism of "Darwinism"
Just so you know it stopped at 3:35 and will not continue.
You have many facts correct. But that wont matter. Problem is man wants to enslave his brother for his own profit dont matter if its by socialism or capitalism. Just look at what it took to free the southern USA slaves. Now we have Globalism. The problems with all forms of gov. is they break the rules and covet power. then use that power against the people. They ALL do it.
"Problem is man wants to enslave his brother for his own profit"
I would say men do, not *man* (implying it's intrinsic in everyone). And regardless of social standing you are right that there will always some like this.
Thie issue of this video is blaming bolshevism on evolutionary theory however
hmm just one point Comrade. You state within "communism" a dictatorship of the proletariat exists. However, this seems contrary to Lenin in State &Revolution (he cites F. Engels,& Bebel).
During the (dying ) socialist state phase there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, but, the state, under socialism, eventually "wither away".
And, furthermore, the proletariat aboishes itself as a class-thus resulting in a class-less society.
hmm was your comment in regards to the socialist state/ communism distinction?
well yes, under socialism there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The state then "withers away" (Engels "Anti-Durhing", Lenin etc) and the Proletariat abolishes itself, resulting in a class less society.
actually you were right. Guevaristas stands corrected.
VI Lenin, in "State & Revolution" stated:
'What is generally called Socialism was termed by Marx the "first" or lower phase of Communist society. In so far as the means of production became public property, the word "Communism" is also applicable here, provided that we do not forget that it is not full Communism.'
"So, why do evodelusionists, always argue against creationists? Why no just look into the fact that you have no proof of evolution, none. "
No proof apart from every relevent field of biology being indicative of it.
We argue against creationists because they are wrong and demonstrably so, and to ignore that is dangerous (As demonstrated in this video, ideology superceding materialism leads to disaster).
What constitutes as *proof* of evolution? when there is overwhelming evidence
The only thing I have seen is a belief system, similar to a religion and nothing more. There are three very small parts of evolution theory that are plausible and seem to work. The rest is just friggin fantasy.
Maybe instead of arguing against creationists, you should stick to seeing if you can acutally come up with some evidence. The arguments against creationists is just a smoke screen to hide behind. It has nothing to do with science, just like creatures changing in to other creatures has nothing to do with science, but just a beleif.
"you should stick to seeing if you can acutally come up with some evidence."
plenty of videos already demonstrate evidence of evolution already. I even sent some to you while I was humiliating your silly arguments in PMs "It has nothing to do with science"
this video is about the 'advocacy' and 'practises' of science. Not the conclusions science has drawn
Creatures change into other creatures all the time (but thats developmental biology)
You must be blind and low IQ. I am sorry but there is no evidence that shows evolution of any creature changing species. I find it amazing how people are so brainwashed into this belief system.
You need to listen to my videos again and again, so you can get free of this idiocy.
I have an objective mind and high IQ and when I read all this evidence for "speciation" it is nothing but normal everyday, common genetics. Buy the laws of genetic stablity, no species has ever shown to change into another. It is because you are brainwashed that you believe this crap.
We now know, That socialist tendencies are in the genes, We, As people know, That we can`t become masters of everything during our lives, So naturally we become social, To benefit ourselves, And in turn others.
xmoroseguyx 9 months ago
"God made flowers out of sunshine"? In 1954? so we've had basically a few of decades of relatively free and dominant science recently, but now the Creationists are renewing their campaign to drag us back into the superstitious darkness where they've managed to hold us for so many centuries already?
Have to wonder what level of science and technology, just how Star Trek we could be, if religion could have been stamped out at the turn of the century.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@theantiismist "however the origin of this philosophical doctrine or mind set derives from secular materialism"
Not so, part of the reason Darwinism (via Haeckel especially) was suppressed in Nazi Germany was because of its materialist implications
"The common position of materialistic monism is philospically rejected by the Volkisch-biological view of National Socialism"-Gunther Hecht (Rassenpolitischen Amnt der NSAP)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "is that it suggestion that some humans are more evolved then others by the Darwin model of natural selection."
Evolution doesn't state that any more than creationism since Evolution unequivocally states that all humans are descendents from a human common ancestor
No part of Origin of Species advocates a hierarchy of extant racial types
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "You have to explain the full content to make sure you understand what your reading"
The full content is the instructions on how to keep and purchase slaves, including how to sell your daughter into slavery and a reminder by Peter to all Slaves to be obidient to their masters
ProcInc 1 year ago
"The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others."
Darwin did not come up with the concept of selective breeding. Darwin applied the law to nature not the other way around
Hitler refers to lower races but evolutionary theory does not. Do you see the problem with your accusation based solely on that fact?
ProcInc 1 year ago
"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker..."Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
He also says that he is doing the work of the Lord and acting according to the will of the Almighty creator. There is no explicit imposing of evolution here.
In the same chapter he ridicules the notion of evolution (I souced the quote in PM)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Hitler's Holocaust Inspired by Darwinism"
This is fraught with error though as I can point out
"Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times"
He used in once, in a social and not a biological context. If you looked at the actual quote you would see this.
"Lower human types" is not an evolutionary principle. Creationists in the 1920s referred to "Degenerate humans" (McReady Price)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "is the fact the Hitler used evolution to promote his agenda"
When exactly did Hitler use evolution to promote his agenda? Which specific justification are you referring to?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Since you felt it necessary for me to have a comment thread open on my channel for you to allow for comments I have opened it up.
In exchange I would request you unblock me and allow for me to present my evidence of official Party Doctrine of National Socialism (as well as the personal beliefs of Hitler) expressedly forbidding Evolutionary theory on both its scientific and philosophical forms.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "@theantiismist LMOAL Another failed attempt by Mr pseudo intellectual."
I really enjoy the irony of this error on your part. Anyway if you would like me to give further citations concerning the actual inspiration for Nazi atrocities (And the antievolutionary Nazi policies and quotations by Hitler in text and speeches)
you need only temporarily turn off the censorship filter of your message box.
Unlike you I am not interested in restricted exchange of information
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "The reason you can't a logical factual claim"
I did make a logical factual claim. You asked for biblical passages suporting slavery and I gave them.
Now you are claiming they don't count because I "don't explain the full content". Why would I have to? Any observer simply has to look them up and see the full verse in proper context.
Theres nothing subjective about encouraging people to find out for themselves
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Explain the full content of these passages, or are you just hoping that make a random reference proves your point.. "
Anybody has the freedom to look up these passages for themselves and see how they confirm me. There's nothing baseless or emotional about taking the time to make citations.
In fact this is as little emotion as possible as I am adding no distorting commentary to the citations. Just look them up and see
Also LMOAL is not a legitimate abbreviation, stop using it
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "LMAOL Show me the biblical text that advocates slavery"
Leviticus 25: 44-46
Exodus 21: 2-11
Ephesians6:5
1 Timothy 6: 1-2 to name a few
You were the one initially insistant in grouping Americans together as a single legion of believers. Now that I point out that America has a racist history you contradict yourself again by insisting they be divided.
Did you really not know that the bible advocates slavery?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "censor key points that refute your claims that Rome never was Secular state..."
I haven't censored anything. I want your text to remain on record as a testament to your prejudice and ignorance. As I pointed Out Rome was not a secular state at any time (it even taunted Christians with the title of 'Atheist')
You haven't shown me up at all which is why am so eager to keep these up. Your unstable and erratic rants have not been able to overturn my citations.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Creation science was never used by Hitler to Genocide the Jews it was none other then your planted of the Ape science fiction mythology of Evolution...."
I can give several examples of policies and statements made by Hitler in which he supports creationism and berates against evolutionary theory and applies his belief in christian mythology to justification of his pogrom.
However he never made any reference to Darwin at any point in his life let alone as justification
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Don't play dumb you know what the Theory says or do you?"
You are still confused between what is actually understood by people and what you expect people to believe based on your erroneous prejudices.
Hitler believed that humanity was created as is an testified to this several times. He even referred to the jews as 'atheistic'. Hatred of jewish people has a deep seated history in christianity ( you know what a pogrom is?) but evolution does not rank races
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Again you make a baseless argument in hopes of diverting from the facts. typical leftist negation tactic..."
Its baseless to assert that all races are equal? Geez..
Anyway it is shameless projection to accuse me of that since I have consistently addressed your rants directly whereas you have had no problem in erratically changing the subject. Even to such an extent of irrelevence as President Obama, Climate Change and the misdefinition of terms
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Eurepeans aren't a race of people there many euro races.."
Actually there is only one race of humans, diversity between alleged 'races' are not consistent enough for us to differentiate racial groups (Darwin was one of the first to point this out). You are the one insisting that Europeans (or euo materialists as you call them) are some kind of inferior rung ona ladder whereas I point out that evolution actually demonstrates equality between ethnicities.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "Euro Materialist of the Dark ages"
There is so much wrong with this new vox pop I curse the 500 figure limit.
You can't scathe against the Roman Empire (which you accuse of being materialist also) and then say the result of it collapsing was also materialist.
The Dark Ages was antimaterial and progressed after the rediscovery of Greek philosophy through Islamic scholars
There is no superior race, though you seem to want to mark Europeans as an inferior race...
ProcInc 1 year ago
"this is why Americans don't accept this racist philosophy m we believe all humans are equal.."
At the time Darwin was writing scathing criticisms of slavery and his belief in equality of human beings the creationist Louis Agassiz was touring America with his "polygenism" theory that taught different races of human were created seperately and were different species. The Americans used this (and the bible) as justification for slavery while England abolished it.
ProcInc 1 year ago
"evolution is based on Euro Materism made to put the Euro man on top of the evolutionary chain"
No it doesn't. When do you think it does this?
Evolution suggests that all humans descended from an ancestral stock of humans and are therefore all 100% human genetically. The fact that all humans are also primates was revealed by Linnaeus 100 years before Darwin.
Only you are suggesting there is a racial chain, not me or any evo. biologist. Creationists are typically more racist.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "LMAOL The one who suggestion there is superior Race is your theory of evolution"
I already explained to you that evolution was a rsounding blow against prevalent scientific arguments for racism at the time.
Hitler never referenced Evolutionary theory except to ridicule it saying that humans could not have evolved by natural processes and that development outside of a "kind" is impossible and an insult to God the creator.
ProcInc 1 year ago
"is it the Euro Materialist who where living in the dark ages or....the Jews, The Mayans and Egyptians that held a higher level of consciousness"
hang on...let's ignor the fact that you are confusing the ancient era with the middle ages and ignore the now outdated idea of "Dark Ages" all but universally rejected by historical scholars and just look at the argument form face value.
Are you actually implying that there is a superior race?...or at least an inferior one in the Europeans?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "The Flaw of evolution is that if its true who's the supreme race according to natural selection humans can't all be equal."
Of course they can. In fact Modern evolutionary biology allied with genetics shows that is a superficial and archaic view to divide humanity into 'races' anyway due to closeness of genetic relationship
ProcInc 1 year ago
IN fact the theory of evolution was a decisive blow against racism (In oppose to creationist scientists at the time such as Louis Agassiz).
The Nazi persecution of non Aryans came from a number of figures but in all of Hitlers speeches outlining his philosophy, heroes and motivations Darwin never once came up, even as a footnote to a footnote. Instead figures like Martin Luther are revered.
Hitler was in fact opposed to the same as you: socialism, catholicism, communism, atheism etc
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "The argument many true scholars have is that the Darwinian model of Evolution was used to promote Nazi eugenics"
It wasn't though, The argument that Jews were not as "evolved" was never an argument.
No 'true' (?) historians have claimed that only creationist Weikart has seriously tried and was refuted by both the ADL and the consensus of reputable historians.
"Origin Of Species" was even outlawed from Die Bucheri and expressedly ridiculed by Hitler
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "that doesn't mean you can't watch him on the internet..."
It certainly doesn't but the fact that I can watch him on the internet does not mean that I should. In fact you accuse him of brainwashing so why are you recommending him?
I think the problem is that want to try and put me into a box because I disagree with your crackpot distortions.
However you understand so little of the subject at hand you have split the conversation up into 6 disparate rants
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "To say humanism focus on humans values your right but thats called spiritual humanism, secular humanism focuses on human values like murder, theft adultery, you know the normal kind of thing humans do when they have no moral conscious."
No, both address the same issues
A spiritual humanist integrates humanist principles with religious practise
A secular humanist addresses humanist principles without religious practise
It results in different means to the same end
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "no wonder you hate Capitalism"
What on earth makes you think I hate (even dislike) capitalism? I appreciate capitalism and laud it.
If I disliked Capitalism why would I make a video pointing out how Lysenkoism expressedly rejected neodarwinist genetics?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "When the state imposes A state religion in politics its considered a secular state"
Secularism is the word for a lack of religion. If you want to say that secularism too is a religion then by definition no word can exist to describe lack of religion.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Its probably too late for to to regain your composure concerning this point at this stage but I am not European.
You are beyond scatological in your silliness here by first accusing me of being brainwashed by a show that doesn't broadcast here and then saying that it must be communist oppression (rather than the fact it is a foreign show that won't fit in network schedules) that prevents me from watching it. So I must have access to the show and then chose not to watch it?
ProcInc 1 year ago
"basely blinded by your political agenda...."
What political agenda? I haven't endorsed or condemned any political system.
In fact the only person who has shown any passion to any politics was you and they turn out to be based on a fundamentally flawed and skewed view of history.
As I said before though I am beginning to doubt you understand half the 'isms' you are trying to criticise.
For instance humanism isn't the worship of a single human, its a focus on human values and issues
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "being brain washed by Bill Maher"
Bill Maher doesn't air here.
You seem determined to want to duck out of the issue at any cost other than admitting that you came to an intellectual gungight unarmed,
You think that Ancient Rome was secular when it imposed state religion (the closest it got to secular was when it allowed other religion such as Judaism to practise for a small tax after 70yrs) and seem to confuse marxism with capitalism
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "automatically assume one would have a vendetta against the president to make a secular comparison"
did you not say the 'the left' worships "Ob-mama"? purposefully mispelling his name for the point of ridicule?
See, you are the one who brought up the American President in the first place, what makes you think you can criticise me for addressing your spurious points?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Material comfort? but capitalism seeks material comfort too...
For that matter if you want to use a definition of philosophy that broad then it is meaningless. If mathematics is also a philosophy then you can't really use philosophy as a point of criticism
ProcInc 1 year ago
"kinda like the left worships ob-mama.."
Okay Rush Limbaugh, let's cut through the unfunny vox pops for a minute and think about what you're saying.
Are you really willing to use an apparent personal vendetta against a democratically elected President by attempted to use him as an example of a Caesarist Dictator?
For that matter are you really suggesting that the political left universally reveres Barack Obama? (for that matter to the exclusion of the political right?)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Can you recommend a credible source that even tries to link Ancient Rome to Secularism? There were some Roman Secular philosophers such Marcus Aurelius but he certainly wasn't caesarist. Caesarism has nothing to do with materialism, they are disparate topics. Caesarism isn't even a philosphy, its a government system!
I'm beginning to doubt you know what secularism even means to that effect..
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Rome wasn't secular, rather the Emperor and even the Empire were deified and various religions were adapted to imperial needs, collectively referred to as Sol Invictus and later Catholicism. Rome worshiped the sun, itself, and later the Holy Trinity. The last Vestige of Roman Authority is in the Roman Catholic Church, not very secular. (I know the donation was faked)
Darkestaxe 1 year ago
@Darkestaxe Yeah, it was so weird when he called Rome secular.
This was the time when State Religion was pretty much at its peak. Its amazing the number of levels on which a person attempting to oppose evolutionary theory can be at once.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "For one who knows the origin of philosophy I find many holes in evolution."
You clearly have a less than remedial knowledge of philosophy and the holes your purport to evolution appear to be no more than holes in your own knowledge.
You can't pretend that evolution isn't taken seriously when it is unanimously accepted and relied upon by the scientific community and denied by zealous ignoramuses who don't know the difference between 'accept' and 'except'
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist "As Far as science goes evolutionism can't even be considered science"
It can and is, in fact it is considered one of the strongest sciences in practise. That's why it publishes so well. And we have seen mammalian species evolve. Look up observed species of mammalian speciacion.
Its also why there has never been a viable alternative hypothesis for evolutionary theory that has stood up to a fraction of scrutiny
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist most of "Secular Roman science and philosophies was highly influence by semitic cultures like Christians, Jews, Egyptian and Babylonians..."
Not really, Rome's main influence was Greece which was also the major influence of Christians (Aristotle especially).
There's no such thing as evolutionism, it is a bogus person made up by people who don't understand what evolution is and want to deny that it happens
ProcInc 1 year ago
"It says he replaced theistic religion with atheistic secular materialism"- That's a rewording of what I just said. Only a less accurate one.
"Secular Materialism is thousands years old and embraces evolution...."
It also embraces gravity, Cell theory, geosphericity, the germ theory of disease and is RESPONSIBLE for each and every one of them and all of their breakthroughs and virtues.
Rome was foundational to free market economics far more than Marxism, it was also very religious
ProcInc 1 year ago
You seem to throw a lot of inaccurate red herrings around that it is clear you are not so much opposed to that which you claim to be, You're simply conditioned to react negatively to specific words like a cross between Fox News and Pavlov's dog.
You seem well in over your head when it comes to socio-political history and its consequences. I know you want to try and look intellectual or at least well informed in your dubious criticism but you merely come across as unpleasant and quite silly
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist Although he doesn't "make his atheist proclamation" the Communist Manifesto states that religion under it would be made obsolete.
But that isn't the point either. This video is not about atheism or communism but the ridiculous statement that Darwinian evolution was used by Dictators to justify atrocity.
The irony is that while Marx was as admirer of Darwin's work, Stalinist Russia implicitly outlawed it under Trofim Lysenko
ProcInc 1 year ago
@theantiismist I know Karl Marx was an atheist, what is your point?
ProcInc 1 year ago
Fuck you! - I don't know why I wrote that, its just what came to mind. Oh yea, I'm an idealist so maybe you can please talk to my comment?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 if you have a criticism you are certainly welcoem to share it. Though your first impression leaves me with little hope I am to be engaged in an intellectually stimulating discussion.
I am willing to be proven wrong on this judgement if there proves to be more to you. Willing but not optimistic
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You where basically making a point against idealism. That persons like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck where out to lunch. Well I wanted to make the point that idealism stems from a philosophical idea that the universe started but will never end. If you are against idealism, are you saying you have a dualistic (The universe has a beginning and an end), a monistic (The universe has no beginning, just an end), or an eternalist (The universe has no end, and/or no beginning) look on the universe?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01.
Idealism has more than one meaning. In fact ALL of those isms do, none of them match anything I have mentioned at all. Idealism in the context I clearly outline is opposition to materialism. The disbelief in that which is objectively perceived in favour of that subjectively imagined.
Belief in lew of and contrary to evidence is a point WORTH making against. Idealism stems from no such philosphy of an immortal universe nor does it rely on it
ProcInc 1 year ago
@studentoflife01. So if you want to believe that the universe began but won't end, 'fill yer boots'. It has absolutely no bearing on *anything* discussed nor is it the proper definition of idealism.
In order to adhere to any such dogma you would first need to establish what you are defining as "the universe" and what criteria of "being" it has. Otherwise I don't hold any of those misnamed philosophies over any other
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I didn't say the universe be's - (Kinda weird how I said that). I said that the universe is defined by its origins, and its intensions. Weather it has one, another, none or both. As these terms relate to the microcosm - that's where you get these 'modern' philosophical definitions of (Monism, dualism, ect). They are pretty shallow definitions Id give you that, but they all do relate. Idealism respects the creation (The created universe, the errective power that made it).
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01. What are you talking about? by criteria of being I am saying what criteria has to be met to say the universe is existing? does the pre-big bang quantum flux meet the criteria etc
Where are you getting these definitions from? You appear to be making it up as you go along.
To put it simply Idealism is the antithesis of realism, realism being the standpoint that there is an objective reality from which truth can be incepted
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Yes, what you are saying fits either an eternalist, or monistic model. You are saying that there was basically this 4d box that is being broken down and that process is what causes the universe. You are not talking to the idea of a beginning (IE What caused 'the pre-big bang quantum flux'). Idealist believe that the universe began, but will never end. There is no 'Being' there is only 'Growing'.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 also "growing" precipictes "being". In order to grow you would have to be. Did I really have to point that out?
So please stop being irrelevent and try to engage to the proper topics If you don't accept that your definitions are wrong at least accept the fact that I was never using those definitions (and neither has any philosopher including those which coined each respective term)
ProcInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@ProcInc Okay, I'm using a different definition for these terms.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01. OKay, so using my definition (particularly of idealism) is there anything you disagree with in anything that I have mentioned in this video when I berated idealism?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You never defined idealism. But besides that I don't like the idea of evolution being a better theory than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory. Evolution says that we just randomly change out genetics. At least Lamarck has a reason for his conclusion. A materialist reality does not in general recognize the force of creation. Idealist praise this force, dualism work with this force, but if you don't recognize it then how can you say things like "It's an absolute fact"?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
COMMENT REMOVED!!!
studentoflife01 1 year ago
You said your definition of idealism is personal beliefs can be considered viable constructs of reality. That's what my definition of idealism is for the microcosm. That the microcosm is defined by intension. But as idealism relates to the macrocosm it's basically saying that the universe began, but will never end. The connection of these definitions is this. When you make something up in your head. You need material to make it happen right?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01.
It is perfectly possible to imagine something that isn't true, it is not only plausible but likely that something concocted in the imagination has no physical basis.
Evolution does say that we randomly change our genetics, we have also proven that happens and that Lamarck was wrong. QED
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc How can you make up a color if you have been blind your entire life? Okay, Lamarck was wrong... But everyone was wrong 100 years ago, and to say that Darwin was right is pretty frivolous. Because although he gives an explanation of what happens because of evolution; he doesn't recognize a reason why it works. And I think he doesn't deserve praise for that at all. Especially after 100 years of contemplating/'research'. I believe Lamarck's concepts can be fixed.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You colour anaology is a total red herring.
You obviously never read any of Darwin's work. The point of Origin of Species is an explanation of the mechanism. Lamarck's concept has been fixed, by being mostly discarded, The stuff that worked has been kept.
So yes, Lamarck was mostly wrong and Darwin was mostly right, modern evolutionary theory is even more right and science will press on to improve further no matter how much you want to cling on to erroneous philosphy
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You said that Evolution is a fact. How is this so if they don't have a clear reason why it works. If I said you are sick because of 'evil spirits' - I would have to atleast give a reason why. Even though when I say that fresh raw garlic keeps evil sprits away that still isn't a conclusive reason to say that "Evil Spirits make you sick". That's what the Origin of Species did.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01.
Perhps you should read origin of species before attempting to interpret it. Origin of species collects evidence from a wide range of fields and harmonises it into a working explanation for how and why species arise. How and why being what you ask for.
Also I would suggest you look up the scientific definitin of theory before saying evolution is "just" a theory.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Theory - A hypothesis becomes theory by becoming widely accepted because of testing. It is a proposed explanation for how or why something happens and generally cannot be proven.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01. A theory is a framework, a way of synthecises all facts together in a way that they make sense and are useful. That's the definition that evolution as a theory works out as. Evolution is also a fact in another sense in that we can diretly observe its effects.
It says both how and that its random, randomness isn't a lack of explanation, its understood as the right answer. Epigenetic variation does not take away from this
ProcInc 1 year ago
Yes it does, because once you get into the world of epigenetics; you lose your absolutist credibility. Just by acknowledging that intension can affect your genetics is recognizing that the theory of evolution is just made up, and that the Lamarck's intensions where correct, and that the intension of Darwin was incorrect because you are saying that you genetics are not in a definite, absolutist form.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Ummm what? You're saying that epigenetics suggests all of those things?
I can't suggest enough how much you need to study these things properly before attempting to comment on them. And who said anything about absolutism?
Stop the straw men please, its ridiculous. Educate yourself before embarassing yourself
ProcInc 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 also, its spelt "intentions" and epigenetics in no way vindicates Lamarcks ideas nor "intention". Everyone who accepts the modern evolutioanry synthesis also accepts the mechanism of epigenetics.
Furthermore epigenetics is evidence based and therefore realist, why were you using it as an argument for idealism?
Or are you avoiding that topic entirely now?
ProcInc 1 year ago
No, Darwin said that you can't change your genetics. That that's what you've got unless a 'Random Event happens'. Lamarck said hey look the giraffe is lifting up his head higher and higher, maybe that's why the giraffe's neck is so long. They were both wrong but I used terms such as 'Idealism, and monism' to outline their intent. The intent of Lamarck (Which was that you are in control of your DNA) was proven right by the study of epigenetics
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01
firstly, epigenetics does not say we are in control of our DNA
Secodly Darwin argued AGAINST the idea that genetics can't change! Give a quote that suggests Darwin argued one can't change their genetics.
The random event is called a mutation and we know they exist.
I bet you can't even define epigenetics accurately, you will merely invent one like you like did for idealism etc
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Epigenetics is an expression of the cell that is based on the enviroment of the cell membrane....What the cell membrane experiences..... That includes the nervous system's electronic system. This does have an effect on the DNA. Mutation does not equate to a random event. Random events would not include genetically engineering plants so they produce insecticides, but genetically engineering is a mutative process.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 By definition any changes in the underlying DNA of an organism is not epigenetics because on of the criteria of epigenetics is not genetic change (Adrian Bird 2007). So your attempted definition is (ironicalyl BY definition) wrong.
Its astonishing that you want to try and argue when you can't tell the difference between a *mutation* and a *mutative process*...
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Um... Epigenetics affect methylation. <- Evidence enough, case closed, Idealist win, Monists lose. How can you stand behind the idea that Epigentics don't have anything to do with ones DNA when I just said "Epigenetics affect methylation"? You can't. Because this puts your world upside down so agressivly that you don't know. You don't know anything for a fact just because of its function. You will now look towards intent. You are now an idealist. :-) Welcome to the club!
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01
I don't believe you have any idea what you were just saying then...
firstly I am not a monist I pretty much nipped that strawman in the bud yet you persist for some reason. Secondly methylation has nothing to do with genetics, only gene expression. Third methylation affects epigenetics, not the other way around (lol so speaking of putting the world upside down)
Its amazing how you could be so wrong at every point and put so much hubris into being wrong :S
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
It seems as though you wanted to get away with arguing that the deires and wants of an organism affected their epigenetic code and that that in itself affected 'methylation'. But you don't seem to know what methylation even is.
Instead you just said "epigenetics affect methylation" (sic) and started gloating as if thsi entirely wrong statment meant somethign other than how over your head the whole business of thinking is to you
ProcInc 1 year ago
Are you a monist, dualist, idealist, or eternalist?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01
I am a rationalist. Your silly list doesn't make any sense you just made the definitions up. You further show your incompetence by insisting that those four fictional "options" are the only possible options in existance.
You have no idea what epigenetics, mutations, any of the so-called philosophies you list or methylation mean. So stop trying to formulate challenges and questions with them.
So either source justification for your definitions or stop using yor bogus terms
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Do you believe in a beginning, and/or an end, or do you not believe in either a beginning or an end? How else can you define something if not through a question of their origins and function? If you can't then there seems to be 4 posibilities...
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01. Firstly it is very easy to define something without determining its origin in fact in the case of the universe you need to be able to define it BEFORE you determine a start or end. Secondly there is not intrinsic link at all between Lamarck or Epigenetics or Idealism etc that relies on whether or not the universe has a beginning or an ending. There is a literal free-for-all in linking any of those since for instance idealism does not rely on if the universe started or ended.
ProcInc 1 year ago
The universe began from another state meaning is only arbitrary if and when it had a beginning and will deteriorate into a state which we would not call a universe because there would be no galaxies or even matter, just electrical energy or a regress of everything but to the quantum point of origin.
The Universe therefore will technically will exist for a finite time but at the same time has no definitive nor end meaning all four are equally wrong.
ProcInc 1 year ago
How can you define something without understanding it's origins. For if that was the true model then we could say aphroditie controls all love. < - What the fuck can you say to that logic? Nothing unless you define a whole different system, a whole different origin. Idealism does require a beginning energy, because without a beginning energy then there is nothing to think about. The word define is an ending energy. "You are defined by your function" <- ending energy. You end withadefition
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 as I said, it is easy to define something without divulging its origins
check a dictionary, nearly if not every definition does not rely on discussing the noun's origin .
Idealism does not require a beginning energy: Its is the belief that reality is subjective, that's it. That's all it is, check any dictionary, check any writings of idealist philosophers from Antiphon to Neujhar.
In fact idealism is a monist philosophy!
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc and your aphrodite crap is another display of your total incompetence in drawing analogies. You made a complete non sequiter. In fact you made a totally random and absurd statement. In fact most everything you say is a non sequiter.
Was it an attempt at being satirical or humourous? Seriously it was totally embarrassing. Nearly as much as you gloating about disproving me with a totalyl wrong interpretation of epigenetics. I feel like I'm dealing with a high school student here
ProcInc 1 year ago
No because you can use it in a macrocosm tense, and a microcosm tense. You would only use it in the microcosm's tense because you are giving a subjective view. But Objectivly idealism says that the creative force of the universe is building a universe. Therefore It cannot be a monist philosophy because it is not one world. It is a constatnly changing one. Not defined, or no end in sight, but we know of the creative force because we are here!
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01Even if it were true (and even if the terms macrocosm and microcosm even applied to a monist philosphy) it would apply in the same way. A subjective view? of a subjective philosphy? How else can that be expected to work?
Idealism doesn't objectively say anything (geez, you obviously don't know the definition of objective). Also idealism is sayig no such thing
Name one idealist philospher who ever said that. And yes it is a monist philosphy, look it up, don't MAKE it up.
ProcInc 1 year ago
I'm not saying that monism, or idealism has to be viewed subjectively or objectively. They can, but I am saying that the microcosm is the subjective view; the macrocosm is the objective view. A monist ideology would be that of a professor teaching the theory of the universe of 'inflation'. An idealist ideology might be a preacher using the model god as the beginning force.
P.S.
Thanks for leveling with me ;)
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You can't adopt an objective idealist view because idealism is by definition subjectivity.
Macrocosm and microcosm do not apply to anything you are saying at all. Microcosm does not mean subjective in any way at all, it means size.
Idealism can never say anything "objectively" because if it was objective it would no longer be idealism
As I said before Stop. making. up. terms.
ProcInc 1 year ago
No, Microcosm doesn't have to do with size; instead it has to do with self. Vs the macrocosm which refers to everything out of self. That is the definition of objective, and subjective right? For example: If I was a mouse I would be objectively from another mouse. But as a mouse I would look subjectively towards myself (Microcosm). I don't believe that we are in god's image, rather just another in the rat race. Does that make sense?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Macrocosm DOES have to do with size (look it up) but let's use your misuse of the terms and apply it shall we? You are saying that the microcosm is everything to do with onese'f whereas the macrososm is everything else. That is NOT the definition of subjective and objective but even if it was then idealism can't by definition apply to the "macrocosm" because idealism is based on the philosophy that reality is exclusively subjective
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Furthermore why refer to yourself as a mouse? You coudl have just as easily kept referring to yourself, making an analogy where your a mouse serves no purpose at all (especially since a mouse has no concept of objectivity or subjectivity).
And wrong again anyway since it is perfectly possibly to view oneself objectively and to view the external world subjectively, since your terms can have the polar opposite definition successfully used your stunted "philosophy" doesn't work
ProcInc 1 year ago
Ignoring ALL of that I have fallen for hearing out so much of your crap I have allowed the continuation of all sorts of new crap without rectifying your old mistakes and not admitting to them.
Do you for instance now understand that Idealism by definition can not be objective despite your silly mouse analogy?
Do you at least admit that your "understanding" of epigenetics is so wrong that you get it backwars at its most fundamental point?
Can your cite use of your definitions to terms used?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc A rock can't be subjective right? How is it that we can be completely subjective if we are sensitive enough to see hear taste smell the world around us? We could only control things after we know of them. The question of idealism is weather or not your intentions matter in the world. I say they do because there is always creation happening so your intentions (Which are based on the world) are always going to be able to change the world to suit your needs.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Again you don't understand what you are saying. You can be subjective about the world entirely if you believe that everything is filteed by your own perception including sight, sound and taste etc. If you DONT believe that reaqlity is entirely subjective then you are not an idealist!
If you believe reality is a combination of the two then you are a dualist.
You have no point and are no longer arguing about the nature of reality. Just trying to justify your ramblings
ProcInc 1 year ago
:) I'm so happy that you're an idealist!
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You don't even kno wwhat an idealist is and I have corrected you various times as to what an idealist would have to believe and why I don't believe it.
Not only am I not an idealist but you are not one either as you apparently believe in an external quality to the universe. You are just an ignorant child obsessed with labelling without denying.
Is this all just a ploy to cover up being spectacularly wrong about epigenetics, methylation and lamarckianism?
ProcInc 1 year ago
I'm right, but I wanted to tell you why i'm right by going deep into my core beliefes. "you apparently believe in an external quality to the universe. You are just an ignorant child obsessed with labelling without denying." - doesn't that mean i'm not ignorant?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 No, you are not right. Not only that but you didn't even know what you were arguing. You did a little dance after saying epigenetics affects methylation for instance. When not onlt is it the other way around but methylation does not affect genetics!
It means you are ignorant (denying was I typo, I meant defining). You kept trying to call both me and yourself an idealist without even knowing what that word meant. When I cited what it meant you challenged it without indication
ProcInc 1 year ago
okay you said "You can be subjective about the world entirely if you believe that everything is filteed by your own perception including sight, sound and taste etc. If you DONT believe that reaqlity is entirely subjective then you are not an idealist!" - as if that is the defition of idealism. But you decide to not get at the core argument presented. HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN FILTER ANYTHING FROM AN OBJECTIVE WORLD? You're not making anysense. You're just building off of the coreideaandmutatint
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 It is the definition of idealism (look it up). The question is not how you can filter anyting out form an objective world, that can't be helped. Its how you can accurately perceive the objective world, that's where methodologcial naturalism comes in.
I won't even pretend to imagine why you apparently had a spasm on your keyboard producing that last sequence of letters
ProcInc 1 year ago
That can't be the defition of idealism because it doesn't get to the direct core of the idea. It just indirectly defines it a step fearther than it needs. You see it is wrong because it relies on the material world. You need to be attached to the material world in order for you to 'filter' it out. You have to change you perspective completly, and look at intent, rather than function. Although looking at the world through a funcitonal perspecive gives you freedom it's not ideal.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
You keep saying it can't be even though it is and I have even sourced a philosopher for you to research and confirm that. Now you say it doesn't get to the core (while at the same time says it takes it too far). Doesn't get to the core?? You think it means the universe has a beginning but no end! That's not even the superficial basis of a philosophy!
Reliance on the material world is not a shortcoming and we ARE attached to it. That's the point, its the only thing we can objectively verify.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@studentoflife01
Its not a change of perspective to look at function over intent. The default prspective IS function! intent is a supplementary assumption based on nothing but a flawed argument form analogy. Furthermore any perspective of intent requires the previous perception of functionality.
Objectively perceiving the world's function rather than subjectively shoehorning intent doesn't give you freedom. It restricts your reality to reality itself rather than imagination
ProcInc 1 year ago
Its difficult to summarise or undermine exactly how incredulous you are about the whole concept o philosophy. Its clear that considering the physical itself lat alone the schools of thought of the metaphysical are well over your head and your lack of knowledge in the basics of subject you claim expertise in is stupefying the the point of actual outrage.
You are philosophically and scientifically inept to the point of unabashed stupidity without exaggeration
ProcInc 1 year ago
"It restricts your reality to reality itself rather than imagination" - could you explain this a little more? I don't understand...
studentoflife01 1 year ago
To be objective is to restrict what you accept as reality to what can be verified as real. That means you can't believe things for which there are no evidence no matter how much you don't want to and you must believe things that are unambiguously evident no matter how much you don't want to.
Being an idealist and taking the ultimate nature of reality as based on ideas means the major filtration process of the real and unreal is personal preference.
ProcInc 1 year ago
You said that you're position makes you uncreative, and enslaves you (Takes away your freedom)?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
Not so, it makes you more creative because you need to actually apply yourself to find the right answer rather than just imagine one up and keep it unquestioned.
Facts, truth and logic are harsh slavemasters but the intellectually honest accept its absolute mastery. I much prefer it to your tyrant of ignorance and delusion.
It could only take away my freedom if freedom is dependent on fallacy. I don't believe a correlation drawn between them is justified.
ProcInc 1 year ago
But why would you have to be creative?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Because science is about trial, error and lateral thinking. Its about thinking up new explanations and testing them for their accuracy and effectiveness. You need to be able to come up with hypotheses before testing them
Making stuff up and stamping it forever as infallible is not creative at all. Its simply a good way to be wrong forever.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Oh, so you're saying that there needs to be a balance of creative thinking with your position? Why don't you recognize other people's intentional view? I mean if you trying to balance the views...
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You misunderstand (probably intentionally). Creative thinking is a device used to look for the answer not MAKE the answer. I don't recognise views that are wrong.
Creativity is a means, not an end.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Yea, you look for an answer. But the deep line between you and me is that I believe that the purpose of everything is to grow. You believe the purpose of everything is to be. So I believe that as I objectivly view the world I can see that I am a product of my environment (Growing). So what I creativly think up has to be correct because there is no (Negative, wrong, end). So the posibilities are open for me based on my environment.your opsibilities are open based on your environment(Nogrowth
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 What are you yammering about now? Of course I recognise growth. In fact the whole point of learning is a growing experience.
And you DON'T objectively view the world, you even admit this in the next sentence by saying anything you imagine by definition can not be wrong.
That's your problem, you look for answers just not the right one. Whoever does is closedminded to you
Also, you obviously don't know how to use bracketing so stop it, it makes you look ridiculous.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Well it is determined that you cannot immagine a new color. All that you can imagine is soly based on what was around you before. I am not saying we can control the universe. I am saying that the universe controls us. But that the universes driving force is based on growth, not balance. We are not the center of the universe...Why did you think that's what I meant? Is it because your theory gives you absolute freedom in the universe? I will stop bracketing.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 It seems 'determined' that you don't know what a colour actually is. Colour is merely a limited portion of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is only possible to imagine colours that exist. So bad example.
What we are talking about is not a theory, but a philosophical basis. And it doesn't give me absolute freedom in the universe. There's nothing to begin to suggest what that even means.
The universe is based on growth is an insubstantial vox pop
ProcInc 1 year ago
"It seems 'determined' that you don't know what a colour actually is. Colour is merely a limited portion of the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is only possible to imagine colours that exist." Don't you understand that when you see something you are looking at the absent of that color. A leaf is green, you look at a leaf you see the absent of green. This is a good example because your mind cannot create a new color envisioned. Are you saying you can see a new color?
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 No you fool you do not see the absence of that colour you see the colour reflected. Geez, how many times must I remind you that being scientifically and philosophically incompetent does not give you an edge against those who know what they are talking about.
"I'm stupid therefore I'm right" Is an obstructive and frustrating tactic I expect from creationists but you have no excuse whatsoever for wasting my time with your lack of coherence and knowledge
ProcInc 1 year ago
What? When did I say that you where stupid? You're destructive.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You never said I was stupid, you are making YOURSELF out to be stupid and therefore difficult to address on every point.
And when you don't try to look stupid your attempts at feigning competence are even more ridiculous when you contradict yourself at every opportunity.
For instance does my philosophy enslave me or give me absolute freedom? You've suggested both.
you haven't been able to form a single objective coherent statement and now avoid epigenetics like the plauge
ProcInc 1 year ago
I never suggest that your philosophy enslaves you....I asked if that is what you meant..."You said that you're position makes you uncreative, and enslaves you (Takes away your freedom)?" - I was clarifing your position. Your position gives you unlimited freedom. You don't have a position of growth, you have a position of balance. So You (Being the center of the universe) can change the universe to suit your needs in any way you want to...Now laws to govern your change.Mypositionrulesbygrowth
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You still aren't making any sense. Exactly what are you suggesting is growing?
ProcInc 1 year ago
The universe...Matter, energy everything! The point is to grow. So in order for you to do that you have to kind of play along with other matter. That's where you get this negative and positive thing. It's not (-) vs. (+) in a battle of life and no life or neutral. Rather matter sees other matter and there for acts in order for it to keep growing. Cucumbers grow up, if there is a fence they try to grow along it not lift it up. The meaning of life is to grow.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Matter and energy isn't growing for a start, it is moving further apart (in galactic clusters). You could be generalising that the universe is growing but that's not strictly true, just expandign apart. And even interchagning those terms that is not a philosophy, just a philosophically inconsequential fact.
Yes things get bigger as they get older until they pass reproductive age, that's not something to build a philosophy off of and its not even universally true.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Where's the philsophy behind such an elementary observation? How do you account for lifeforms that don't grow? In what sense is this meant to be idealism?
The sheer array of problems with your so-called philosophy even outnumbers your elementary errors in science.
This is why I'm saying that these fields are not your forte and that you are in no position to criticise. Because you are incompetent philosophically and studiously. I can not stress that enough
ProcInc 1 year ago
We don't know everything about the atom...maybe the reson why is because science has the wrong philosophy in mind...
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 Wrong again. Thanks to the current philospophy of science we have gone from not knowing atoms exist to the multitude of knowledge we have of them now. The scientific method has taken us from strength to strength.
We don't know everything about the atom because we have limited technology and science is about baby steps. Do you expect us to know EVERYTHING about satoms one day anyway? What would that even mean?
ProcInc 1 year ago
Darwin said that your DNA is only affected by Random events, chemicals, ECT...ANYTHING BUT ONES INTENSIONS.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 You can't quote Darwin in saying that because he didn't say it (Darwin didn't know nor particularly rely on knowing where variation came from).
I can't really quote anybody on particularly saying it but its just a fact that intentions (please spell it right) do not affect your DNA, that's just wishful thinking disproved by Weissman et al. Ironically epigenetics does not affect the DNA either only an organism's phenotype and not due to intent of said organism
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc That Eugenetics can't say "Oh well of course you can go to kantsaywhere because your genetics are pure, and they will stay pure for the rest of your life no matter what".
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@ProcInc No it never says how. It says its random. Just like a wizard would say its ghosts. All he's trying to promote is this idea of separating yourself. Hardcore, he says that not one bit of intension goes into your genetic make up. When its already been proven that your epigenetic have way more of an impact than you DNA. And not only that but your DNA is affect by your epigenetic code.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@ProcInc It doesn't prove shit. It's just a theory that everyone takes so to heart because they want to believe in what (Things, people, ect) are, rather than what they can be
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 I find it especially silly that you say people take evolutionary theory to heart because they want to believe what they are. What they are is what they are and there is no denying that!
That's the difference between realism and idealism, you believe based on imagination and I accept based on reality.
I am what I am, so are you. You really wanted to argue against a self evident tautology?
ProcInc 1 year ago
Well in a universe that is constantly 'Growing' you'll be open to all the material you need. For you cannot create ideas without there being a physical basis for it. You have to be able to see the color purple in order for you to recognize it.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@ProcInc These definitions are in the objective form for each of these terms (IE they don't have there roots in the microcosm, but rather the macrocosm). Each of these terms have a significant impact on the view of the natural sciences, politics, ect....
studentoflife01 1 year ago
@studentoflife01 the definitions are not in objective form (not least because definitions of a philosophical nature can in most cases not be objective anyway). Source from where you got the connections from these disparate terms and definitions from. Your definitions are wrong. If you could at least cite where you got the from it would be something but you then make up that they are "objective" which is entirely meaningless. You are wasting both of our times
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Monism basically says there was a block and now it's being broken up, so there is no beginning just the end. Because of this errective power there is no deterministic 'end'.
studentoflife01 1 year ago
Excellent video! My only suggestion would be to use a breath protector on the mic to prevent the frequent "poosh" sound. Otherwise, intellectually solid and informative.
Lojikbom 1 year ago
Dude dictatorship of proletariat supposed to be in socialism not in communism. Every dictatorship makes society non-classless.
SloveintzWend 2 years ago
guevaristas corrected me on this earlier
ProcInc 2 years ago
indeed, wish you could post your vids under the series "Blloody History of Communism", as that series is total crap and lies. At times, it tends to mix Darwinism with communism, it's insufferable christian fundamentalist garbage
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Indeed it is such garbage, this video neither condones nor condemns communism in my opinion (since I myself do neither personally) but its clear that fundamentalist etc criticism of communism has always come from deliberate misrepresentation of it as has the criticism of "Darwinism"
ProcInc 2 years ago
Just so you know it stopped at 3:35 and will not continue.
You have many facts correct. But that wont matter. Problem is man wants to enslave his brother for his own profit dont matter if its by socialism or capitalism. Just look at what it took to free the southern USA slaves. Now we have Globalism. The problems with all forms of gov. is they break the rules and covet power. then use that power against the people. They ALL do it.
YankeeTom63 2 years ago
"It stopped at 3:35 and won't continue"
Bugger.
"Problem is man wants to enslave his brother for his own profit"
I would say men do, not *man* (implying it's intrinsic in everyone). And regardless of social standing you are right that there will always some like this.
Thie issue of this video is blaming bolshevism on evolutionary theory however
ProcInc 2 years ago
hmm just one point Comrade. You state within "communism" a dictatorship of the proletariat exists. However, this seems contrary to Lenin in State &Revolution (he cites F. Engels,& Bebel).
During the (dying ) socialist state phase there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, but, the state, under socialism, eventually "wither away".
And, furthermore, the proletariat aboishes itself as a class-thus resulting in a class-less society.
This is the crucial distinction, do you agree?
Guevaristas 2 years ago
"This is a crucial distinction don't you agree?"
I agree and stand corrected
ProcInc 2 years ago
hmm was your comment in regards to the socialist state/ communism distinction?
well yes, under socialism there is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The state then "withers away" (Engels "Anti-Durhing", Lenin etc) and the Proletariat abolishes itself, resulting in a class less society.
also see August Bebel "Society of the Future"
etc etc
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Yes, it was in regards to the distinction between socialist transition and communism.
It is an important distinction you drew and I thank you for it
ProcInc 2 years ago
thanks for these vids Comrade, most is way over my head, but it's sinking in on the third or fourth listen
Guevaristas 2 years ago
actually you were right. Guevaristas stands corrected.
VI Lenin, in "State & Revolution" stated:
'What is generally called Socialism was termed by Marx the "first" or lower phase of Communist society. In so far as the means of production became public property, the word "Communism" is also applicable here, provided that we do not forget that it is not full Communism.'
(citation needed)
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Merely Semantics
ProcInc 2 years ago
but why do the christians allign Marxism/communism etc with Darwinism?
See the garbage documentary on YT the Bloody History of Com..........................
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Excellent stuff!
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
So, why do evodelusionists, always argue against creationists? Why no just look into the fact that you have no proof of evolution, none.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"So, why do evodelusionists, always argue against creationists? Why no just look into the fact that you have no proof of evolution, none. "
No proof apart from every relevent field of biology being indicative of it.
We argue against creationists because they are wrong and demonstrably so, and to ignore that is dangerous (As demonstrated in this video, ideology superceding materialism leads to disaster).
What constitutes as *proof* of evolution? when there is overwhelming evidence
ProcInc 3 years ago
The only thing I have seen is a belief system, similar to a religion and nothing more. There are three very small parts of evolution theory that are plausible and seem to work. The rest is just friggin fantasy.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
Maybe instead of arguing against creationists, you should stick to seeing if you can acutally come up with some evidence. The arguments against creationists is just a smoke screen to hide behind. It has nothing to do with science, just like creatures changing in to other creatures has nothing to do with science, but just a beleif.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"you should stick to seeing if you can acutally come up with some evidence."
plenty of videos already demonstrate evidence of evolution already. I even sent some to you while I was humiliating your silly arguments in PMs "It has nothing to do with science"
this video is about the 'advocacy' and 'practises' of science. Not the conclusions science has drawn
Creatures change into other creatures all the time (but thats developmental biology)
ProcInc 3 years ago
You must be blind and low IQ. I am sorry but there is no evidence that shows evolution of any creature changing species. I find it amazing how people are so brainwashed into this belief system.
You need to listen to my videos again and again, so you can get free of this idiocy.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"I am sorry but there is no evidence that shows evolution of any creature changing species."
Changing species has been directly observed
Its called speciation and has been well documented dozens if not hundreds of times.
We even have ring species as a sort of live action account as to how it happened.
You simply need to google: observed speciation to see how embarrassing your statement is.
anti-evolution is idiocy. thats why all biologists accept, use and rely on its accuracy
ProcInc 3 years ago
I have an objective mind and high IQ and when I read all this evidence for "speciation" it is nothing but normal everyday, common genetics. Buy the laws of genetic stablity, no species has ever shown to change into another. It is because you are brainwashed that you believe this crap.
GoodScienceForYou 3 years ago
"I have an objective mind and high IQ"
you really don't and anyone asked here would agree with me. You aren't even educated to a high degree, if any
"it is nothing but normal everyday, common genetics"
genetics is the most integral part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Evolution is simply genetics+time
"no species has ever shown to change into another"
I can give ten examples
ProcInc 3 years ago