• In total there are 34 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 34 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

“Anting.”
oh excellent, a new verb!

when you ask a kid if he would like an ice cream and he responds by punching you in the nuts, this is called "anting" :D

or when someone is having a discussion with you and you try to answer them thoughtfully and they respond by saying "oooooh you're a bright one, moron!" this also is "anting" :lol:

i like it, i'm partial to a bit of "anting" myself.
sonoman
All Star Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 pm
12
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

youkrst wrote:
sonoman wrote:and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.
yes i saw his work in "the lord of the rings" and i'm amazed i didn't pick up the similarity before :lol:

(sorry sonoman but you do take yourself a bit too seriously at times i think, i'm much worse though)
You must think yourself cute, casting slander as usual from atheists at theists because that's all you really got. Forget intellectual debate when tossing verbal mud pies is so much easier than thinking about what others post. Yes, I do take myself seriously, most religious activists do and I have spiritual work to accomplish, one of which is destroying the fundamentalist atheist belief system once and for all time for all rationally thinking people. Which has been done on Booklist forum because here it is months later and not one single atheist has been able to give one single rational answer why the logic of history and the logic of infinity do not counter atheist negative belief in God or spiritual reality. Atheism is a dead man walking and always has been but like all fundamentalist belief systems trying to get atheists to look rationally at their beliefs is nigh on impossible. Wouldn't be a fundamentalist belief system if atheists were open to reasoning. It would be agnosticism which is the only valid philosophy to apply to subject matter that is not readily measurable.

As for my demonstrable spiritual activist work that mirrors Elijah and John the Baptist, well, it's there historically now with hundreds of eye-witnesses in the Holy Land and a growing number in the New World as both the Paxcalibur and Josephine visions keep in spiritual motion. Http://biomystic.org/paxstory.htm and http://biomystic.org/josephine.htm. Your attempt to belittle me and my work and all the people involved with it, including the highest level priest in Nazareth, Israel, including one Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses, one Palestinian biologist scientist, one major candidate for Bethlehem who's daughter blessed Pax in 2010, one CEO of the largest corporate employer in our county when helping in the Paxcalibur sanctification ritual, one leader of all seven Lakota nations, only reflects yours and all atheists' ego problems when faced with this mind that thinks holistically and is not stuck in one brain hemisphere to the detriment of rational thought when it comes understanding spiritual phenomena. Better minds than yours have seen my work and so your putdowns about it are so much fluff in the air. But there's always comfort in numbers and here, with atheists owning and running this forum, you are assured of group support.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

:D

i did say
youkrst wrote:i'm much worse though
sonoman wrote:You must think yourself cute,
no but others have occasionally commented :wink:
sonoman wrote:casting slander as usual from atheists at theists
lighten up brother, i'm no atheist :) well not on tuesdays, DOH! it's thursday, you got me!
sonoman wrote:because that's all you really got.
no, i've also got some lovely almond croissants, well i did have, i ate them.
sonoman wrote:Forget intellectual debate
oh i think intellectual debate is the least of our worries.
sonoman wrote:easier than thinking about what others post.
oh i think about what you post more than you do sonoman.
sonoman wrote:Yes, I do take myself seriously, most religious activists do and I have spiritual work to accomplish
don't we all, and what about all those who lived before you were born? do you feel sorry for them, starved of the unique perspective only you can furnish them with, pity poor leonardo (da vinci i mean not dicaprio) imagine him struggling for insight unaware that the wisdom of sonoman was just unavailable to him.
sonoman wrote:one of which is destroying the fundamentalist atheist belief system once and for all time for all rationally thinking people. Which has been done on Booklist forum because here it is months later and not one single atheist has been able to give one single rational answer why the logic of history and the logic of infinity do not counter atheist negative belief in God or spiritual reality. Atheism is a dead man walking and always has been but like all fundamentalist belief systems trying to get atheists to look rationally at their beliefs is nigh on impossible. Wouldn't be a fundamentalist belief system if atheists were open to reasoning. It would be agnosticism which is the only valid philosophy to apply to subject matter that is not readily measurable.
well i wish you all the luck with the atheists, some of them seem quite happy though.
sonoman wrote:Your attempt to belittle me and my work and all the people involved with it, including the highest level priest in Nazareth, Israel, including one Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses, one Palestinian biologist scientist, one major candidate for Bethlehem who's daughter blessed Pax in 2010, one CEO of the largest corporate employer in our county when helping in the Paxcalibur sanctification ritual, one leader of all seven Lakota nations,
wow that's an impressive list, i expect i'll see you and pax on oprah, or the view soon! 60 minutes perhaps that paragon of journalistic excellence.
sonoman wrote:reflects yours and all atheists' ego problems when faced with this mind that thinks holistically and is not stuck in one brain hemisphere to the detriment of rational thought when it comes understanding spiritual phenomena.
yes my dreadful ego problems, i have such a deep attachment to my sense of self it's embarrassing!

thank you for calling me on it.
sonoman wrote:Better minds than yours have seen my work
yes, better minds than mine have seen my work too. :D
sonoman wrote:and so your putdowns about it are so much fluff in the air.
putdowns? that is an honour coming from your good self, you who have put me down so effectively, it is no doubt your tremendous transcendence of ego that allows you to see through my thinly veiled insecurity! i thank you.
sonoman wrote:But there's always comfort in numbers and here, with atheists owning and running this forum, you are assured of group support.
yes the atheist mafia are everywhere these days, i find paying them the protection money is well worth it not to have to worry about Bane and the boy's beating me up.

______________________________________________________

seriously though sonoman what makes you think you have anything worth buying, aren't we all children of the most high?

i have found traces of interest in your posts but mostly i find it amazing that it hasn't occurred to you that you may be underestimating the omniscience and omnipresence of god.

let me close with a quote from the great sonoman, one of my faves.
sonoman wrote:Spirits can appear in different people
but i think you've got it wrong here where you say
sonoman wrote:Only Spirits are able to move from body to body through time and space.
surely the flu has also mastered this skill :D

well may the universe humble me greatly for failing to take it's major oracle as seriously as he takes himself. :)

all kidding aside and as hard as it may be to believe, i hope you have a truly GREAT day sonoman.
User avatar
Akhenaten
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 1:19 am
13
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

Sonoman, you said in the above statement that:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.
So according to you the soul is in the brain and the body. What happens when you share a body like these conjoined twins that only have one body but two heads?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... China.html

Look at these poor parasitic twins. How many souls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=betgxtosi7Y



Who gets the soul in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo


What about when there are two bodies but one shared brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lQ_QBxdwQ

What about when you have one body and a head but no brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... pzKNI&NR=1

:mrgreen:
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. – William Drummond
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

Akhenaten, you're problem is you're thinking too much. Just listen to Sonoman. Trust him. Stop that senseless thinking stuff.

The video of the little boy born with no brain is quite perplexing and sad. At first I thought it was a fake news story such as what The Onion puts out, but after watching it I see that this is a real 2-year old boy. Quite sad.
sonoman
All Star Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 pm
12
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

Akhenaten wrote:Sonoman, you said in the above statement that:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.
So according to you the soul is in the brain and the body. What happens when you share a body like these conjoined twins that only have one body but two heads?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... China.html

Look at these poor parasitic twins. How many souls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=betgxtosi7Y


Who gets the soul in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo


What about when there are two bodies but one shared brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lQ_QBxdwQ

What about when you have one body and a head but no brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... pzKNI&NR=1

:mrgreen:
It's a no-brainer, Akhenaten. They're called "freaks" and without abnormalities in genetic code transmission happening here and there, evolutionary change itself would not occur. I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.

Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

conjoined twins and absorbing fetuses are not hereditary traits, but rather an environmental circumstance. It is a gestational malfunction, not a genetic mutation.

That is to say, there isn't an allele for conjoined twins, so that if a conjoined twinn reproduced they would not pass on a gene for that condition. (to my knowledge)
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

Youkrst, your posts are just getting cuter by the hour! You must be spending a lot of time going over each soundbite's load of sneering..oops, searing repaste. Keep up the good diversionary work, your child's play promoting backbiting and petty squabbles instead of reasoned discussion on Booklist, but I wouldn't quit your day job quite yet. Oprah may have a spot for cartoon cloud speak wisdom comics since she's never invited me on her show to tell my fabulous story. Which actually is pretty fabulous despite your raving reviews.
Yorky is the resident troll.
His posts are by and large trollish. His behavior is overlooked simply because he's on the side of the resident atheists.
Moderators here will always turn a blind eye toward him.

It's cowardly biased on the part of the moderators to threaten to ban me while yorky tells people to fuck off.
But it's actually quite telling.
As long as yorky is in the cheering section for anti-religious bigotry, he will always be welcomed and excused by the moderators.

That's fine by me. Just as long as the moderators don't start crying when my tone becomes just as trollish, just as mocking, just as disrespectful, and just as bigoted.

Cry me a river, Mr. Moderator.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.

How can you talk about souls as though you know anything about them? Souls have never been demonstrated to exist. There is literally no fact that can be said about a soul, other than that which was said in fiction which is known to be the creation of human imagination.
… I have no idea what is going on soul-wise with those examples you cite that are exceptions to Sonoman's Official Biomystical Archonic rule of each body having its own unique soul to animate it.
This is better. You really do have no idea and that is the honest thing to say. But knowing this, how can you so confidently tell us what is happening with regular people? How would you distinguish somebody with a soul which follows your arbitrarily decided rules, and somebody who consumed their twin in utero who otherwise shows no outward sign?

Seeing as there is no evidentiary footing for your initial claims about the soul to body ratio, how is it more difficult for you to fabricate a rule about conjoined twins? Anything you say about the status of their souls will be equally arbitrary and without reference to the physical world.

Given evolution, how do you distinguish which of our ancestor was the first to acquire a soul? Given that we know that it’s the brain, a physical object, which is responsible for the behavior of humans, what makes you think souls have anything to do with it, other than the fictional stories I mentioned above?
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

Unread post

when my tone becomes just as trollish
"becomes"
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”