In Histoire Naturelle, a 36-volume book Buffon worked on for 50 years, he also put forward the idea that animals were becoming extinct at a time when most natural historians believed that “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”, according to Roberts. “The concept of species change and extinction was very controversial.”
The amount of shit that people have got wrong because of god…
Even without this key insight, Buffon postulated that new species must have come into existence and changed over time, while some species must have gone extinct. “That was a very, very radical idea at the time, and Buffon was censured for it by the Sorbonne: he had to write a statement publicly renouncing everything he had written,” said Roberts. Buffon was later formally accused of heresy for implying that Earth was older than the biblical record.
The number of people that have been wrongly persecuted because of god…
Religion is the most horrible invention in human history. It justifies mistreating others. It’s used to control people. It causes people to believe fiction over fact. It’s the one thing holding us back more than any other.
Because of God? You mean because of Christianity.
https://www.answeringislamicskeptics.com/evolution-in-islam-overview.html
The amount of shit that people have got wrong because of god…
Lol at atheists who don’t believe in gods yet still wants to blame everything on them.
This is an excellent example of how religious belief can cloud the human brain, impairing reason and thoughtfulness.
Well done.
This is an excellent example of how edgelord atheism doesn’t automatically ensure reading comprehension.
Well done.
Yawn
Let me clarify this without judging you: the abstract objects of gods and religions are real, they are here and effect our lives but the religion itself and gods are not real and have no tangible effect on us.
If you can’t relate to this think about ghosts - we talk about them, people are afraid of them and might even commit awful acts deluded by the fact that ghosts exist. That’s real. But we have no evidence that ghosts exist, so ghosts themselves are not real.
Let me clarify this without judging you:
Thanks… I guess.
the abstract objects of gods and religions are real, they are here and effect our lives but the religion itself and gods are not real and have no tangible effect on us.
Religions and gods are real. They’re as real as money, borders, national identities and racial classification systems. I think what you are trying to say is that they are social constructs.
So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?
Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.
“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
vs
“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
See the above.
“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
There are no gods.
Irrelevant.
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.
Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.
Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”
Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.
Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.
Note the “organised”, it’s important.
Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.
It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.
See the above.
The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.
Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.
The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.
One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.
Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.
Prove that god exists
Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims.
I hope this is not difficult to understand.
not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?
Here.
Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.
mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames"
Not big on history, are you?
description of a tangible manifestation of a being
You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?
Wtf do you even think you’re saying? That a sincerely held belief that religion is toxic is based on fake internet points? I hated religion long before we got online. Your comment is empty and stupid.
An actual atheist wouldn’t care enough about religion to actively spend any of their energy hating it - so what are you really?
an actual atheist
Why do you think being atheist means you’re somehow free from the millions of Christians that surround you? Or the millions of x y z beliefs?
What will your next logical fallacy be? I’m not going to tell you what this one is.
Since they’ve already deployed their Scottish regiment, I’m guessing ad hominem
Idk if that’s really a Scottish regiment
Seems a little Scots to me
Guys, I wanted them to struggle!
An actual atheist would realize they’re surrounded by braindead ignoramuses who have been persecuting (read: killing) people who dare not to believe their story book magical-ghost-man was actually magical or a ghost, and probably not even real in the first place.
These same idiots are running and actively destroying the world around them. In fact, some of them intentionally do things to destroy the planet purely to spite the people who don’t believe in their stories.
So yeah. We think about god. A lot. Just in a wildly different way than theists.
An actual atheist would realize they’re surrounded by braindead ignoramuses
There are a lot of ignoramus things around to believe in… religion being only one of many - and not even close to being one of the worst. It seems to me that (so-called) “atheists” are obsessively concerned about not ticking merely this one particular box - but can be as perfectly open to the rest as any religious person.
These same idiots are running and actively destroying the world around them.
Are you trying to say that religion is (somehow) responsible for our impending environmental catastrophe? Just a hunch on my part… but I don’t think you’re going to find many climatologists that will agree with you.
We think about god.
Yeah… I’ve noticed. All these (alleged) “atheists” spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about something they vehemently denies even exists.
That’s the part I find so damn strange.
Are you trying to say that religion is (somehow) responsible for our impending environmental catastrophe?
Unclear if there’s a causation but there is very much a correlation. I think there is a causation, these people think Humans couldn’t cause climate change, or that God is ultimately in charge of it and we should just throw up our hands and expect “Him” to take care of it.
These people vote.
So yeah, in some way, religion is responsible for it.
Unclear if there’s a causation but there is very much a correlation.
Really?
That’s it?
Sure… WASP ideology does seem to make WASP people more vulnerable to the propaganda of the free-market cultists that has been justifying the genocidal destruction and exploitation of our world - but blaming capitalist and colonialist “modernity” on religion is a stretch. A very, very long one.
These people vote.
Lol! So you don’t fall for the whole “Magic Sky Daddy” stuff but when the politicians and their propagandists tell you live in a (supposed) “democratic” society it’s hook, line and sinker time?
Don’t tell me you rejected one set of fables only to fall for another one, atheist.
What the fuck do you think I am. A pissed off atheist in a christofascist up-and-comer state. An actual atheist (me) would be mad at this bullshit and I am.
christofascist
I’m taking you have a really, really good argument lined up to prove that Christ was a fascist and proselytized anything that we would today call fascism?
I’d say that an actual Christian would have a far better reason to be an anti-fascist than you do - but perhaps fake Christianity breeds fake atheism as well.
You’re full of shit and I won’t be party to it.
I didn’t invite you to any parties, liberal.
Know your place.
Why not? Give me a reason atheists can’t get frustrated about religion holding back society in the past? Are you the one to define what an atheist is? Judging by your comments I’d argue you should be the last to do that.
Give me a reason atheists can’t get frustrated about religion holding back society in the past?
Your proof of this?
How about you answer my question first. Who are you to decide what it means to be an atheist.
And if you really need examples of that you should read up on human history before you continue any aspect of this discussion.
How about you answer my question first
No, no, no - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you want to blame the west’s invention of white supremacism (for instance) on a Levantine carpenter’s son that lived 2000 years ago you have your work cut out for you.
They are not blaming a god, they are blaming peoples reason for doing horrible things. There’s lots of them, but claiming it’s something god wants has historically been one of the more common ones.
Their phrasing must have confused you, but as seen in all the downvotes you received it’s a commonly used way of saying this.
, but as seen in all the downvotes you received it’s
I’m surrounded by wannabe-edgy liberals that will happily sell their souls to all kinds of silly political fantasies as long as it isn’t religious ones - somehow, the downvotes fail to impress.
No one cares if downvotes impress you. I’m telling you that you wrongly interpreted a sentence.
No one cares if downvotes impress you
Aaaaand… still not impressing me.
And still not answering any questions put in front of you. Reflecting has always been the best trick in the book of religion.
What questions? It’s difficult to tell with all the liberal histrionics floating about, you know.
I can believe I’m going to get eaten by a talking meatball when I go to dinner tonight.
The talking meatball obviously isn’t going to eat me, it isn’t real.
The impact the talking meatball has on my decision making remains a real observable thing.
Nobody is blaming god here, they’re blaming the concept of god/gods, and how that concept has resulted in many people treating others poorly.
Note, that’s not a judgement on you (presumably) having beliefs, I believe there’s probably something out there myself. The talking meatball is purely illustrative.
and how that concept has resulted in many people treating others poorly.
And why the focus on religion? Where is their (alleged) “rationality” when it comes to other social constructs? The loudest atheists I know off also happen to be white supremacists, and I don’t hear atheists talking much about the legitimacy of national entities and their oh-so precious borders - all of which are based on magical thinking equal or worse than anything you find in religious scripture.
That tells me a lot about the (supposed) “rationality” of liberal atheism - it seems they are more interested in the irrelevant fetishizing of an entity’s absence rather than the actual way in which religiosity has been used and abused by powerful elites both past and present.
The loudest atheists I know off also happen to be white supremacists
That tells me a lot about the (supposed) “rationality” of liberal atheism
I’m really inclined to believe that you’re a troll… Liberal atheists that are white supremacists? I’ve never met anyone that fits that description. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt a little longer…
If you want a great example of how religion has been quite negative, see the crusades, salem witch trials, the Spanish inquisition, ISIS, 9-11.
None of these events have relationships to the teachings of say, Jesus. However, they are atrocities (in cases like the crusades some of the bloodiest conflicts in history) where someone’s belief in god is ultimately what led to the conflict. In many cases the atrocities of a nation state and the religious motivation are hand in hand; the founding fathers specifically tried to separate religion from government because of this problematic history.
In the modern US religion is often used to dismiss scientific findings. Folks will say “oh it doesn’t matter if climate change is real, God will find a way for us all to continue living.” … or … “it doesn’t matter if COVID is real, God will find a way to heal me” … or … “my kid has cancer but they don’t need doctors they need prayers for God to heal them miraculously.” Religion was even used by some to justify racism based slavery in the US.
Religion has a long history of being used to incite violence or to dismiss concerns about problems where … whether God exists or not … there are concrete actions that people on Earth can take right this instant that we know will help.
I’m not going to say “we’d be better off with nobody believing in anything!” but we certainly would be better off if more people/societies didn’t listen to fanatics that have their own agenda that’s truly devoid of rational thought and the high morals most scripture seeks to teach.
Liberal atheists that are white supremacists?
I guess you’ve never heard of Bill Maher? Lucky you.
see the crusades, salem witch trials, the Spanish inquisition
You’re going to blame religion for feudalist politics? How convenient… and completely ahistorical.
9-11
Right… let’s blame the consequences of US neocolonialism on religion as well. After all… US bombs are “secular” and “democratic” bombs, aren’t they, liberal?
In many cases the atrocities of a nation state
So why do all these “rational” atheists not apply their “rationality” to the nation state, but only to religion?
In the modern US religion is often used to dismiss scientific findings.
And throughout history, religious institutions preserved them - see Irish clergy and Islamic scholars preserving the writings of ancient Greece, for example.
there are concrete actions that people on Earth can take right this instant that we know will help.
You mean… like applying your “rationality” to the problem of the nation state, perhaps?
I disagree with their sentiment, but dear god you have terrible interpretation of their point.
Even Darwin in his own book points out people who had these ideas before him. But that’s not enough, you can’t just go “ha here’s an idea” and leave it at that. You have to work to prove it, and that’s what Darwin did. The idea itself wasn’t so revolutionary but everyone else’s was just slightly wrong. Some for example believed evolution worked on all beings except humans, because we were work of god, and similar. Darwin came up with a correct one by using theirs as a base and then made his own, tested it and saw it worked. The amount of work Darwin invested in this theory alone was staggering. In fact the book itself “The Origin of Species” was something he was forced to write because people got afraid his work will go undocumented and he’ll die soon. So he wrote that book as a summary with more books to come later in expanded and detailed form, which never came.
He is credited with discovering natural selection not evolution. The two are often confused and he is associated with evolution.
Natural selection is how most animals came to be. Animal breeders also do selection, unnatural or artificial selection, but the process is still evolution. People definitely thought animals change, they even changed animals themselves. But the detailed understanding of how and why they changed is what Darwin discovered. Like you say this took a lot of work and insight.
People had ideas and hypothesis, but no theory till Darwin.
Only a hundred years ahead and didn’t nail survival of the fittest? Pshh, amateur.
Here’s Lucretius in 50 BCE:
In the beginning, there were many freaks. Earth undertook Experiments - bizarrely put together, weird of look Hermaphrodites, partaking of both sexes, but neither; some Bereft of feet, or orphaned of their hands, and others dumb, Being devoid of mouth; and others yet, with no eyes, blind. Some had their limbs stuck to the body, tightly in a bind, And couldn’t do anything, or move, and so could not evade Harm, or forage for bare necessities. And the Earth made Other kinds of monsters too, but in vain, since with each, Nature frowned upon their growth; they were not able to reach The flowering of adulthood, nor find food on which to feed, Nor be joined in the act of Venus.
For all creatures need Many different things, we realize, to multiply And to forge out the links of generations: a supply Of food, first, and a means for the engendering seed to flow Throughout the body and out of the lax limbs; and also so The female and the male can mate, a means they can employ In order to impart and to receive their mutual joy.
Then, many kinds of creatures must have vanished with no trace Because they could not reproduce or hammer out their race. For any beast you look upon that drinks life-giving air, Has either wits, or bravery, or fleetness of foot to spare, Ensuring its survival from its genesis to now."
- De Rerum Natura book 5 lines 837-859
Bonus round, nearly nailed Mendelian trait inheritance too:
Sometimes children take after their grandparents instead, Or great-grandparents, bringing back the features of the dead. This is since parents carry elemental seeds inside – Many and various, mingled many ways – their bodies hide Seeds that are handed, parent to child, all down the family tree. Venus draws features from these out of her shifting lottery – Bringing back an ancestor’s look or voice or hair. Indeed These characteristics are just as much the result of certain seed As are our faces, limbs and bodies. Females can arise From the paternal seed, just as the male offspring, likewise, Can be created from the mother’s flesh. For to comprise A child requires a doubled seed – from father and from mother. And if the child resembles one more closely than the other, That parent gave the greater share – which you can plainly see Whichever gender – male or female – that the child may be.
- De Rerum Natura book 4 lines 1217-1232
He was close with the “seeds” parents pass onto their children (not knowing what genes or DNA were, or course), but he should have been able to empirically figure out that this was incorrect:
And if the child resembles one more closely than the other, That parent gave the greater share – which you can plainly see
Because sometimes children can look like their grandparent more than a parent, meaning the “seeds” are there, just latent.
You mean like the first few lines of what I quoted where he talks about how traits from grandparents or great grandparents can come back?
Oh yeah, totally forgot that. In that case, it’s even more puzzling that he would claim the child inherited more “seed” from one parent than the other based on their apperance.
I think his idea includes things like “if the kid looks like the maternal grandfather, more contribution was from the mother’s seed than the father’s.”
Not that it’s exclusively that the contributions are only dependent on how closely matching the appearance of the mother or father and only the mother or father.
But sometimes a kid can look more like their mother, and that kid’s kid can look more like their paternal grandfather. How would he explain that?
That the kid’s kid got more of the dad’s seed in the “shifting lottery.”
It’s not like he’s saying a kid that looks like the mother isn’t getting any contribution from the father.
And while he’s technically wrong in the idea that there’s a disproportionate overall contribution from each parent, it is true that genes and traits responsible for physical appearance can be disproportionately passed on.
Nice and interesting read, thank you for posting.
What a fascinating guy! He really was ahead of the curve. A pity his contemporaries repressed him so much.
Makes you wonder if there’s anyone we’re doing this to right now. Also the guy was a bourguignon so that’s extra points in my book.
Bound to be, science history has many of these figures.
deleted by creator
What is that animal?
A loris
Thanks!
