Morphic Tide
Well-known member
...Asexually reproducing vertebrates are a thing, though. We even have clear demonstrations of leftovers of the process in birds, with cases of failed parthenogenic reproduction. And komodo dragons will actively produce a male asexually to resume sexual reproduction.
Not really, it's just a conveniently-adapted hormone response. To the point that there are genetic XY females from nothing but a failure to respond to testosterone in embryonic development. Take a look at how many other species have the female be the larger and more aggressive, including among mammals.
We're talking stuff like yeast here, where cells undergo fusion to reference multiple genomes for repair mechanisms, unlike defenses, resource concentration, and so on. When the diploid condition persists long enough to accrue homogenous-detrimental but heterogenous-beneficial genes like cystic fibrosis it is now beneficial to reduce the monoploid cell to a haploid gamete so that such traits can be ignored to raise the rate of reproductive success.
The complained-about materialism is downstream from empiricism. The apparatus of investigation came first, proved itself very useful and philosophical examination found it extremely sound. The supernatural explanations of alchemy and astrology proved so obstinately irreconcilable that empiricists made a point of using "chemistry" and "astronomy" instead to differentiate the pursuit. Then the supernatural turned up jack shit so thoroughly and for so long that empiricists gradually disregarded it.
Numerous unfalsifiable claims, disproof is precluded by the axioms.
God in the Gaps argument, as previously mentioned ignorance is the starting point so this isn't a sensible refutation any more than God not being a busybody about at least natural disasters.
Ultimately assuming that things must have inherent purpose to begin with in which the world we live in is the expectation, rather than allowing for us to be an outlier.
No, they demand evidence, and you have none in favor of your position in particular.
Is-Ought paradox disconnects ethics from material fact by all known logic.
Was religion a force for good in the 16th century? Same answer, the incredibly vast majority of the bloodshed in each is the same underpinning of ideological friction.
I can say the same of the Vatican most of the times it found people questioning basically anything about its authority in Western Europe.
We spend over a hundred years looking and found literally nothing. How long to you expect us to dig at your unfalsifiable bullshit until you accept that you are ranting about a giant pile of axioms to people making a point of trying to work with as few as possible?
No, it's not a frivolous exercise, it's you religious people having absolutely nothing to show for yourselves on empirical terms.
There is no one "atheist movement". It is a description of one property that is absent. The quasi-Abrahamic Marxists have fuck all to do with the Randians on any practical position, they just both tell you to think about another book instead of resting everything on the Bible.
You can even find religious members of those ideologies who will quote scripture and cite Popes to back their position, because they're almost entirely about material politics so they can easily be adapted to a wide variety of ethical premises. Sometimes with less gymnastics than the Divine Right of Kings the Catholic Church spent centuries hitching its credibility to.
