almafuerte #fundie

almafuerte #fundie fark.com

I am sick of Tolerance. Tolerance is AGAINST humanity. The Fundamental (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity) Forces are not Tolerant, That's why the universe exists and evolves. Inorganic molecules are not tolerant, that's why life started. No life form has ever been tolerant, that's why we evolved. That's why we exist. INTOLERANCE. Each system doing it's best for itself. That brought us here. It's what we are. If Animals had been tolerant and weak, they wouldn't have eaten the lowest specimens, and there would be no life in this planet. It's hard to accept, for the modern human being, that being cruel is necessary. Even the most cruels man of today lie and justify their actions. There's no need to do that. Anything STRONG is GOOD. Anything that destroys weakness and elevates the human being is GOOD. Religion is Weakness of the mind. But Don't believe me. Let evolution decide. Stop being considerate to each other. That kills evolution. Let the Religious people try to destroy Atheism, and let the Atheists try to destroy Religion. Evolution will take care of choosing the best of each, and man will better at the end of the day.
Religions that preach tolerance, weakness, humility, poverty (Like Christianism) are PERVERSE religions. They foment the worst of the human being, and attack the instincts that made us what we are. They must be destroyed. Atheists that preach peace and tolerance and freedom of beliefs are weak too, and must be destroyed too.

It's time for the human being to embrace its true roots, and let evolution continue, take the evolution of the human race in its hands and lead it to the future. without mercy, without shame, without doubt. Any action that goes against the natural laws is SUICIDAL.

76 comments

old comment by Zoo

LOL. That's unusual. . . most of us "evolutionists" constantly have to tell people accusing us of using evolutionary theory as a moral guide that we don't. Now we have to tell a fellow "evolutionist" the same?

Evolution is intolerant, but it is also just a natural process.
-- It doesn't give us a basis for hating each other. Occasionally we give each other basis for it, but it's stupid to hate other people for things they have no control over or for things ancient texts might be interpreted to say are wrong
-- It doesn't give us a basis for choosing a religion or lack thereof. . . that's the domain of reason (which is usually how we come to accept evolutionary theory as well)
-- It does not tell us [directly] whether or not to help others of our species. In fact, since sociality is an evolved characteristic [which would not evolve if it did not confer some advantage in some environment], one could possibly say it DOES tell us to help others. . . that's just part of the rules to stay in a human group which has the potential to help you physically and evolutionarily speaking.

In other words, you're just as wrong as those who hate tolerance because their book says to.

old comment by David B.

I'd love to think this is a poe, but I have met more than enough 'rationalist' who think that by being so obviously right (in their own minds), everyone else must be wrong and should do things their way.

Almafeurte is clearly wrong, as he would realise if he had any actual knowledge of evolution. Not only is cooperative, even altruistic, behaviour an evolutionary stable strategy under the right circumstances, but studies from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology indicate that tolerant behaviours (mutualism, displacement, etc.) can be both natural and advantageous.

In the long view, we've had the little competition almafuerte wants, go back far enough and our evolutionary ancestors are the ancestors of highly competitive and aggressive 'individualist' species too.

In our case, tolerance won.

old comment by Poetato

Poe. Definitely very poe.

This fundie doesn't actually understand any of the arguments they're using.
From what I've seen, gravity's pretty darn tolerant. It manages to coexist with the other three forces without killing them, insulting them, or even calling them names. Probably because it's inanimate, but using it as a model of how people should interact with people who are different from themselves would really indicate exactly the opposite of what's being used here.
In general, life-forms and animals are actually quite tolerant as well - they are able to survive and adapt to changing situations - the ones that aren't able to adapt, and tolerate change are the ones that die out. If an animal's food supply runs out, and they can't tolerate switching to a different food source, then they starve.
Then of course, there's the whole "Strong is Good" idea - that's pretty much the biggest give-away that this person is actually a religious nutter pretending to be an atheist, since it's what they're constantly claiming evolution is all about - the strong kill the weak, and survive. If that was the case, humans would never have made it, the dinosaurs would still be stomping all over the place. Weak little mammals survived where the STRONG dinosaurs didn't, because they were more tolerant of changing environments. The Strong and Intolerant dinosaurs died out because the world changed around them, and they couldn't keep up. In fact, since their bogus attack focuses on Christians, the poe is probably a christian themself, and feels like they're making the other side "look bad" by showing how extreme and unpleasant they "really are". Then again, religion has never been about tolerance (burn the infidels! Nail blasphemers to a cross! Unbelievers must die!), weakness (God's on our side, we'll win this war we started!) humility (seriously, just look at any major church/mosque/temple/... that's humble?), or poverty (except of course for the saps it pulls money out of, are they protecting the people from the sin of money by taking the burden of all wealth upon themselves? How ... noble ... of them.)
Then again, they're also at the end arguing that we should take the evolution of the human race in our own hands, and let it do whatever it's going to do on it's own... that's the sort of conflicted, inconsistent reasoning that can _only_ come from either religion, or not taking your medication properly. Or both.

old comment by JohnTheAtheist

Honestly, what this poster says is pretty accurate.

But here is the thing. Until now, until us, no species has ever had the capacity to overcome the designs of their selfish genes. Evolution has no foresight. Is it that hard to imagine that two individuals, cooperating with one another, could both yield a better result for their selfish selves then if they competed against one another? Actually this type of altruism is common throughout nature but it is only mankind that can actually use the power of foresight and succeed as a species against nature, instead of succeeding as individuals against each other.

You gotta brush up on your Dawkins dude.

old comment by David B.

@JohnTheAtheist wrote: "Until now, until us, no species has ever had the capacity to overcome the designs of their selfish genes. Evolution has no foresight. Is it that hard to imagine that two individuals, cooperating with one another, could both yield a better result for their selfish selves then if they competed against one another? Actually this type of altruism is common throughout nature but it is only mankind that can actually use the power of foresight and succeed as a species against nature, instead of succeeding as individuals against each other.

You gotta brush up on your Dawkins dude."

So do you. Dawkins' concept of the "selfish gene" is nothing to do with individual selfishness, selfish behaviour, etc. The selfish gene is a metaphor for selection operating at the genetic level, i.e. what benefits the gene, rather than the carrier of that gene, is what is selected for.

Hence evolution will select for mutual and altruistic behaviour if the genes influencing that behaviour show increased representation in the next generation. Hence it doesn't matter if the gene makes it more likely you will throw yourself onto a forest fire if that causes more copies of the gene to survive. From the "gene's-eye view", we are all ultimately expendable vehicles for making more of the gene, hence the gene is "selfish" in that it has no consideration for our welfare.

Hence the famous JBS Haldane quote, "Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers... or eight cousins."

old comment by Anon

Bullie's logic.
Social groups that sustain certain optimal amount of tolerance within themselves and limit certain forms of internal competition have evolutionary advantages over non-optical groups and individuals. Natural laws in action. On evolutionary advantages of 'friendly' strategies see also various forms of iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Simplifying, extreme competition within a group is harmful because it generally favours negative selection in terms of teamwork and intellect. You can't belive your peers, you don't have much time to study and research when you have to be constantly on guard.
Of course extreme tolerance has it's own downsides (asocial or retrograde individuals who seek control and/or fame via the preaching of hatred between group's individuals are also sometimes tolerated beyond limit and thus making the group weaker). But on the other hand for scientific progress there has to be certain (comparatively high) level of tolerance or the scientists just won't be able to exist. And amongst other things advanced science means advanced weapons. If two groups develop relatively independantly, a group that only selects for brawn and agility will eventually fail against another group that selects for mutual help, tolerance and intellect and develops tools and weapons.