Complexity and Creation: an argument that made me re-think atheism)

I believe in an intelligent creator of the universe. Do you? Without bogging you down with trivia, many scientists believe in a creator. In-fact, 40% of scientists believe in an intelligent creator; Francis Collins, the source of the mentioned statistic, is a scientist (Human Genome Project director) and also a believer. My point is that not all scientists are atheists. 


The Universe is much more complex than anything humans have created; in fact, it's even more complex than we can comprehend. Shouldn't that give us pause? To think such a thing could "just happen" seems ridiculous. The reason many are atheists today is because of two things:


1) Many famous atheists have presented articulate arguments against intelligent creation by attacking old religious scripture. 


2) There is a major disconnect between contemporary moral values and traditional ones; this creates the need for people to escape Christian values by formulating arguments against them. 


In this blog post, I'm going to address the first reason people become atheists. Sure, religious text (referring to Old/New Testament) can be argued against; especially if they are looked at with a narrow lens (literally and/or taking the text out of context). Let's say a portion of the Bible is capable of being argued against, does this disprove God (intelligent force[s])? No. It's like claiming that just because leprechauns aren't real, this disproves rainbows. More importantly, atheists miss the point of the Bible: the moral and spiritual lessons that are contained within. The bible is not intended to be a scientific book because it was created with a different methodology.



Evolution debunked as real science. 

Evolution is pseudo-science that has caused people to miss the forest full of trees—an intelligent force underlying the creation of the universe. As you read the following, keep an open mind; don't just view it with a hateful, biased attitude.

Atheists claim evolution disproves scripture (specifically Genesis; spontaneous biological creation via an intelligent force). Has macro-evolution even been shown to have occurred? No. The best they can show is micro-evolution; but micro-evolution has not been shown to be able to accommodate for all the structural complexity and speciation. Even those that use "micro-evolution" to breed different varieties of foods and animals know that there are limits to their meddling. At best, all micro-evolution has been shown to do is alter the representation of existing features (within a population), not create new ones. Micro-evolution's reach includes things like bone length, width, and density; hair color and texture; internal organ size and strength, etc.; skin color, texture, and thickness. There is a lot of room for variation among existing structures, but this capacity was known about way before Darwin. Darwin went wrong when he claimed that variation within a species was capable of creating entirely new species and internal structures. He claimed (with zero evidence) that with enough time, the most simplest form of life (known to us as 'bacteria') could transform into a multi-celled organisms as complex as human beings. There is simply no solid evidence that such an event occurred (bacteria > all modern life). It is all hopeful speculation on the part of scientists, but certainly outside of the scientific method; yet it's being taught as science. When scientists leave the realm of science and get into speculation, they are really outside of their domain (which limits them by the scientific method). Scientists simply have no evidence (only speculation) evolution is responsible for the complexity of life on earth, and let's not even get started about how life even got here to begin with (their speculation is even more scattered).

Sure, variation exists among populations, but when someone breeds a dog to have slightly longer fur, is any new complexity added? I'm talking about real complexity: some new evolutionary change that makes the animal's internal structure(s) more complex than its peers' (otherwise the species' population would always remain unchanging). Most biologists claim that "evolution took a long time", but what does more time get us? If it can't be shown to occur (increasing complexity) in the short term (even within a 1,000+ years) in even a minute amount, what is more time going to give us? I'm not talking about anything unreasonable; just the slightest little change that creates new, viable internal structures within existing species. Let me repeat, complexity has never been observed to increase, only speculated to increase. Yet with zero evidence (only speculation), we are suppose to believe that our earliest ancestors were bacteria—it just took "a long time". I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have faith in scientists' speculation of what happened; they are bound by the scientific method and anything that goes beyond that transforms them into laypersons. They have faith in an unproven concept (macro-evolution) because it seems more "scientific" than the religious explanation; they would rather go with that speculation than with one which seems even more unreachable—God.


A scenario to put scientific speculation into context


In an experiment, amino-acids (important building block of life) were created in a lab using basic materials speculated to exist on primitive Earth. Here's an example of what that would be like: Humans die off and all traces of our existence disappear. Aliens descend on this plant to study its life. They managed to discover this strange contraption, perfectly preserved in ice, with wheels and an apparent design....

Image by StaraBlazkova (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons 

It seems that there must have been a designer...but wait! Oil was discovered in it! Alien science has proven that oil originated by ancient plant life. Hmm, that must mean that with the natural production of oil, over a long period of time, machinery must have evolved around its use. I mean, the oil must have came first; without oil, the machine could never have functioned. Mystery solved, evolution is true! And complexity "just happened" *poof*. 


An intelligent creator is too hard to prove, probably impossible. Scientists don't like that. They prefer ends that they believe could be proven to occur (which is fair enough, speculation is an important part of the method, but requires evidence to support it before it can be considered true scientific knowledge). That said, I hope our search for the truth doesn't cause us to miss the forest full of trees like it did for the aliens.

The reality is that increasing complexity has never been shown to occur without the interference of intelligence, guiding the process. Scientists need to humble themselves with an awareness of their ignorance. They have blurred the lines between speculation and scientific knowledge.    

Atheism =/= Moral Relativity (an atheist's rant on morality)

If you are an atheist, and out-of-the-closet, chances are you have come across the argument that atheists have no source of morality. When they do this, they imply that an atheist cannot know the difference between right and wrong etc. In-fact, many atheists use the argument that all morality is relative. It seems both sides (atheists and believers) let their imagination get the better of them. For those atheists that view morality as being relative are ignoring the function of morality. Morality is (at least in my opinion) behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society (consciously or unconsciously).

For example, the statement "it is immoral to cheat on a spouse" is a true statement. However, many atheists will use their imagination to think of a scenario in which this statement wouldn't be true. This kind of moral reasoning misses the point. It cannot be denied that a society full of cheaters (especially before birth control) would leave many individuals without a fully-functioning family. A woman is hard-wired to not want their husband to run away with another woman, leaving her all of the burden of raising the kids; on the flip-side the guy doesn't want to waste energy raising some other man's child (the fruit of his energy-input is the passing on of his genes). If morality is behavior that is beneficial for the functionality of a society, then cheating in the general, realistic sense, is morally wrong.

The famous atheist author Sam Harris wrote a book claiming that morality is behavior that is beneficial for the well-being of conscious creatures. But I'm feel that this misses the evolutionary purpose of pain and pleasure (psychological or physiological). While it is true that there is a hardwired desire to feel good, and to avoid pain, the purpose of both are not for our enjoyment, but our survival (and exclusive to humanity, unless applying a certain morality to animals is beneficial for human-society). When we notice a certain behavior causes pain, this is the body/brain's way of telling us that we need to change course. Also, if we feel good, that is the body/mind's way of rewarding/creating incentive to continue what it perceives as good behavior. As stated before, the purpose of this is to provide behavioral guidelines.

As a social species, there are certain behaviors that are harmful to functionality of a society, and behaviors that are beneficial (but this does not imply relativity). While not all societies have the same functioning characteristics (morality), it cannot be denied that some societies function better than others. The reason morality is not completely instinctual is because human society is taking on factors that are previously unknown.

Also, I think morality should be divided up into two groups: instinctual/learned (i.e. hard-wired/soft-wired). Being that our species, from an evolutionary standpoint, is going into uncharted territory everyday, the old hard-wired behavior can be very problematic—this is where our learned-morality comes into play. Learned-morality is cognition that overrides perceived harmful-instinctual behavior.

All of this is to enunciate the point that not all behavior is created equal within a human society. There are moral truths within this society. An atheist can imagine circumstances in which a behavior that is normally beneficial to the functionality of a society (moral) would not be, but this is dodging the question. I.e. moral relativism is a pseudo-intellectual's way of dodging reality. No thoughtful atheist should argue moral relativism. If this is to become an atheist-world, we must stop dodging moral questions. Whether we atheists want to admit it or not, religion took on a big role for providing our soft-wired morality. As religion goes, so goes the soft-wiring we have relied upon as a society for many many years. As our society continues to evolves, so will evolve our hard-wired/soft-wired morality. It is not good that we have relied so heavily on religion to provide our soft-wired morality, with it gone, we are left with a void that must be filled (otherwise the functionality of society will suffer).

If you are an atheist reading this, try to think about moral questions in the context that I laid out; there are moral-truths to be found in this reality, never dodge the questions by imagining other realities (makes you and the atheism you represent appear void of morality). If you are a believer, then continue to argue against atheists that continue to believe in moral relativism by using secular-reasoning (instead of religious, which an atheist will easily brush off).

Be a thinking atheist, not one that avoids the truth.

ForaTv -- "Celebrity Tabloids and the Evolution of Gossip "

Gossip is viewed as being immoral (typically that is) because it normally is. Gossip often has a bullying nature in the context of celebrities. I however have a hard time sympathizing with a millionaire. I guess what is annoying are the dumb women that think they are something special because they know some embarrassing fact about another individual, and spread it around for their own social gain.

*** How People React To The Unknown! (Atheism vs. Belief) ***

It is natural for people to be afraid of the dark. In-fact, some are so afraid of the dark that they refuse to sleep without a light on. Some (especially young children) believe that the boogie-man hides in the dark. The fear of darkness is rooted within our general fear of what is unknown.

It has recently been found that the brains of social-conservatives tend to have a larger fear center (amygdala) than their liberal counterparts. It is also no mystery that conservatives tend to be religious and liberals tend to be secular and not all that religious. Also the portion of the brain that is responsible for optimism and courage (anterior cingulate) tends to be smaller in conservatives. I don't want to get too far into this study, if you are interested in reading about it, a link to the source can be found at the bottom of this blog post.

Anyways, back on point...

Naturally, the unknown is a scary thing. Virtually all people have a intense fear of the dark during their lives at some point. This shows that fear of the unknown (or of the dark in this case) is innate within most humans (at least until it is overcome). People often project their worst fears onto the darkness of uncertainty, thinking up pessimistically deluded  fantasies and believing (subconsciously or consciously) that their worst possible fears are the only possible outcome. There are two ways in which a person can react towards a perceived danger: (1) fight, or (2) flight. In other words, the unknown can either be confronted or ran away from.

It perhaps is easy to see who is doing the running here, but perhaps I should spell it out. It seems to be that atheists in general want real answers to the big questions, and accept that humans have much to learn. This is why atheists accept the truth behind biological evolution, how could anyone not? If certain information destroys the only thing protecting the ego from a deep seeded fear of the unknown, it must be avoided at all costs, no matter how intellectually dishonest. While believers look avoid the reality of human ignorance by pretending they have a "friend" that knows everything, using an unknown to explain an unknown is running away from the problem. A fear of the unknown will always exist within believers because they refuse to face it. The unknown should not be a source of fear, but a source of inspiration and excitement. I believe it is important for people to give up on running away from the unknown with gods and other superstitions—not only because I believe that understanding the universe can be a great source of inspiration—but because running away from a fear will cause that fear to chase a person to the grave.

Another typically innate fear is the fear of heights, but some people find no greater joy in life than to jump out of a plane with a parachute. Let's say, for the sake of example, I have the answers for all of the big questions (how the universe came to be, the meaning of life, what happens after death, etc.). This information is somehow guaranteed to be 100% accurate and beyond any doubt. To make it simpler, I have put the answers to these questions on sheets of paper, and put those papers inside a box.
All people knew without any doubt that these answers were correct (including both believers and nonbelievers). Let's say I was to go to a group of fundamentalist believers (Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc.... it doesn't really matter). These believers, know, without any doubt, that the answers are 100% correct. In their minds, however, there is a possibility that the answer in the box would confirm that there is a god (and perhaps even the right god). How many of those believers would actually look inside the box? If you are a believer reading this, would you want to know the true answers to the big questions? Say what you will, but I do not think that very many believers would want anything to do with that box. On the flip-side however, virtually all nonbelievers would be curious as hell (no pun intended) as to what answers lie within the box.

Is such an example unfair? A straw-man? I don't think so. From seeing the reactions of believers when faced with the fact of evolution, I feel I am not being unfair at all.


I will admit, stereotyping all believers as being afraid of the unknown, and all atheists as being curious about the unknown may not be entirely accurate for everyone (some atheists may not want to look inside the box, and some believers may want to). I do believe that as a whole, the stereotype that I have painted is reflective of a psychological truth. That truth is that some are afraid of the unknown, and some are inspired by it. It seems to be that nonbelievers use science to explore the unknown, and believers use God as a way of avoiding it.

Here are a few quick things I want to touch on....

Both scientists and priests see opportunity in human ignorance. Priests are able to take the fear of the unknown that exists within many individuals, and turn it into power (Catholic Church for example). Scientists do a similar thing, but instead of exploiting fear, they exploit curiosity, and the result is much more productive and awe inspiring (technology, space exploration, study of our evolutionary past, and so on).

Another place that this phenomenon can be seen is in the media. For example, Fox "News" has been using fear tactics, not because they are evil, but because they are preaching to their conservative/religious choir. Fox "News" has an audience (in general) of terrified people -- clinging to guns and God -- so of course Fox is going to suck such people in because such a narrative speaks to their audiences' view of the world.


link to study here!

Man Claims Man Did Not Evolve, But Were Created By Aliens!

This guy is a joke. First off, it is not know what the first advanced society was, the Sumerians are one of several early societies that historical evidence reveals. The Sumerians may or may not have been the first advanced society on earth (I don't believe they were). This guy didn't bring up any evidence at all to support his claims.

One thing he did claim was that there is not a smooth transition of fossils (which would be impossible to have anyways). Because of this, it must have been aliens that did it! This guy is no different than a creationist -- he sees a mystery and turns to fairy-tales (instead of God being the creator, it was aliens). Evolution offers a very good explanation for the complexity of life. Life has been on this planet for approximately 3,500,000,000,000 years, plenty of time for life to evolve.

How many layers of sedimentary rock would be needed to cover every single mutation? Such a fossil record would be ridiculous, to expect such a thing is moronic. Why is it that the critics of evolution all seem to not understand the theory beyond a 10th grade level (and that is being generous)? When he goes into genetics, he forgets to mention how much of our DNA is shared with other species. Humans and Chimps share 98% of their DNA. If a monkey is looked at, there are many similar characteristics, both physically and psychologically.

Humans are not as evolved as we like to believe we are; humans are the metaphorical perfect-storm in evolution. Bonobos aren't too far away from humans. They are able understand human language (albeit, not as well as a typical adult human). If they had vocal cords capable of enunciating the English language, they would probably be capable of it. Bonobos could evolve to human-like intellectual levels within a few million years if they had the right selective pressures (a few million years is not that much time in the context of evolutionary time). Check out the video below...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

 Make sure to thank evolution at the dinner table.

Christine O'Donnell on evolution

Anyone that uses the straw-man argument 'why don't monkeys evolve into people today?' need to ejubacate themselves about evolutionary theory. It's almost as if religious belief like that, blinds a person to reality (or any reality that contradicts it). Why do so many atheists accept evolution as the explanation for the complexity of life? Is it because atheists don't have an imaginary friend telling them they can't?

Evolution doesn't lead people towards atheism, religion leads people away from reality.

'Top Ten Best Arguments Against Evolution' -- YouTube

These arguments are so easy to refute a caveman could do it.

Atheist Richard Dawkins -- The Evidence for Evolution

The Evidence for Evolution part 1



The Evidence for Evolution part 2


The Evidence for Evolution part 3


The Evidence for Evolution part 4


The Evidence for Evolution part 5


The Evidence for Evolution part 6


The Evidence for Evolution part 7


The Evidence for Evolution part 8


I posted this up here for any fans of Richard Dawkins or for any atheists/Christians that are interested in the evolution debate (even though it isn't much of a debate anymore). If you haven't read his book -- The Greatest Show on Earth -- buy it here! It's a great read.

Atheist Church "Creation" film review 3-28-10

I don't think many Christians have seen this movie -- their delusions have a great self-preservation mechanism. Anyways, to think of how difficult it must have been for Darwin to come to the conclusions that he did while being religious. It's a shame "hellfire" feared people into 'not think that way' about themselves and the life around them, stunting biology for 100s if not 1,000s of years -- hell (no pun intended), it still gets in its way today. There is a reason atheists tend to always agree that evolution explains the complexity of life -- it is because they are unbiased towards ideas. In other words, they don't have an imaginary friend telling them what they can believe and what they can't.

God is the trouble-maker in the back of a class room shooting spit-balls -- annoying some, distracting others.

Vatican Prepares World For "ALIEN CONTACT"

Great, now the Catholics are claiming aliens *rolls eyes*. Aliens are a huge contradiction to the Catholic faith -- otherwise they would have to disown the old-testament completely (which they pretty much have already done by accepting evolution). If aliens do ever make contact, I believe that many formerly religious people will dump their religions and become atheist, or will go to religions that support that knowledge (like perhaps Scientology *cringe*). Much of the Abrahamic religions are based upon concepts like Creationism and the Garden Of Eden -- aliens showing up would probably be too much for even the strongest of faith. While unlikely, it is not impossible that an alien species would have a religion of their own that they would try to impose on humanity -- wouldn't that be ironic.

Christine O'Donnell: "Evolution is a myth"

I've never seen a person deny evolution that actually understood it. "Why don't monkeys evolve into people today" -- if anyone says this then it is clear that they don't understand the scientific theory they oppose. Atheists tend to be more knowledgeable about science (evolution specifically) because we know we don't have all the answers. Theists on the other hand lose their natural curiosity of the world -- for no matter how complicated the details are -- 'God did it' is the ultimate answer for them. This is why I think atheists should from time to time feel empathy towards theists, they are prisoners of their own delusion. I remember back when I was a Christian (up until my later teens) that I would feel very guilty about thinking about whether evolution was true, like I was betraying god for believing something which contradicts the bible. I bet the majority of Christians are afraid of offending their god, so they do everything they can to ignore the fact of evolution. Creationists are not on the internet looking up information on evolution -- but you will find that many atheist/evolution apologists look up a lot of info. on religion as well as creationists arguments (they do this to argue them).

Animated reconstruction of evolution - BBC science

How can anyone choose a talking snake and tree of wisdom over evolutionary theory? Understanding evolution is a mind-expanding experience, understanding why we are here and where we come are two of the most important things for a person to ponder. A person can believe nonsense that 'God did it' or they can actually make an effort to understand the forces responsible for why we are here.

Atheists accept evolution not because evolution caused their atheism, but because atheism freed them from the thought prison "God" keeps them in. Evolution can further reinforce an atheistic stance, but there must be some skepticism already present for those that were raised to believe in a deity. We all view the world through the lens of subjectivity, atheism makes that lens a little bit clearer.  

Evolution Is Real (video on molecular biology)

I often see creationists straw-man evolutionary theory and look ridiculous when debating atheists on the complexity of life. And of course on the flip-side, atheists should also educate themselves about evolution. That isn't to say that all atheists accept evolution (although I haven't ran into an atheist that doesn't), it's important to understand this sort of stuff.

Can atheists trust their own minds?

This guy doesn't understand the driving forces of evolution. Evolution would push a species to perceive the world as accurately as possible in the context of survive (whenever it aids in its survival). Humans belong to the intelligence niche, we survive based upon how accurately we are able to view and understand the physical world around us (knowledge is power). An atheist isn't able to understand exactly what he/she is, but a theist is much further away.

Why People Should Laugh At Evolutionists?

This video is another reason for why I laugh at creationists. So many double standards. They provide no evidence for their claim, yet expect unrealistic amounts of evidence for others. They claim there is no evidence for transitional forms, but they see a transitional form every time they look in the mirror. Humans (assuming they don't go extinct) will continue to evolve, and will look very different in a million years time—WE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORM. And it is obviously not just humans, all animals are transitional forms. Atheists tend to believe in evolution, and evolution tends to believe in atheism. Why is do atheists tend to believe in evolution? Because when religion doesn't cloud your vision, it is the obvious answer.

Christine O'Donnell accused of being mentally-ill because she 'hears' God

I love that panel (I have a feeling some of them are atheists, so perhaps I am biased).  People may accuse Linda Blair of being a bigot, but she raises a good point. Anyone that claims to hear the voice of God is either insane or a liar. I believe it is possible that Christine O'Donnell 'hears' voices, however, if she does, I can say with great certainty that she is hallucinating. Christians have faith that no one during biblical times had hallucinations. Christine O'Donnell may have much in common with men like Abraham ('heard a voice' that ordered him to kill his son). I however think that Christine O'Donnell is only telling the voters (who are mostly religious) what she thinks will get her votes. She is a slimy politician using God to get votes, the only reason this is news is because she went a one toke over the line (maybe two). It seems that the power of God in politics is shrinking as more atheists are 'born again', and more Christians become moderate/deistic. A politician can't just say they are hearing voices and get away with it as easily as they could in the past.

People like Christine O'Donnell seem so unevolved, perhaps it is evolution that doesn't believe in them...

More Proof Of Evolution!

According to this story, Italian Wall Lizards were introduced to a small island which is found near the coast of a  Croatia. It is surprising the amount of change these little critters were able to make in such a relatively short amount of time. There must be a lot a forces (not referring to a god) driving evolution that we are not even aware of. Anyways, check out the story here: Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

WAIT! before clicking on the link I must warn you. Reading such material may harm your delusional world-view. Proceed with caution!!!

Teen Sex & Drugs

<rant>

TJ forgets that during that time they did not have The Pill; kids are having more sex now, there are just better ways of preventing pregnancy.

The problem is that our culture and biological hard-wiring are constantly having a tug o' war. While culture tends to get the better of the 'hard-wiring' and forces it to adapt, occasionally the culture can bite off more than it can chew, and humans become stressed out to counter-productive levels. I am not against teenagers acting poorly, it is their nature, our biology hasn't caught up to our fast-evolving-culture. We (as a culture) use things like drugs and sex to emotionally escape the stresses of life, and at the moment we are being stressed to new heights (the brain will do crazy things to protect the ego). Drugs and sex are coping mechanisms for us to momentarily escape the harshness of our environment. While our ancestors may have have been more stressed physically, they were not as stressed emotionally as humans are today. Today we are constantly pressured emotionally... and nearly everyone feels frequently overwhelmed, it is this feeling of being overwhelmed that we humans want to escape. When the brain is able to catch up to our more modern culture, people will feel less overwhelmed; this will cause the amount of unhealthy-sex and drug-use to go down culturally acceptable levels.

There is a reason we have the morality that we do. I like to think that when people become self-descrutive, it is a sign that evolution is still busy plugging away, improving the human species by weeding out the bad genes from the good ones. The human species needs people to be self-destructive when they are unable to cope, this is the force of group selection rearing its head. Humans have a self-destruct button for a reason.

</rant>

Why I Support The Clubbing of Baby Seals. (rant against animal rights and vegetarians).

I am getting sick of all the wining animal-rights people are doing over the clubbing of baby seals. Seals =/= people. The problem with animal-rights people have is that they determine a creatures value based upon how cute it looks. Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, like color, it has no actual existence. If we were a super intelligent insect species, we would see grass hoppers and ants as being cute. Mammals of course would be viewed as disgusting (or at least as an inferior species).

While many animal rights folk would disagree, intellect is what makes humans great, it is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans are better than all other animals because we are vastly superior in this field. There is currently a war between us and all other species for resources, and the more humans that exist on this planet, the more of a struggle there will be for resources. We cannot pretend that non-humans are humans, and deserve equal treatment. If we do, than our civilization will be overrun by animals, and the human race will die off. This may sound insane, but that is what would be our inevitable fate. Imagine a world where rats and cockroaches were as free as humans, and where it were considered murder to kill either? Imagine the disease? Imagine all of the animal predators that would be free to reproduce and attack humans (we can't kill them off, because that would be murder). I want to stress that this is not a straw-man argument. It is the end which animal-rights folk seek to attain. They want animals to have human rights. When they claim that the clubbing of baby seals is murder, then they view the act of killing a seal as being equal to that of killing a human (making their importance equal). But what is it that makes baby seals important in the eyes of animal-rights people? Is it because they are mammals? Well, no. If this were the case then they would be even more pissed off at the killing of mice and rats (many more of them are killed each year). Is it because they are seen my humans as being cute? Yes! Is it because they are relatively intelligent creatures? (when compared to all other animals) Yes!

The point here is that both animal-rights activists, and those who are pro-clubbing of baby seals are on equal grounds here. We both value life based upon our own personal-human-perception of the world. This has nothing to do with open mindedness. In my mind, I view human life as being the ultimate on this planet, all other life is inferior and should not get in the way of human progress. 

Animal-rights people of course have not thought this out very much. I find that such people tend to be close-minded and angry. They use projection to imagine a human mind with emotions, pain, pleasure and general experience inside the heads of non-humans. In other-words, they incorrectly view all animals that have similar human qualities (hair, two eyes etc.) as BEING HUMAN. This is a big mistake, and it is just an over-extension (or as Dawkins would say: "a misfiring) of evolutionary hard-wiring. We are hardwired to want to love and protect things which we view as cute; this is because of the nurturing instincts we have towards human-babies. The thing is, open-mindedness does not apply to those that are only acting based upon instinct. Animal-rights people are merely acting upon their own instincts (which are misfiring). I say misfiring because the part of the mind responsible for behaving in such ways is only intended for humans.

Another 'misfiring' is our hard-wiring against cannibalism. Animal rights people perceive certain animals (cows, seals, etc.) subconsciously, or perhaps even consciously, as being human. This is why they find it disgusting to think about eating meat. We view the eating of human meat disgusting (well most people do). Here again, vegetarians mind-fuck (pardon my french) themselves into thinking that all meat = human meat. This causes that part of the brain that is revolted against eating human meat to be triggered. This is not open-mindedness, but delusional paranoia.

My final point here is that vegetarians (much overlap with the animal-rights crowd) refuse to eat meat, but they have no problem eating plants. They will claim "well, plants don't feel pain". But this is not the real answer, because even if the animal was given pain killers so that it felt no pain—they would still not eat it. The pain thing is just an excuse, it is the fact that these forms of life are more human-like than plants are. So it is not that they are against killing life in order to live, but that they don't want life that appears to be human-like to be killed. The difference here between vegetarians and those that eat meat is that we know that other animals are not humans, and act normally—vegetarians are fooled into thinking that all human-like animals are human, and they of course don't want to cannibalize.

My main point here is that if we stop clubbing baby seals, then we must stop killing all other forms of life on this planet, otherwise we would be hypocrites in valuing one form of non-human life as being higher than another.

Well, I'm going to go make me some eggs and sausage now. Enjoy your carrots you wimpy pricks.

P.S. If you try to point out any grammatical/punctuation mistakes, keep in mind that I didn't proof read this, so there probably are many (so you get no cookies or pats on the back). In other words, doing this shows butt-hurt feelings and an inability to refute any of the points made.

Have a great day! Thanks for stopping by :)

I don't really support the clubbing of baby seals, I think it is sad and a brutal practice. I just like to pick on animal-rights people, it's funny to watch them get all emotional.