Jump to content


Photo

That’s The Evolution Way.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#61 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 07 February 2011 - 12:53 AM

Crous,

Before I answer your questions, you need to tell me what you mean by “discrimination”. I disagree with your claim that humans discriminate against chimpanzees. I would define discrimination as a negative bias which is based on opinion rather than fact. We don’t treat chimpanzees as our equals because they are less intelligent than us. That’s not an opinion or a stereotype, it’s a proven fact.

There are plenty of groups in our society that are treated differently, but as long as it’s for a good reason than it’s not an example of discrimination.
So would you mind giving me your definition, and explaining why you feel humans discriminate against chimpanzees?

View Post


What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.

Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate” against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans” to discriminate against the lesser humans?

(I use the word “discrimination” for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discrimination”)

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

#62 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 07 February 2011 - 01:10 AM

Isabella...Isabella......

The two of use is looking at the same painting of a tree. You want to argue the type of the three and I’m discussing the meaning of the painting.

#63 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 07 February 2011 - 12:17 PM

Crous,
I don’t particularly enjoy arguing over semantics, but I felt that in this case it was necessary for me to understand what you meant by discrimination. In my opinion, there is nothing unjust about the fact that humans and chimpanzees have different rights. As I said, plenty of groups in our society have different rights and opportunities. Small children are not allowed to drive cars. Students who fail high school are not allowed to become doctors. People with severe mental illness require the care of an institution. To me, these are not examples of oppression or discrimination, and neither is the treatment of chimpanzees. This is not comparable to racism at all, and I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise. Racism is the belief that certain groups are superior based on the color of their skin. There is no evidence linking skin color to intelligence.
On that note, I will try to answer your questions.

1. Using the “V” as refines. When will it be OK to “discriminate”? (When you state that it is not OK you are not really answering the question. You are ignoring the history of evolution. You can answer the question by pointing to the amount of different between the future humans .obviously some imagination is required here)

View Post

It will be ok to treat another group/species differently as soon as there is a logical, un-biased reason to do so. If these “superhumans” (I dislike the term, but I’ll use it anyways) are legitimately more intelligent than us, they would have the right to start their own school system which would be off limits to human children. Keep in mind that even now, we have schools that are off-limits to certain groups... every college I’ve ever heard of has a minimum admission average, and private schools are limited to children from wealthy families.

2. Is it not natural to discriminate? (It is natural to discriminate against the Chimpanzee and other animals. You might be all for animal rights but you still won’t put your children in the same school as the children of chimpanzees)

View Post

If we’re defining discrimination as recognizing very real differences between groups, then yes of course it’s natural. It’s obvious that not all the living things on the planet are equal in all categories, and it would be illogical to pretend otherwise.

3. If it is natural, why is it wrong when people start to discriminate against other people? (The political correct answer should be that discrimination is wrong. But it still happens. You can say that the strongest have decided it to be wrong)

View Post

It becomes wrong when it’s based on opinion rather than fact. If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that. If they said that only white students with a 70% average would be accepted, that would be a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color and intelligence have any correlation, so to make such a claim would be discriminatory.

4. If the strongest group or person consider discrimination is wrong and in the future change their mind to say it’s ok. Does this mean it is OK to discriminate then? (Keep in mind that if you say it’s never ok. You are ignoring the history of evolution.)

View Post

I don’t think it would ever be ok to discriminate based on something that lacks grounds, like skin color or gender (with respect to intelligence). But as I said, if a real difference exists like the intelligence of two different species, it’s alright to recognize this difference and adjust treatment accordingly.


5. Today murder, rape and discrimination are wrong. And we cannot imagine it ever to be ok. But if those who are in power (a small group or the majority) deicide that this is ok. (Whatever the reason may be). Does this mean it is ethical ok to do this? Does this mean the morality have change? (In the past it was morally wrong to have an abortion. The people of the time could not imagine that a mother can consider it to kill her unborn child. Today it seems to be ok.)

View Post

This is a question based on opinion, so the best I can do is give you mine. No, I don’t think it’s ok for a small group to decide what rules society must follow. However, you say “a small group or the majority” as if those are the same thing. I believe in democracy, and I think in most cases the majority should make the decisions. However, there are some cases where this would not hold true.

#64 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 February 2011 - 12:26 PM

What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.


Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate” against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans” to discriminate against the lesser humans?


(I use the word “discrimination” for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discrimination”)

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

View Post

Great post. I understand exactly what you are saying.

#65 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 February 2011 - 01:57 PM

What I don’t want to do is to argue to precise definition of a word. Words have one meaning in a dictionary and another in practise. What I want you to do if focus it what I’m trying to say.

Yes there are variants between types of and reasons for discrimination.

One race think he have more rights than another = racism = discrimination (Hutus vs. Tutsis) Not acceptable.

One animal think he have more right to life because his smarter = discrimination (Humans vs. Chimpanzee) Acceptable.

According to the evolutionist Humans are just smart animals. When is it ok for one animal to place another animal in a cage?

If one animal eat a different animal it is accepted. If one lion kill and eat another lion it is accepted. If a human eat and kill a cow it is accepted. If a human kill and eat a chimpanzee it is for you and me not acceptable. But in parts of Africa it is accepted. For one human to eat another it is not accepted.

Human and a cow have a common ancestor.

Human and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.

Hutus and Tutsis have common ancestor.

You stated that it is ok for humans to “discriminate” against chimpanzee because we are smarter. When is it ok for the smarter “superhumans” to discriminate against the lesser humans?

(I use the word “discrimination” for the lack of a better word. Maybe I should use the world “natural-discrimination”)

Now see if you can answer the questions in post #57

*I had a similar discussion with some friends this weekend. What is interesting is that all the atheists did the same as you. Constantly avoiding my obvious questions. They constantly want to argue some words definition. Even considering that we all speak the same language.

View Post


First of all because people generally misunderstand the communication process they wrongly conclude and don’t understand your first sentence which shows an amazing insight on your part about words.

In trying to look at things from another point of view than my own, I can’t really accurately do that. What I have done therefore is to simulate another point of view as if it were external.

According to atheists who for the most part once believed in God, we have constructed a sand castle made up of pure fantasy about a God that does not exist along with his creative feats which the atheist “knows” did not really happen—the atheist knows better. The atheist feels he has an obligation to inform us that our sand castle is just that and not the fortified fortress we think it is. So, the atheist wants us to accept the ”reality” that we live behind the walls of our falsely secure sand castle. It is a noble effort on their part. The problem is that the atheist has built himself a sand castle and often retreats behind the walls of his equally fragile sand castle thinking because no one can see him hiding behind the walls that his castle is stronger than ours. Sometimes both sides don’t really realize what is going on.

There are two solutions to discrimination. One is situation specific. That is to treat the effect or the specific situations which initiated the discrimination cycle. The other solution is far more elegant. Vesuvius only erupts because of all the hot molten lava seeks the weakest place to break through the earth’s crust We can shore up the weakest place but the lava will just find another weaker place to come though. The elegant solution is to eliminate the lava at it’s source. That’s what Jesus proposed. when He advocated doing away with hate and replacing it with love. If you eliminate hate (lava) then you will never have to worry about it breaking through anywhere.

#66 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:48 AM

Crous,
I don’t particularly enjoy arguing over semantics, but I felt that in this case it was necessary for me to understand what you meant by discrimination. In my opinion, there is nothing unjust about the fact that humans and chimpanzees have different rights. As I said, plenty of groups in our society have different rights and opportunities. Small children are not allowed to drive cars. Students who fail high school are not allowed to become doctors. People with severe mental illness require the care of an institution. To me, these are not examples of oppression or discrimination, and neither is the treatment of chimpanzees. This is not comparable to racism at all, and I’m surprised you would suggest otherwise. Racism is the belief that certain groups are superior based on the color of their skin. There is no evidence linking skin color to intelligence.
On that note, I will try to answer your questions.

It will be ok to treat another group/species differently as soon as there is a logical, un-biased reason to do so. If these “superhumans” (I dislike the term, but I’ll use it anyways) are legitimately more intelligent than us, they would have the right to start their own school system which would be off limits to human children. Keep in mind that even now, we have schools that are off-limits to certain groups... every college I’ve ever heard of has a minimum admission average, and private schools are limited to children from wealthy families.

If we’re defining discrimination as recognizing very real differences between groups, then yes of course it’s natural. It’s obvious that not all the living things on the planet are equal in all categories, and it would be illogical to pretend otherwise.
It becomes wrong when it’s based on opinion rather than fact. If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that. If they said that only white students with a 70% average would be accepted, that would be a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color and intelligence have any correlation, so to make such a claim would be discriminatory.

I don’t think it would ever be ok to discriminate based on something that lacks grounds, like skin color or gender (with respect to intelligence).  But as I said, if a real difference exists like the intelligence of two different species, it’s alright to recognize this difference and adjust treatment accordingly.
This is a question based on opinion, so the best I can do is give you mine. No, I don’t think it’s ok for a small group to decide what rules society must follow. However, you say “a small group or the majority” as if those are the same thing. I believe in democracy, and I think in most cases the majority should make the decisions. However, there are some cases where this would not hold true.

View Post


Thank you for answering my questions.
It seems that you do not disagree on the fact that the stronger makes the decisions. “The stronger” can be one person (Dictatorship), a small group (Communist) or the majority (Democracy).

The two of us are living in a Democracy. The power is in the hands of the voters. (Or in the hands of the one that can manipulate the voters. :huh: T.I.A)
If the majority of us want something to changed, for better or for worse, we have the power.

In a Dictatorship and a communist society a small group of people have the power and they make the rules. Even if the two of us do not agree it is right, according to evolution this is natural and in the end not naturally wrong. (The strongest survives)
Morals in an atheist society are governed by the power of the time. In an atheist society their morals can evolve into something different.

Let’s concentrate on a democracy. (I think in the end democracy will have the power) An atheist’s morals are subjected to change. If the majority of the people decide its ok to kill and unborn child, it is ok. (This change of morals I have witnessed in my life time.)

Change for the good: All humans have equal rights.

Change for the worse: The killing of an unborn child. (In the past an unborn child was human but we have evolved and so have our morals to the point that a unborn chide have less right than the human mother) *Question: Are you “pro life” or “pro choice”?*

Some groups that thought they had the power have already decided that skin colour and intelligence go hand on hand. Luckily they failed.

I agree that the colour of your skin have nothing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). But the access to food, medicine and education, has every thing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). This means that the first world countries will have smarter people than the 3rd world countries. Even if the two of us want to be optimistic and think it will all change for the better. Reality is that the education level in 3rd world is getting worse compare to the education level of the first world country. At some stage there will be “smarter humans” vs. “humans”. You already admitted that intelligence is grounds for discrimination. Isabella: “If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that.” Does this mean that the future people with less intelligent (humans) will have fewer rights than intelligent people (superhuman, smart humans)? In a world where resources is getting lesser and people getting more. When will the smarter humans consider their life more valuable than the less intelligent human? It happened to the chimpanzee.

I do have atheist friends. And just like you they are good people. I’m just pointing out that your morals are subjected to change. Change that is govern by the “Power” of the time. The biggest deferens between me and my atheism friends’ morals is our view on abortion. All of them are “pro choice”.

#67 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 08 February 2011 - 01:22 AM

First of all because people generally misunderstand the communication process they wrongly conclude and don’t understand your first sentence which shows an amazing insight on your part about words. .

View Post


I’m living in a country with 11 official languages. Depending where you are in the country, English is our second language. Because of all this cultures and languages communication is not just restricted to word. You have to have some knowledge of that person. To understand what the person is saying you have to learn to listen to what the person is saying and not get stuck on the meanings of every word.

In trying to look at things from another point of view than my own,  I can’t really accurately do that.  What I have done therefore is to  simulate another point of view as if it were external.

View Post


I attempt to do this as well.

According to atheists who for the most part once believed in God, we have constructed a sand castle  made up of pure fantasy about a God that does not exist along with his creative feats which the atheist  “knows” did not really happen—the atheist knows better.  The atheist feels he has an obligation to inform us that our sand castle is just that and not the fortified fortress we think it is. So, the atheist wants us to accept the ”reality” that we live behind the walls of our falsely secure sand castle. It is a noble effort on their part. The problem is that the atheist has built himself a sand castle and often retreats behind the walls of his equally fragile sand castle thinking because no one can see him hiding behind the walls that his castle is stronger than ours.  Sometimes both sides don’t really realize what is going on.

View Post


Ones a person is a born-again Christian they will never be able to deny the existents of God. They may fool them self in denying God, but that’s all it is, a lie.

There are two solutions to discrimination.  One is situation specific. That  is to treat the effect or the specific situations which initiated the discrimination cycle. The other solution is far more elegant. Vesuvius only erupts because of all the hot molten lava seeks the weakest place to break through the earth’s crust  We can shore up the weakest place      but the lava will just find another weaker place to come though. The elegant solution is to eliminate the lava at it’s source. That’s what Jesus proposed. when He advocated doing away with hate and replacing it with  love.  If you eliminate hate (lava)   then you will never have to worry about it breaking through anywhere.

View Post


The moment we follow Jesus’ (is God) teaching all this problems will come to an end. When you make your decisions out of love for others even your enemies and not out of love for yourself, will you be the solutions to this type of problems.

#68 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 08 February 2011 - 01:45 AM

Great post. I understand exactly what you are saying.

View Post

Thanks

#69 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:14 AM

I’m living in a country with 11 official languages. Depending where you are in the country, English is our second language. Because of all this cultures and languages communication is not just restricted to word. You have to have some knowledge of that person. To understand what the person is saying you have to learn to listen to what the person is saying and not get stuck on the meanings of every word.
I attempt to do this as well.
Ones a person is a born-again Christian they will never be able to deny the existents of God. They may fool them self in denying God, but that’s all it is, a lie.
The moment we follow Jesus’ (is God) teaching all this problems will come to an end. When you make your decisions out of love for others even your enemies and not out of love for yourself, will you be the solutions to this type of problems.

View Post


In terms of meaning of words, I have had a difficult time convincing some of our only English speaking people that meaning is a function of the individual mind. It is to them a difficul to understan concept. It is something you acquired and understand by being exposed to so many different language groups.You realize even between people in the same language group a person may have given a particular word a slightly different meaning than yourself or others. Even though English is your second language you have explained it better than I did. I have in many cases given up trying to explain it and prayed that someday later they may be given the insight you have. You are blessed to understand this my friend.

I thought English might not be your first language. I taught ESL (English Second Language) to adults fom many differentl countriies for several years.

Your conclusions follow mine. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," John 14:6 Love is the final solution. 1st Corinthians 13.

#70 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 09 February 2011 - 11:54 AM

In a Dictatorship and a communist society a small group of people have the power and they make the rules. Even if the two of us do not agree it is right, according to evolution this is natural and in the end not naturally wrong. (The strongest survives)

View Post

I feel like I keep saying this over and over: evolution is not about the strongest surviving or having more power! Evolution is all about reproductive success; it has nothing to do with politics, or the idea that it’s “natural” for a small group to be in change.

Morals in an atheist society are governed by the power of the time. In an atheist society their morals can evolve into something different.

Let’s concentrate on a democracy. (I think in the end democracy will have the power) An atheist’s morals are subjected to change. If the majority of the people decide its ok to kill and unborn child, it is ok. (This change of morals I have witnessed in my life time.)

View Post

I disagree. Do you have evidence to suggest that atheists were primarily pro-life at one time, and have since shifted their morals to become pro-choice? Perhaps the opinion of the majority can change over time, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the majority is comprised of atheists who keep changing their values. I don’t know about South Africa, but in Canada the majority of the population belongs to some sort of religion. According to Wikipedia, 77% of Canadians are Christians, and only 16% are not religious.

Change for the worse: The killing of an unborn child. (In the past an unborn child was human but we have evolved and so have our morals to the point that a unborn chide have less right than the human mother) *Question: Are you “pro life” or “pro choice”?*

View Post

I’d rather not get into a big debate about abortion, but I am pro-choice. Just to be clear, pro-choice does not mean that I support abortion or think that it’s a good thing. Abortions are typically done early in the pregnancy, and at this point the embryo or fetus is physically dependant on the mother and is essentially part of her body. Although I don’t like the idea of killing an unborn baby, I think that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body. In my opinion, because the embryo/fetus lacks autonomy from the mother it is a more complex situation than the murder of a fully independent human and cannot automatically be labelled as such.

I agree that the colour of your skin have nothing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). But the access to food, medicine and education, has every thing to do with the ability of your brain (intelligence). This means that the first world countries will have smarter people than the 3rd world countries. Even if the two of us want to be optimistic and think it will all change for the better. Reality is that the education level in 3rd world is getting worse compare to the education level of the first world country.

View Post

I suppose it depends how you define intelligence. If it’s based on your ability to solve complex math equations or write essays, then people in a first world country would be more intelligent. To me, this is a very limited definition. I think people in third world countries have the same capacity to learn as people in wealthy nations, however they often lack the resources to do so.

At some stage there will be “smarter humans” vs. “humans”. You already admitted that intelligence is grounds for discrimination. Isabella: “If a college said that only students with an average of 70% would be accepted, there would be nothing wrong with that.” Does this mean that the future people with less intelligent (humans) will have fewer rights than intelligent people (superhuman, smart humans)?

View Post

Let’s consider my college example for a moment. All children have the right to attend a public school, where they will be evaluated equally regardless of race, gender, etc. Some students will get above 70% and some will get below 70%. Both have the right to apply to the college, but only the students who got above 70% will be accepted. Does this mean the students who got below 70% have fewer rights? I don’t think so. Either these students didn’t work as hard, or they are less intelligent. In the same sense, I don’t think humans would necessarily have fewer rights than a more intelligent species, just limited opportunities.

#71 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:41 PM

I feel like I keep saying this over and over: evolution is not about the strongest surviving or having more power! Evolution is all about reproductive success; it has nothing to do with politics, or the idea that it’s “natural” for a small group to be in change.


After reading both of your posts here is something you might want to consider. You may both be talking about two different subjects that share the same name.

When you talk about evolution Isabella, you are talking about biological evolution. When Crous talks about evolution he is talking about the philosophical spin off based on social implications of evolution. In the past it has been refereed to as Social Darwinism. The concept has been abandoned by Neo Darwinism but, it was the basis of the fascist ideas and concepts of Hitler and hierarchical governments where the elite lead the expendable masses.

The writer of our Declaration of Independence declared independence from a hierarchical government at the time England specifically. Jefferson was not saying everyone was equal in terms of skills orintelligence but would be granted legal equal status just because they were human.

Darwin believed he belonged to the "favored races' and while he didn’t champion slavery and was even credited with wishing it abolished, his ideas paralleled the society and government of his time. The “elite” of the species governed the expendable masses. Jefferson essentially ended the hiearchial form of government (England) in the USA.

If someone was oly three fifth of a human one was considered and animal and animals could be bought and sold. The 3 fifth of a human ideas which led to slavery was based on Social Darwinism. Marx and numerous others embraced Social Darwinism. In Russia Stalin was responsible for ordering the death of 50 million people because they were considered expendablle to the state and party (survival of the fittest).

I disagree. Do you have evidence to suggest that atheists were primarily pro-life at one time, and have since shifted their morals to become pro-choice? Perhaps the opinion of the majority can change over time, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the majority is comprised of atheists who keep changing their values. I don’t know about South Africa, but in Canada the majority of the population belongs to some sort of religion. According to Wikipedia, 77% of Canadians are Christians, and only 16% are not religious.


Once again the same problem as above. Creationism is connected to a moral law the Ten Commandments for example. Atheism is perceived as a variable and subject to no standard moral law. Because there is no agreement generally as to what is right and what is wrong among atheists, they are mistrusted. I believe in getting to know each person as an indiiidual so worry why soemone would anounce at the beginning of a relationship that they are atheist. In view of all the baggage connected why bother? Majority is a dubious concept if we are all individuals. I sometimes point this out but have had little success getting the concept of belonging to a group seen as a "silly" idea.

I’d rather not get into a big debate about abortion, but I am pro-choice. Just to be clear, pro-choice does not mean that I support abortion or think that it’s a good thing. Abortions are typically done early in the pregnancy, and at this point the embryo or fetus is physically dependant on the mother and is essentially part of her body. Although I don’t like the idea of killing an unborn baby, I think that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her body. In my opinion, because the embryo/fetus lacks autonomy from the mother it is a more complex situation than the murder of a fully independent human and cannot automatically be labelled as such


Lets look at it from a guys point of view. When there is a reproductive union of a man and a women most women & men realize that a baby could be the result. Even though 23 of the chromosomes come from the male many have bought into the argument that it should be the woman’s right to terminate not even consulting the guy. Do you have the right to destroy a house because half of it is yours and you may live in it? I think men have rights too. Moreover the baby is actually not an estension of the womasn body, it is connecte by an umbilical cord wich is designed be severed when the child is born Talk. about spin. :D .

Here is a comment on your non autonomous argument. The most viable place for a fetus to grow is in the womb. That’s the reality of life. In the womb it is virtually guaranteed to be fed nurtured and in other ways protected form harsh environments. A baby is more vulnerable to abuse outside the womb than it is inside the womb. That’s the way life goes. At a specific time a baby is going to be born. “I am coming out!” :D


Let’s consider my college example for a moment. All children have the right to attend a public school, where they will be evaluated equally regardless of race, gender, etc. Some students will get above 70% and some will get below 70%. Both have the right to apply to the college, but only the students who got above 70% will be accepted. Does this mean the students who got below 70% have fewer rights? I don’t think so. Either these students didn’t work as hard, or they are less intelligent. In the same sense, I don’t think humans would necessarily have fewer rights than a more intelligent species, just limited opportunities.


I have to agree. As they say that is “obnoxious reality!”

#72 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:09 PM

After reading both of your posts here is something you might want to consider. You may both be talking about two different subjects that share the same name.

When you talk about evolution Isabella, you are talking about biological evolution. When Crous talks about evolution he is talking about the philosophical spin off based on social implications of evolution. In the past it has been refereed to as Social Darwinism. The concept has been abandoned by Neo Darwinism but, it was the basis of the fascist ideas and concepts of Hitler and hierarchical governments where the elite lead the expendable masses.

View Post

I agree that this appears to be the misconception, and I am trying to make it clear that biological evolution and social Darwinism are not the same thing. Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and despite the name it has nothing to do with Darwin either. It is a misrepresentation of evolution used to justify certain political, economic, and social policies. it’s very outdated and is in no way consistent with the views held by most modern evolutionists.

Once again the same problem as above. Creationism is connected to a moral law the Ten Commandments for example. Atheism is perceived as a variable and subject to no standard moral law. Because there is no agreement generally as to what is right and what is wrong among atheists, they are mistrusted. I believe in getting to know each person as an indiiidual so worry why soemone would anounce at the beginning of a relationship that they are atheist. In view of all the baggage connected why bother?

View Post

Are you suggesting that atheists should keep quiet about what they believe? I don’t introduce myself by saying, “Hello, I’m an atheist.” But at the same time, I’m very open about my beliefs and I would never attempt to hide them in order to gain someone’s acceptance. I don’t think there should be any “baggage” associated with atheism. Pre-conceived stereotypes only lead to discrimination.

Despite the Ten Commandments there is plenty of moral controversy within Christianity as well, so it’s not like every Christian I’ve met is morally predictable or trustworthy.

Majority is a dubious concept if we are all individuals. I sometimes point this out but have had little success getting the concept of belonging to a group seen as a "silly" idea.

View Post

We’re all individuals, but our beliefs can still be categorized. Although your beliefs are probably not identical to every other Christian out there, you still label yourself as a Christian.

Lets look at it from a guys point of view. When there is a reproductive union of a man and a women most women & men realize that a baby could be the result. Even though 23 of the chromosomes come from the male many have bought into the argument that it should be the woman’s right to terminate not even consulting the guy. Do you have the right to destroy a house because half of it is yours and you may live in it?

View Post

Perhaps this is a better analogy: A man and woman design a house together. Then while the man does nothing (except perhaps providing some emotional and financial support), the woman is expected to spend the next nine months gathering the materials and building the house on her own... followed by 18 more years of maintenance and upkeep. Sure, the man helped with the design. But should it be his right to say that she must go through with the full construction?

That was a silly analogy, but you brought up houses and I couldn’t resist. In all seriousness, I understand that from a man’s point of view pro-choice can be extremely unfair. That being said, when a woman gets an abortion there’s a good chance she’s not in a committed relationship, or the man she’s with isn’t ready to be a father. I also think it’s very difficult for men to relate to what a woman is going through when she finds out she’s pregnant. Having never been pregnant, I can’t fully relate either. However I know how terrifying it must be, especially for a girl or woman that lacks the support of a partner. Suddenly your body is no longer your own, and your whole future has changed.

I would like to believe that if abortion was not an option, most women would do the responsible thing and either care for their baby or put it up for adoption. But I’ve heard enough tragic news stories about babies being found in garbage bags, abused, or abandoned, to know that this wouldn’t always be the case. I’m not saying abortion is the right choice, but I think it’s important that it’s at least an option.

I think men have rights too. Moreover the baby is actually not an estension of the womasn body, it is connecte by an umbilical cord wich is designed be severed when the child is born Talk. about spin.

View Post

I know the fetus is not genetically part of her body, but it’s using her oxygen and nutrients to grow. Every cell in its body is made out of molecules taken from her. In that sense, I would say it’s physically a part of her even though it is a distinct life.

Here is a comment on your non autonomous argument. The most viable place for a fetus to grow is in the womb. That’s the reality of life. In the womb it is virtually guaranteed to be fed nurtured and in other ways protected form harsh environments. A baby is more vulnerable to abuse outside the womb than it is inside the womb. That’s the way life goes. At a specific time a baby is going to be born. “I am coming out!”

View Post

I don’t see how this is refuting my argument. The fetus is dependent on the mother until a certain point in the pregnancy. I’m not sure how premature a baby can be born and still kept alive, but I know there’s a limit.

#73 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 February 2011 - 01:50 AM

One of the digest visible differences between Christians and atheist is there view on abortion. As a Christian we know we have a soul. As atheist you don’t know you have a soul. (I’m talking about the Christian definition of a soul.) The moment of conception the soul exists. This soul do not belong to you (ever) it belongs to God. This is way when an atheist look at a fetus they do not see a human. They will call an unwanted baby a fetus and we will call it a baby.

#74 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:22 AM

Isabella

I do not understand why you insist that moral it not a product of evolution?

Maybe I should ask. Where do you (atheist) think morals come from?

Do you think that moral is subjected to change?

1.When a lion kills another lion, for food, is it murder?
2.When human kills an animal, for food, is it murder?
3.When a human today kills another human, for food, is it murder?
4.If 100 000 years ago a human killed another human,for food, is it murder?


A stronger lion will kill the weaker lion to take control of the pride. This will result in a stronger leader and protector of the pride. This helps the pride to survive and in stronger offspring. Is this not called survival of the fittest (evolution)?

#75 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:54 AM

I know the fetus is not genetically part of her body, but it’s using her oxygen and nutrients to grow. Every cell in its body is made out of molecules taken from her. In that sense, I would say it’s physically a part of her even though it is a distinct life.

I don’t see how this is refuting my argument. The fetus is dependent on the mother until a certain point in the pregnancy. I’m not sure how premature a baby can be born and still kept alive, but I know there’s a limit.

View Post

All children depend on others in order to survive. Neglect is illegal.

#76 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:56 AM

The moment of conception the soul exists. This soul do not belong to you (ever) it belongs to God.

This is very touching to me. Thank you all for posts like this one.

#77 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:12 AM

Isabella

I do not understand why you insist that moral it not a product of evolution?

Maybe I should ask. Where do you (atheist) think morals come from?

Do you think that moral is subjected to change?

1.When a lion kills another lion, for food, is it murder?
2.When human kills an animal, for food, is it murder?
3.When a human today kills another human, for food, is it murder?
4.If 100 000 years ago a human killed another human,for food, is it murder?


A stronger lion will kill the weaker lion to take control of the pride. This will result in a stronger leader and protector of the pride. This helps the pride to survive and in stronger offspring. Is this not called survival of the fittest (evolution)?

View Post


You are correct my friend. That’s the problem with evos—their incongruities. They claim that evolution is the cause of everything and then they switch to the idea that morality was created by who knows who? If evo is correct, how can anything exist without evo ultimately being the cause of it? Mom used to say, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” If the ideas of God and religion are false then evo has to take responsibility for them also.

#78 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:00 PM

One of the digest visible differences between Christians and atheist is there view on abortion. As a Christian we know we have a soul. As atheist you don’t know you have a soul. (I’m talking about the Christian definition of a soul.) The moment of conception the soul exists. This soul do not belong to you (ever) it belongs to God. This is way when an atheist look at a fetus they do not see a human. They will call an unwanted baby a fetus and we will call it a baby.

View Post

I still recognize a fetus as a human. The terms zygote, blastula, embryo, fetus, etc. are used because they are descriptive of the stage of development, in the same way that we use words like “toddler” and “teenager” to describe human development. They’re not attempts to de-humanize the unborn baby.


I do not understand why you insist that moral it not a product of evolution?

View Post

Given the distinction between evolution as a biological theory (which I believe in) and the misrepresentation of evolution as a social theory (which I have made it clear that I do not believe in), how exactly do you think evolution has affected my morals? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I would really like to hear your answer.

If you’re suggesting that morals are the product of evolution in the sense that human behaviour is genetically determined, I would agree with you to some extent. However based on what you’ve been saying, it seems to me that you’re less concerned with the evolutionary process and more concerned with social Darwinism.

Maybe I should ask. Where do you (atheist) think morals come from?

View Post

I think morals are a combination of learned social behaviours and genetically determined social behaviours.

Do you think that moral is subjected to change?

View Post

Over time, yes. I think this is true for both Christians and atheists alike. The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoning. Do Christians still believe that this is a morally acceptable punishment? Since the time that the Old Testament was written, many religions have formed and all have diverse moral views. Everyone still follows the basic rules: don’t murder, don’t steal, respect your parents, etc. but I think it’s fair to say that these values are so widespread they can hardly be considered purely religious in nature. Atheists follow those rules too, after all.
Just to be clear, I don’t think morals are subject to change dramatically within one’s lifetime. Just because I’m an atheist, I’m not going to wake up one day and randomly decide that murder is ok.

1.When a lion kills another lion, for food, is it murder?
2.When human kills an animal, for food, is it murder?
3.When a human today kills another human, for food, is it murder?
4.If 100 000 years ago a human killed another human,for food, is it murder?

View Post

Killing is killing, regardless of who’s doing it or why. Again this comes down to semantics, but I think the word murder implies killing another person with a malicious intent. Only the latter two fit that definition (although I can’t really make any assumptions about the intent of a human 100,000 years ago).


A stronger lion will kill the weaker lion to take control of the pride. This will result in a stronger leader and protector of the pride. This helps the pride to survive and in stronger offspring. Is this not called survival of the fittest (evolution)?

View Post

In this case, if the stronger lion was better able to survive and reproduce then I suppose this would be survival of the fittest. Physical strength can sometimes be a factor in reproductive success. However I hope you’re not trying to draw a parallel between lion social dynamics and that of humans. If a human killed another to gain political power, this is unlikely to impact their own survival or the number of children they will produce. This would not be an example of fitness.

#79 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 February 2011 - 02:13 AM

I still recognize a fetus as a human.



Yet you feel a mother still have the right to murder this human.

The terms zygote, blastula, embryo, fetus, etc. are used because they are descriptive of the stage of development, in the same way that we use words like “toddler” and “teenager” to describe human development. They’re not attempts to de-humanize the unborn baby.


I do understand this. But you will find when atheists start talking about abortion they almost never refer to this unborn child as a baby or as n human child. Why? Because it is immoral to murder a human child so you have to de-humanize this human child to a bunch of cells. Somehow you need to justify this genocide.

The worst thing I can think of is when a mother murders her child. But morally it is ok for an atheist. Only an animal kills their babies. Then again according to your (atheist) we are just animals.

You will recognize that I do not distinguish between an unborn child and a living child. For me there is no difference.

Your (atheist) morals have changed so match that it is ok for a mother to kill her child.

What is next? Discriminating against those that is less intelligent. Killing the terminally sick. The execution off any criminal. Killing of orphans and AIDS babies . You can expect anything from a society when they are able to kill there unborn in the name of comfort.

Minister Joe Wright: “We have killed our unborn and called it choice.”
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4124
http://en.wikipedia....rtion_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia....in_South_Africa

#80 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 February 2011 - 03:09 AM

Yet you feel a mother still have the right to murder this human.
I do understand this. But you will find when atheists start talking about abortion they almost never refer to this unborn child as a baby or as n human child. Why? Because it is immoral to murder a human child so you have to de-humanize this human child to a bunch of cells. Somehow you need to justify this genocide.

The worst thing I can think of is when a mother murders her child. But morally it is ok for an atheist. Only an animal kills their babies. Then again according to your (atheist) we are just animals.

You will recognize that I do not distinguish between an unborn child and a living child. For me there is no difference.

Your (atheist) morals have changed so match that it is ok for a mother to kill her child.

What is next? Discriminating against those that is less intelligent. Killing the terminally sick. The execution off any criminal. Killing of orphans and AIDS babies . You can expect anything from a society when they are able to kill there unborn in the name of comfort.

Minister Joe Wright: “We have killed our unborn and called it choice.”
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4124
http://en.wikipedia....rtion_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia....in_South_Africa

View Post


Crous, thank you for being such a strong voice standing up for the innocent! Amen to your post.

It's interesting that a man who murders a pregnant woman can be charged for double murder. Yet a woman and a doctor who work together to murder her own unborn child? It becomes a legal and acceptable "procedure".

They call it choice - when one must ask, what choice is it? The choice to kill? So it is now a woman's right to murder her own child? What choice does the baby have? The baby has no voice with which to defend her/himself, no ability to escape and hide, no trial before being put on the worst kind of death row. The murder these children are subjected to defies belief. Even a criminal on death row who has committed a grevious crime has a more humane death.

The unborn child has committed no crime and is innocent, yet is subjected to the most henious act imaginable. The jewish holocaust does not even come close to the unborn holocaust, yet it's treated as "normal". Or "an option" and made legal. I've seen people stand up for animal rights, unbelievers/believers alike, are completely indifferent to the rights of the unborn human child. SAVE THE WHALE, but stuff the unborn child. I've had people get angry at me for ever putting anything up on my facebook page that supports the protection of unborn children, yet praise me if I ever put up anything supporting the rights and protection of animals.

The unborn child is an individual. She/he is human, she/he has a gender. The unborn child is not a mole, a wart, or a tumour, yet it is treated as though he/she is as soon as she/he becomes an inconvenience. Then that little person becomes, disposable (at least in some people's eyes).

It's a woman's right ? If we are to be consistent, it should then be a woman's right to murder her child at any point during the child''s early years. If she feels the child is not wanted anymore, causing a financial burden, or is a source of grief (memories etc), then surely it is her right to kill that child? It's hers afterall and who has the right to interfere? Afterall, if we're to be consistent, it's anybody's right to kill their children at any point in time and it's actually safer to kill a child out of the womb than inside the womb where the mother can herself be maimed/damaged in some way. Yet somehow we recognise it as murder and wrong when it comes to a child out of the womb (apart from those who support partial birth abortion). But if the child is hidden inside the womb, it's no longer murder (unless it's a pregnant mother killed by somebody).

Just because a dreadful crime becomes "legal", does not make it right. Just as if they legalised peodophilia. Would that then make it acceptable behaviour? Of course not. So how on earth can murdering an unborn child be considered acceptable behaviour under any circumstances?

Problem is, those that are for abortion will ALWAYS use the most extreme circumstances as their reason for supporting abortion. They will frequently attempt to use the guilt trip resonse of "incest/rape/risk to mother if she has the child" etc. This is what they will do to attempt to make the pro-lifers feel somehow guilty about supporting the life of unborn children. But you must ask them, why not then abort the rapist? Why is the unborn child the one to be murdered for a crime it did not commit? How does commiting murder on an unborn child a lesser crime than the rape/incest and how does this help anybody by matching one crime with another that is as bad, if not worse. If the Mother is in danger from a dodgy pregnancy, the baby is also in danger of being deliberatey murdered. I have heard of pregnant mothers being told they should not go through with the pregancy and should abort because of the risk, wind up going through with it and both Mum and baby surviing fine and the Mum being horrified at how close she was to having the child aborted. Such mother preferred to risk themselves than deliberately kill their unborn baby.

The thing is, most abortions are not occuring because of the above extreme circumstances anyway. Most are done out of unwanted/inconvenient pregnancies. Either way, killing an innocent child should not be justifiable under any circumstances. Once we allowed such a vile foot in the door, the flood gates open and we have yet another holocaust on our hands that shows a barbaric and sinful society who murders its own children and calls it "choice".

Of course, they will also claim that if we don't do this, we will have backstreet abortions. We cannot stop people commiting such crimes, because they will happen. But to legalise such an act, just to make it "cleaner" and "safer" for the Mother, makes us as a society (who support this) part of this murderous act and has also increased the murders to an extreme, because it's so much easier now to "get rid of" the child. It does not change the seriousness of the crime, but rather makes criminals out of many more people (doctors included). I have also heard that there is a deliberate exaggeration of these apparent "backstreet" abortions, that are not as frequent as we have been lead to believe. But those who are attempting to promote abortions (financial motivation), which would not surprise me. Since planned parenthood are known to do whatever it takes to get more abortions! Ex abortionists have also made statements as to what they were told to say and do to gain as many abortions as possible and not let on how human the child really is. Some thankfully got out of it, after they could no longer stand to be a part of mutiliating/murdering innocent babies and then having to put the pieces back together (like a jigsaw) of the once complete baby to ensure that no parts were left inside the Mother. The humanity of the child is in no doubt, but it must become that much more evident and in your face as one pieces together the tiny limbs/fingers/toes etc.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users