Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Ethics Poll


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life? (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life?

  1. Yes (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. No (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 April 2011 - 07:16 PM

No probs, I am curious to hear what you do use for your morality? (If I may be so bold to ask lol )

View Post


Sympathy and empathy. The idea that all human are born equal, that no one is above the other. By whatever means, most people come to the same basic idea of morality. Don't kill, don't lie, don't cheat. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 April 2011 - 01:49 AM

Sympathy and empathy. The idea that all human are born equal, that no one is above the other. By whatever means, most people come to the same basic idea of morality. Don't kill, don't lie, don't cheat. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

View Post


:lol: The idea that all humans are born equal goes against evolutionary principles, however I am glad that you believe in this as in a non-naturalistic context it is correct :)

#23 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:58 AM

Right, there's competition, but it doesn't contribute to evolution.
Most communities have a dominance hierarchy, with the best resources/mating privileges going to higher up members. Many communities, meerkats and wolves for example, heavily suppress breeding within the lower ranks, thus allowing only the strongest and best get to pass on the genes, while the lower ranks just get to live. And in other communities where/when mating within the lower ranks are allowed, they are usually alloted less resources to rear their young, meaning they get to raise less offspring.

View Post

Yes ashley. I have always thought S@xual selection would actually be a deterrent to evolution. I watched a show on elephants the oher night, and they have the dominance hiearchy of which you speak. Two males will fight for days without eating for the breeding rights of several females. Since they are nearly identical in phenotype, it would seem to me that stasis would be insured, matching the creation model of baramin (created kinds). Obviously, this instinct ensures the strongest pass their genes though. I don't know how that predicts change in phenotype, besides size and strength variation (I don't know how something could start evolving to make an elephant "better").

I am not advocating species fixity, as I realize there is variation. But realize also that "species" is a subjective definition--a man made parameter, based on differences in pheno/genotypes.

As for devaluing of life. I tend to believe the popularity of evolution is the symptom of a society that hasn't had a visitation of God for quite a few years. A visitation of God changes everything, as there will no longer be a question about God's existence.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 04:22 AM

This seems to be a subjective opinion attempting to be objective. So, coming from an atheistic standpoint, what does it really matter if an evolutionist is good or bad as long as the stronger traits are passed on, and the weaker stifled?
Again, what does it matter to the materialist atheist? As long as the strongest weeds out the weakest, what does it matter if a weaker human life devalued?

View Post


I don't use the ToE as a base for my morality.

View Post


I at no time asserted that you use evolution as a base for your morality. Please re-read the questions.
I said “So, coming from an atheistic standpoint, what does it really matter if an evolutionist is good or bad as long as the stronger traits are passed on, and the weaker stifled?”

And “Again, what does it matter to the materialist atheist? As long as the strongest weeds out the weakest, what does it matter if a weaker human life devalued?”.

I’ll assume, at this point, you misread my post…

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 04:30 AM

Sympathy and empathy. The idea that all human are born equal, that no one is above the other. By whatever means, most people come to the same basic idea of morality. Don't kill, don't lie, don't cheat. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

View Post


Once again: To the materialist atheist WHY? If the human is nothing more than “matter in motion”, if one bag of biological mass asserts its strength and superior survival skills over that of a weaker bag of biological mass, why does it matter to a materialist atheist if they kill, lie, or cheat? And, obviously (from a materialistic standpoint), if one bag of biological mass “over comes by any means” a weaker bag of biological mass, then they weren’t equal.

I could go into the mechanics of origins for “morality” and “equality” from the “materialistic atheist”, but I think the above questions are sufficient.

#26 Glaucus

Glaucus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colorado

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:07 PM

If anything, I'd say that evolution increases the value of life. When I think about it, I realize that I am connected to everything around me. I (we) have a kinship with all other organisms. I can feel the emotions of other organisms (my dog for example), not just because of empathy and sympathy, but because him and I share a bloodline. That bloodline, can be used to connect me with the universe, because I know that the matter that created me, my dog, the lakes and forests, and other planets, was once fused in the core of a star. Those stars had to "die" in order for our ancestors (human and non) to form, and ultimately for me to be born.

All in all, I think Evolution and The Big Bang are some of the most beautiful ways to interpret this world.

So while, yes, we are simply "matter in motion" it's up to me to put meaning behind my mass through my actions and deeds while I'm alive, and through how I leave this world when my matter and energy are passed onto the next organism that consumes them.

#27 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 April 2011 - 04:33 PM

Once again: To the materialist atheist WHY? If the human is nothing more than “matter in motion”, if one bag of biological mass asserts its strength and superior survival skills over that of a weaker bag of biological mass, why does it matter to a materialist atheist if they kill, lie, or cheat?

Glaucus said it perfectly when he said that one put value into life myself. I accept evolution, but I believe in a lot more than just evolution.

And, obviously (from a materialistic standpoint), if one bag of biological mass “over comes by any means” a weaker bag of biological mass, then they weren’t equal.

View Post

I should clarify what I mean when I say people are born equal. Yes, biologically, people are born differently, and not equal in all regards. Some are tall, sort, smart, not-so-smart, ect... But in spirit, people are born equal. Some might be better at other in some aspects, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently better than another.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 06:51 PM

If anything, I'd say that evolution increases the value of life.  When I think about it, I realize that I am connected to everything around me.  I (we) have a kinship with all other organisms.  I can feel the emotions of other organisms (my dog for example), not just because of empathy and sympathy, but because him and I share a bloodline.  That bloodline, can be used to connect me with the universe, because I know that the matter that created me, my dog, the lakes and forests, and other planets, was once fused in the core of a star.  Those stars had to "die" in order for our ancestors (human and non) to form, and ultimately for me to be born.

All in all, I think Evolution and The Big Bang are some of the most beautiful ways to interpret this world.

So while, yes, we are simply "matter in motion"  it's up to me to put meaning behind my mass through my actions and deeds while I'm alive, and through how I leave this world when my matter and energy are passed onto the next organism that consumes them.

View Post


So matter created you? That’s quite the faith statement Glaucus; rather ‘religious’ sounding. In fact, I cannot find one statement in both of your above paragraphs that was not faith based. What is even odder is that I was speaking of “materialistic” atheism, not the “spiritual” atheist you are claiming to be (based upon your above statements).

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 06:57 PM

Once again: To the materialist atheist WHY? If the human is nothing more than “matter in motion”, if one bag of biological mass asserts its strength and superior survival skills over that of a weaker bag of biological mass, why does it matter to a materialist atheist if they kill, lie, or cheat?

Glaucus said it perfectly when he said that one put value into life myself. I accept evolution, but I believe in a lot more than just evolution.

View Post


Unfortunately, Glaucus is not speaking from a “materialistic” atheists standpoint. And I was specifically addressing that worldview. In fact, Glaucus sounds more like a theistic evolutionist, and I’m wondering if he does not have the correct worldview posted in his bio here.

And, obviously (from a materialistic standpoint), if one bag of biological mass “over comes by any means” a weaker bag of biological mass, then they weren’t equal.

View Post

I should clarify what I mean when I say people are born equal. Yes, biologically, people are born differently, and not equal in all regards. Some are tall, sort, smart, not-so-smart, ect... But in spirit, people are born equal. Some might be better at other in some aspects, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently better than another.

View Post


Again, I was addressing the “materialistic atheist”, therefore your entire premise of the “but in spirit” is anathema to that which I was speaking. Which also leads me to question your biographical world-view here.

#30 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 April 2011 - 07:27 PM

Unfortunately, Glaucus is not speaking from a “materialistic” atheists standpoint. And I was specifically addressing that worldview. In fact, Glaucus sounds more like a theistic evolutionist, and I’m wondering if he does not have the correct worldview posted in his bio here...

Again, I was addressing the “materialistic atheist”, therefore your entire premise of the “but in spirit” is anathema to that which I was speaking. Which also leads me to question your biographical world-view here.

View Post


I think the problem may lay in different working definition of the idea of "materialistic atheist". I don't believe in anything supernatural, including god or actual spirits/souls. But I do believe that we as human beings can add meaning to our world and who we are. We can take basic ideas, such as equality and sympathy, and try to create a society that puts in place these concepts in such a way that it also fuels the society. I do find meaning, morals, value, and emotions in life without belief in the supernatural. I don't get these ideas directly from my worldview as a materialistic atheist, but they don't contradict it either. If they do contradict your idea of what a materialistic atheist is, then I'm simply not what you view as a materialistic atheist.

#31 Glaucus

Glaucus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colorado

Posted 28 April 2011 - 08:59 PM

So matter created you? That’s quite the faith statement Glaucus; rather ‘religious’ sounding. In fact, I cannot find one statement in both of your above paragraphs that was not faith based. What is even odder is that I was speaking of “materialistic” atheism, not the “spiritual” atheist you are claiming to be (based upon your above statements).

View Post


Yes, I am a product of matter.

As for it being a faith based statement, I'd have to disagree. My world view is based on the scientific understanding of the creation (not Creation) of this world through natural processes.

Lets define "materialistic atheist" before we move further. I consider myself a materialistic atheist using the definition of "materialism" as "everything (thought, emotions, conscience, etc) in this world is simply a derivative of physical matter." Is that what you're talking about when you say "materialistic atheist"? If not, then I don't think this line of conversation is necessary. You'll have to find a materialistic atheist who fits your definition, I can only answer for my own philosophy.

#32 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:49 PM

Yes, I am a product of matter.

As for it being a faith based statement, I'd have to disagree.  My world view is based on the scientific understanding of the creation (not Creation) of this world through natural processes.

Lets define "materialistic atheist" before we move further.  I consider myself a materialistic atheist using the definition of "materialism" as "everything (thought, emotions, conscience, etc) in this world is simply a derivative of physical matter."  Is that what you're talking about when you say "materialistic atheist"?  If not, then I don't think this line of conversation is necessary.  You'll have to find a materialistic atheist who fits your definition, I can only answer for my own philosophy.

View Post

Do you accept The Big Bang model? You do understand that there are some major flaws in that part of naturalism. I find even abiogenesis to be more likely than The Big Bang.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:55 PM

If anything, I'd say that evolution increases the value of life.  When I think about it, I realize that I am connected to everything around me.  I (we) have a kinship with all other organisms.  I can feel the emotions of other organisms (my dog for example), not just because of empathy and sympathy, but because him and I share a bloodline.  That bloodline, can be used to connect me with the universe, because I know that the matter that created me, my dog, the lakes and forests, and other planets, was once fused in the core of a star.  Those stars had to "die" in order for our ancestors (human and non) to form, and ultimately for me to be born.

All in all, I think Evolution and The Big Bang are some of the most beautiful ways to interpret this world.

So while, yes, we are simply "matter in motion"  it's up to me to put meaning behind my mass through my actions and deeds while I'm alive, and through how I leave this world when my matter and energy are passed onto the next organism that consumes them.

View Post


Some people would disagree:

IjW7bezdddE

And yet others used it to justify what they did.

PC3uVnjswzI

To help try and prove evolution they put people in zoo displays. Both Indians and black people are promoted as lower evolved humans.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Even wax museums get into it as evolution displays are based skin color.

Posted Image

All of Darwin's friends who help him with his idea were racist.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Darwin himself was sexist and racist:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Even modern evolution illustrations cannot get away from being racists.

Posted Image

So what would be wrong with white people being lower evolved and black people being more evolved? Or are white people the supreme being as a white person that thought this up made it that way?

I hope that is not what makes evolution beautiful to you.

#34 Glaucus

Glaucus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:14 AM

Do you accept The Big Bang model? You do understand that there are some major flaws in that part of naturalism. I find even abiogenesis to be more likely than The Big Bang.

View Post


While I agree that it's an incomplete model, it does seem to be the current model that best fits the data at hand (expanding universe, background radiation, etc.)

So what would be wrong with white people being lower evolved and black people being more evolved? Or are white people the supreme being as a white person that thought this up made it that way?

I hope that is not what makes evolution beautiful to you.

View Post


Nope, it's the scientific connection that makes it beautiful. While I admit that Darwin and some of the other people behind the Theory did have prejudices and were products of their cultural views, I think an Ad hominem attack does little to discredit the theory. Would you discredit your faith because the actions of a few were morally reprehensible? (Food for thought, not meant to be answered)

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:47 AM

Nope, it's the scientific connection that makes it beautiful.  While I admit that Darwin and some of the other people behind the Theory did have prejudices and were products of their cultural views, I think an Ad hominem attack does little to discredit the theory.  Would you discredit your faith because the actions of a few were morally reprehensible? (Food for thought, not meant to be answered)

View Post


Ironic you would say that when people who believe as you do think such attacks and past history reminders do exactly what you claim you disagree with. A creationist puts up with this every time he debates. And you would be the first to come here and not do it. So you will have to excuse me when I say: I don't believe you.

#36 Crocoduck

Crocoduck

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:47 AM

It's funny you should use racism as an attack on evolution. Must I remind you that the grand majority of racists in the USA were or are Christian? The Europeans who owned slaves were Christian.

The fact that Darwin was racist (Dont't know if he was, nor do I care) is entirely irrelevant. He could have felt that woman had mind reading powers, but it wouldn't matter either. All that matters is his theory of evolution, anything else about him is completely irrelevant.

Also, white people did evolve from black people, but that doesn't exactly make them more evolved. It makes them better suited to THEIR environment when there wasn't technology to make it so anybody could survive. If you were to look at it through conventional means, even, black people would be the ones that are better fit. If you look around, you'll find that the same way men are naturally stronger than females, black people naturally have better bodies in terms of muscles and the like.

But, that's also irrelevant. My point is that racism is and was everywhere, evolution was no driving force of it. Many people have used religion to justify racism, that doesn't mean that racism is promoted by God, does it?

Now for the point of this thread as a whole. My morals and my ethics come from myself, from what my conscious naturally decides is right and wrong. It is not dictated by a religion, which is why I don't disagree with g*y marriage and stem cell research(things that have no reasoning against them other than religion.) I do feel it's wrong to hurt others. I do feel it's wrong to kill others. You may ask, why do you care if you're an atheist? I care because I'm human. While I don't think i have to balance my actions so i won't go to hell, I have empathy. I know what pain feels like, and I don't want others to feel it. I know what it is to experience sorrow and heartbreak, and i don't want others to have to experience the same.

The biggest claim here is that you can't have ethics without religion, because religion is a foundation. I find that incredibly funny because we've all seen how throughout history, religion has also been a major foundation for death and lack of morals as well.

Edit: Well for some reason, I can't quote Ron's post, so this is a reply to his second to last post.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 05:24 AM

So matter created you? That’s quite the faith statement Glaucus; rather ‘religious’ sounding. In fact, I cannot find one statement in both of your above paragraphs that was not faith based. What is even odder is that I was speaking of “materialistic” atheism, not the “spiritual” atheist you are claiming to be (based upon your above statements).

View Post

Yes, I am a product of matter.

View Post

You are a product of matter? Hmmm, well, get to that more in a moment. But let me first say that you consist of matter, but you are a product of your parents. You can attempt to equivocate on those points all you want, but those misinterpretations will only fly at forums where the atheistic religions are promulgated (then denied).

As for it being a faith based statement, I'd have to disagree. 

View Post

Well, you can disagree to the best of your ability, but your disagreeing in no way diminishes the fact. Even in your very first statement you said “I’m a product of matter”, but you have absolutely no evidence that matter can produce anything. Therefore, it is nothing more than a “faith based” statement. And, because you are bound to ignore that fact, and will defend it in your nest post dogmatically, you prove yourself then-and-there as zealously defending your atheistic religion.


My world view is based on the scientific understanding of the creation (not Creation) of this world through natural processes.

View Post

Once again, you are approaching the post from a faith based non-scientific position. You claimed “I’m a product of matter”, but you proceed from absolutely NO scientific basis to do so. But, you’ll soon find out that at this forum, if you make a “factual” type statement, you are required to back it up with actual “FACTS”, and not mere opinion. You merely saying that it’s so don’t make it so.

So, we’ll look a little closer at your three assertions:

1- I’m a product of matter
2- My world view is based on scientific understanding
3- This world is created through natural processes

All three of the above statements are “faith based”. The first and third are fact-less and baseless (and are totally presupposed and ‘a priori'). The second one fails because the other two are fact-less and baseless.

Now, you made the assertion in your third point that this world was “created” through “natural” processes. So, here is your chance to provide the “facts” to back up your assertions. So, as your second statement “My world view is based on scientific understanding”, you are now required to provide the facts to back up your statements. But, you need to extend your line of reasoning out-and-out to include ALL of creation. Why; because if ALL of creation did not come about from “materialistic naturalistic process” then this world did not as well.

Further, you have to provide scientific evidence (i.e. FACTS and NOT mere opinion) that you are a product of matter alone (as per your first statement). And to do so, you MUST provide evidence of ANYTHING that is a product of matter alone (that included this universe, this world etc…). That means absolutely no intervention of design, intelligence (etc…).


Lets define "materialistic atheist" before we move further. 

View Post

Let’s do!


I consider myself a materialistic atheist using the definition of "materialism" as "everything (thought, emotions, conscience, etc) in this world is simply a derivative of physical matter."

View Post

You then would be incorrect. You cannot use immaterial phenomena in your definition (i.e. thought, emotions, conscience, etc…) as they are not “physical matter”. Therefore your definition fails at its base.

But, if you can show me a physical “conscience”; if we can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it and hear it; then I am fully capable of admitting I was wrong, and will admit you were right. Are you willing to od the same?


Is that what you're talking about when you say "materialistic atheist"? 

View Post

No, because your definition is left wanting on many levels. It is basically conversion by definition.

If not, then I don't think this line of conversation is necessary. 

View Post


It might not be necessary if you cannot deal with the truth, but it is definitely necessary to show everyone at this forum how some atheists attempt to borrow from, and re-define, the metaphysical, in order to lend credence to their flawed “materialistic” philosophy.

You'll have to find a materialistic atheist who fits your definition, I can only answer for my own philosophy.

View Post

No, I’ll stick with real definitions, not those from a mistaken worldview.

#38 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:03 AM

Even if evolution promoted racism or any other morality (which it does not), I'd rather be an "evolutionist" than get my morals from the Bible. I do not think that YOU get your morals from there unless you think it's okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them "
2 Kings 2:24

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

I quoted the Holy Bible just to point out that it is not a as good source of moral, as some people might think. Also evolution is a scientific fact, not a moral codex. It tells us where we come from but not where we must go. It doesn't say more about ethics than Maxwell's equations.

#39 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:32 AM

Ironic you would say that when people who believe as you do think such attacks and past history reminders do exactly what you claim you disagree with. A creationist puts up with this every time he debates. And you would be the first to come here and not do it. So you will have to excuse me when I say: I don't believe you.

View Post


People can twist evolution to fit their racist ideas. But the fact remains that the differences between the races is minute. We branched out so recently ago, that no real change has had enough time to occur, and even if it did, I'm not sure under what circumstances natural selection would choose against intelligence.

Point is, the people who use evolution as an excuse to push their racist agenda aren't doing so because of evolution, but because they are racist. Evolution doesn't work work in a linear way(no species in nature is inferior to another just different). The reason why darker people have darker skin is because the sun is so intense where they originated. People with lighter skin have so because where they originated the intensity of the sun is less.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:38 AM

It's funny you should use racism as an attack on evolution. Must I remind you that the grand majority of racists in the USA were or are Christian? The Europeans who owned slaves were Christian.


So do you also justify killing people because Jeffery Dahmer did? What I find ironic is your logic that says: If so and so does it, then if we do it it's not that bad.

The fact that Darwin was racist (Dont't know if he was, nor do I care) is entirely irrelevant. He could have felt that woman had mind reading powers, but it wouldn't matter either. All that matters is his theory of evolution, anything else about him is completely irrelevant.


You do have to say that because there are some pretty bad things about him. But does that also mean that you guys will also consider it irrelevant any Christians past? I don't think so. So unless your side is willing to treat people the way they want to be treated, the past history of Darwin will be posted again and again. We will stop when you do.

Also, white people did evolve from black people, but that doesn't exactly make them more evolved. It makes them better suited to THEIR environment when there wasn't technology to make it so anybody could survive. If you were to look at it through conventional means, even, black people would be the ones that are better fit. If you look around, you'll find that the same way men are naturally stronger than females, black people naturally have better bodies in terms of muscles and the like.


There is not way to justify the racism that evolution plainly shows,and will not back down. Why do you think the KKK loves the theory so?

But, that's also irrelevant. My point is that racism is and was everywhere, evolution was no driving force of it. Many people have used religion to justify racism, that doesn't mean that racism is promoted by God, does it?


Still trying to justify it. It's okay because someone was already doing it, right? I hope society never applies that to everything. it would be a lawless evil world.

Now for the point of this thread as a whole. My morals and my ethics come from myself, from what my conscious naturally decides is right and wrong. It is not dictated by a religion, which is why I don't disagree with g*y marriage and stem cell research(things that have no reasoning against them other than religion.) I do feel it's wrong to hurt others. I do feel it's wrong to kill others. You may ask, why do you care if you're an atheist? I care because I'm human. While I don't think i have to balance my actions so i won't go to hell, I have empathy. I know what pain feels like, and I don't want others to feel it. I know what it is to experience sorrow and heartbreak, and i don't want others to have to experience the same.


First part of that quote is a perfect example of humanism. "I" decide what's right or wrong, "I" decide how to live my life. That's why I believe the way I do. And because I hate religion, all those who disagree, and all that is wrong with the world is their fault, right? Then you turn around and add some good to your post in hopes that it balances out the bad you just listed. What this shows is that you know it's wrong, or you would have stuck to your guns and not cared what people thought.

The biggest claim here is that you can't have ethics without religion, because religion is a foundation. I find that incredibly funny because we've all seen how throughout history, religion has also been a major foundation for death and lack of morals as well.

Edit: Well for some reason, I can't quote Ron's post, so this is a reply to his second to last post.

View Post


I guess no one has ever shown you the long list of non-religious people who killed and murdered in history.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

So ditto.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users