Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Ethics Poll

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

18 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: To the materialist atheist WHY? If the human is nothing more than “matter in motionâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71386[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71408[/snapback]

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again: To the materialist atheist WHY? If the human is nothing more than “matter in motionâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71409[/snapback]

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.

71386[/snapback]

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.

71409[/snapback]

Again, I was addressing the “materialistic atheistâ€ÂÂ, 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 atheistâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71413[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

71412[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71420[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71408[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71423[/snapback]

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.

71426[/snapback]

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

71428[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

71412[/snapback]

Yes, I am a product of matter.

71420[/snapback]

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. 

71420[/snapback]

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 matterâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71420[/snapback]

Once again, you are approaching the post from a faith based non-scientific position. You claimed “I’m a product of matterâ€ÂÂ, 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 “FACTSâ€ÂÂ, 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 basedâ€ÂÂ. 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 understandingâ€ÂÂ, 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. 

71420[/snapback]

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."

71420[/snapback]

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

 

But, if you can show me a physical “conscienceâ€ÂÂ; 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"? 

71420[/snapback]

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. 

71420[/snapback]

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.

71420[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71429[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71432[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71441[/snapback]

It does not take much twisting.

 

All you have to do is look at history.

 

Posted Image

 

I wonder where he got the idea to compare the human race to apes? Was there someone else that had the same idea as Darwin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71439[/snapback]

The reason you use old testament as an example to justify the wrong doings of what you believe. Is because you don;t understand how the old covenant worked. In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth. The children were guilty because the sins of their fathers made them that way. God's word warned them but they would not listen.

 

The new covenant is where everyone goes to where they are supposed to when they die. This is why Christ told the story about the rich man and the poor man. It was an illustration that punishment for sin will no longer be carried out here while alive. it's done after death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot use immaterial phenomena in your definition (i.e. thought, emotions, conscience, etc…) as they are not “physical matterâ€ÂÂ. Therefore your definition fails at its base...

 

But, if you can show me a physical “conscienceâ€ÂÂ; 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?

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

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.

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

71434[/snapback]

I'm sure Glaucus will take this point up, but I'm not a fan of playing word games. If you don't think my beliefs match up with being a materialistic atheist, then stop thinking of me as one. Just think of me as an atheist then. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware of the fact that Hitler was a fundamental catholic, right?

 

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

- Adoph Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

 

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.

Darwin had morals and scientific achievements. We admire the scientific achievements not the morals. BTW almost everyone was racist in time of Darwin.

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

Just let me remind you (supposing that you claim to get your morals from the Bible) that the Bible was also written by men, so your ethics is just as humanist as ashley's or mine.

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

 

Such a shame we don't have such a nice list of the religiously induced wars of the last 3000years.... Not like numbers mattered. The listed crimes were committed by atheist (except for Hitler) but not because they were atheists. Their reasons were purely political. It is quite obvious that if they had been religious, they would still have committed those crimes, moreover they could have supported their acts with their belief just as Hitler did (even thought I it is not very likely that his intentions were purely religion-based.)

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?

BY KKK you mean the Ku Klux Klan? The protestant racist group that partially was founded against the immigrants and their catholicism? The group that still burns crosses as a symbol of the glory of Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware of the fact that Hitler was a fundamental catholic, right?

 

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

- Adoph Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2

 

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."  –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

I'm sure he was, he was a chronic liar as well.

Posted Image

 

We get atheists here all the time that use some sort of belief in Christian faith to hide behind and and try to get away with more things. Plus it helps them try to convert (evangelize) Christians away from the faith.

 

Darwin had morals and scientific achievements. We admire the scientific achievements not the morals. BTW almost everyone was racist in time of Darwin.

Just let me remind you (supposing that you claim to get your morals from the Bible) that the Bible was also written by men, so your ethics is just as humanist as ashley's or mine.

Did Darwin have any degrees in science?

 

Such a shame we don't have such a nice list of the religiously induced wars of the last 3000years.... Not like numbers mattered. The listed crimes were committed by atheist (except for Hitler) but not because they were atheists. Their reasons were purely political. It is quite obvious that if they had been religious, they would still have committed those crimes, moreover they could have supported their acts with their belief just as Hitler did (even thought I it is not very likely that his intentions were purely religion-based.)

BY KKK you mean the Ku Klux Klan? The protestant racist group that partially was founded against the immigrants and their catholicism? The group that still burns crosses as a symbol of the glory of Jesus?

71447[/snapback]

There is a difference between professing Christ and actually possessing Christ. Anyone can hide under any banner or world view. What proves what you are is your life actions that are an example. KKK sets no example here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how many people use evolution to agree, regardless of what Darwin believed, the theory of evolution doesn't support racism. People use it to support racism, but if you look at the the theory itself, there's no way that within the time the races branches off of each other that any significant changes could occur. And again, it's not likely that a species, once evolving higher intelligence, would go back on it. The differences between the races is exactly what we'd expect to see. Small changes that provide some extra benefit for their given environment.

 

Who believed what seems irrelevant at this point. Just because interpret the theory of evolution means that there are lesser racers doesn't mean that is what the theory says. This can be easily checked by seeing if any of the races are indeed lesser(and communication with them proves that no, there are no lesser races).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how many people use evolution to agree, regardless of what Darwin believed, the theory of evolution doesn't support racism. People use it to support racism, but if you look at the the theory itself, there's no way that within the time the races branches off of each other that any significant changes could occur. And again, it's not likely that a species, once evolving higher intelligence, would go back on it. The differences between the races is exactly what we'd expect to see. Small changes that provide some extra benefit for their given environment.

 

Who believed what seems irrelevant at this point. Just because interpret the theory of evolution means that there are lesser racers doesn't mean that is what the theory says. This can be easily checked by seeing if any of the races are indeed lesser(and communication with them proves that no, there are no lesser races).

71450[/snapback]

Why are lower evolved humans always dark skinned?

Can you show me where a site on evolution has a non-racist human evolution chart?

 

You see with all the things going around about race, if evolutionists wanted to be politically correct, it could have already been done several time over. But they hold on the the racist human evolution chart for a reason. It's because the bases of human evolution are founded upon racism. Why do you think Darwin names part of his book as favoring a certain race?

 

Posted Image

 

Then he makes racist comments.

 

Posted Image

 

The human evolution charts are always racist.

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

I wonder if it would offend evolutionists if I made a human evolution chart that shows whites evolving into blacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are lower evolved humans always dark skinned?

Because, at least where I'm from(America) that is the most common type. Darker people could just as well claim that the lighter-skinned ones are the inferior race. they'd be just as wrong.

 

Can you show me where a site on evolution has a non-racist human evolution chart?

The chart you provided.

Posted Image

It shows the evolution from apes to a particular race of humans. You can shows the same chart only for any race.

 

We started in northern Africa, hence dark skin. Dark skin is better in climates where the sun is stronger, helps prevents sun burns and skin cancer. Some humans stayed in Africa(some even in went to southern Africa)and others went north. When they came to lands where the sun is less intense, lighter skin allowed them to absorb the sun. So that chart is correct in that Caucasians did evolve from darker-skinned early Africans. And since the early Africans stayed in their environment, they didn't need to change as much as the people who migrated about.

 

It's not racism, it's just adaptation. Just because white people evolved from black people doesn't mean that white people are superior(or vise versa). Really all it means is a steady climate means little change, while a changing climate(or a population moving to a new climate as the case is) means more rapid change. It doesn't mean anything other than if I want to hike outside in the hot Arizona sun, I better bring lots of sunblock.

 

You see with all the things going around about race, if evolutionists wanted to be politically correct, it could have already been done several time over. But they hold on the the racist human evolution chart for a reason. It's because the bases of human evolution are founded upon racism.

What about all the biologists that accept evolution but aren't insulating in any way that one race is better than the other? Most are politically correct. The charts don't mean anything other than white people use to be black people, which seems counter to the idea that evolution is a racist idea.

 

 

Why do you think Darwin names part of his book as favoring a certain race?

 

Posted Image

 

Then he makes racist comments.

 

Posted Image

 

Darwin could have believed whatever he wanted, the fact of it all is that if he truly was a racist, it doesn't matter. And idea is independent of the people who conceived it. We can see that no race is lesser or great, and that racism is wrong.

 

I wonder if it would offend evolutionists if I made a human evolution chart that shows whites evolving into blacks?

71452[/snapback]

No one would care. And lighter skinned people have evolved back into darker skinned people. When people migrated from Africa to modern day Russia, their skin turned from dark to light to match their bodies needs of the sun. Then, when they migrated from Russia to the Americas and back down to climates with more intense sun light, their skins turned dark again. This is widely believed by most people who accept evolution. There was no racist cries of wrong, there was no riots, it was simply accepted as another fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71429[/snapback]

 

If I'm arguing about a holy book being the source of morality, then it's a valid argument to compare the morality of it's followers and it's creators. But to debate Creation shouldn't require ad hominmem attacks, rather it should be a fight between evidence for a model.

 

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.

71442[/snapback]

How many of these people were killed because they weren't atheists? Or were they killed for other reasons? (Again, rhetorical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71432[/snapback]

That is not only illogical, but it is irrational as well. If according to your logic that YOUR “morals and ethics come from†YOU, then mine come from me, as do every other individual. And based upon that “lack†of rationale, I can claim that my “morals and ethics†are superior to yours, that you deserve to die, and that it would be perfectly ethical for me to carry out the elimination of you!

 

Now, is this how rationale, logic, and civil discourse proceed? Of course not! There are absolute ethical and moral rights and wrongs. And to suggest “each person makes their own ethics and morals is silly, inane and chaotic at best. By making such a claim, you forfeit ANY AND ALL ethical and moral right to condemn the millions of murders by Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler (etc…).

 

 

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.)

71432[/snapback]

Again, according to you own logic; you have absolutely no principled right to complain about religious ethics! Why, because according to your own logic, everyone makes their own morals and ethics, and all religious peoples think your morals and ethics are inferior. Further, since you are inferior, according to “survival of the fittestâ€ÂÂ, you need to be eliminated so that your genes cannot be passed on to pollute the world’s gene pool.

 

 

I do feel it's wrong to hurt others.

71432[/snapback]

That doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethicsâ€ÂÂ, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!

 

I do feel it's wrong to kill others.

71432[/snapback]

That doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethicsâ€ÂÂ, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!

 

 

You may ask, why do you care if you're an atheist?

71432[/snapback]

Once again, according to your silly logic, it doesn’t matter! (At some point, you may actually come to the realization that your initial statement is self-stultifying. Then again, you may obstinately and dogmatically continue to defend your weak logic, at which point I continue to use your non sequitur as an example to the entire forum).

 

I care because I'm human.

71432[/snapback]

No, according to your atheistic logic, you are nothing more than another animal. A bag of biological stuff that cannot even explain its own origins, or the origins of ethics and morals, let alone the metaphysical phenomena you are attempting to use.

 

While I don't think i have to balance my actions so i won't go to hell, I have empathy.

71432[/snapback]

Empathy? What kind of phenomena is that, where did it come from, and can you show me one?

 

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.

71432[/snapback]

Really? Can you show me a pain? Can you show me a sorrow? Can you show me a heartbreak?

 

The biggest claim here is that you can't have ethics without religion, because religion is a foundation.

71432[/snapback]

Firstly – Can you show me where I made that statement?

Secondly – Atheism is a religion, so by you logic you should have the ability to have ethics.

Thirdly - It doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethicsâ€ÂÂ, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!

 

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.

71432[/snapback]

First – I agree, and just like all other religions, atheism has been the foundation for millions of deaths as well.

 

Second - It doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; they can simply say that their ethics and morals tell them that people needed to die. And because they can “make their own morals and ethicsâ€ÂÂ, they can stand by their principled stand and carry out their rights!

 

 

 

Note: I hope you see and understand the total irrationally of your relativistic bent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms