the Dark Face of Darwinism

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Schrödinger

 

That's what you are trying to do! You can't call a lack of belief a belief. What's next?

the binding of this particular faith in non-belief into its own organizational structure into its very group or church of sorts and all singing the same tune and preaching the same doctrine. After that the raising of donations maybe to support this belief.

the Church of non-belief, very similar to the Church of Satan if you ask me yes misery does love company, so Atheism has to establish itself somehow.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Hi CA, I have a question

I was wondering if you have somehow mixed the idea of eugenics in with what biologist actually think?

Eugenics is a much discredited idea and I doubt you could find any biologists who would support.

It is now known that a large diverse gene pool:

Future proofs a species from whatever challenges may come up.

A large diverse gene pool is more likely to produce individuals with helpful traits
(more people throwing the genetic dice = more chances of throwing all 6’s)
Here I’m think about scientists or artists/musicians, doctor, engineers ect –people who benefit society

There’s some info about it here
en.wikipedia.org...

Near the bottom you can find the arguments against the idea


And while I'm on the subject

I’m not an expert in the squishy sciences but I thought gene theory had superseded Darwin’s theories now
en.wikipedia.org...

maybe you should be moaning on about Dawkins instead of Darwin?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I tend to overlook some peoples posts especially the people who do not even know the importance of Calculus or what Isaac Newton has contributed to the field of science even giving ole Einstein a tool in which to work with.

this is a major flaw in logic as stated and very apparent in the "What did the Catholic Church ever do to You) topic which is in the 'Conspiracies in Religion section.

reply to post by racasan


sorry racasan, I like many many others out in the world tend not to believe and take with a very large grain of salt any attempt at rewriting of historical fact and simple logical determination by Wikipedia...

I like the good ole dictionary and books, things that are written stone in a sense...

I ma not saying Wiki is 100% flawed but its percentages are rising closer and closer to this daily.

there is also not much to say for an Internet Education, like them online Collages... do they really land that many people a job ? I hear they do not do so good on ones resume !

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Understood – I posted the wiki link as an indication that the idea existed not that you should just accept it

reply to post by Schrödinger

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

English is not my primary language, and I will agree that I am having trouble translating/relaying my meaning.

I will try an answer each of your points to the best of my ability.

I only picked up on it because I teach English as a foreign language over the summers. You develop a quick understanding of the common mistakes people make.

I'm sorry, but how is MrXYZ arguing from popular opinion or hurling personal insults?

I really do not want this to be a debate about logical fallacies, but I will answer this, in good faith.

I believe he is making an argument based on popular opinion here; and I quote:

You can disagree all you want, but if you re-read what you just wrote, and if there's a grain of logic/rationality in you...well...you have to realize how ridiculous that sentence is.

Here is is basically saying; Every one knows this/can see this!

No, he's saying that you can see the logical contradiction you made. You openly stated that an absence of something is that thing.

In my next example he is like you actually saying that it is okay to mock and humiliate me, because of my conviction/belief/bearing or understanding of a specific subject/topic.

You can disagree all you want, but if you re-read what you just wrote, and if there's a grain of logic/rationality in you...well...you have to realize how ridiculous that sentence is.

He's appealing to you being a reasonable individual, this isn't an attempt to mock and humiliate you. He's treating you as an adult. He's telling you "Hey, you're mature enough, just look at what you said there".

To use the popular unicorn again, if you have not decided whether or not unicorns exists, then you have a none-belief (agnostic perception) If however you have decided that unicorns do not exist, then you have a belief (atheistic perception)

I've already explained this to you. Non-belief is atheism. Non-knowledge is agnosticism. This is...the third time I explained this to you. I think. If you said "I believe unicorns don't exist" it would be a different position of gnostic aunicornism.

And what's more, you're simply stating this on your own authority, on your own personal perceptions.

I'm not insulting you, but I'm throwing out possibilities

Saying it does not make it true, you have thrown several insults out by now, but I am not taking it personal, at least not for now.

They weren't insults. Noticing that you aren't a native speaker and are having a little bit of trouble working around the language in this instance isn't an insult. Stating that you aren't understanding things isn't an insult. I in no way said you are incapable of understanding the subjects at hand, I merely claimed that you currently are not displaying an understanding.

No, agnosticism is a different position. I am agnostic with regard to invisible intangible pink unicorns, for there is no way to know if they exist one way or another. But I do not believe in them. So I am an agnostic aintangiblepinkunicornist (which is a mouthful).

Where did I say something that disagrees with this. You are agreeing that atheism and agnosticism are different! Agnosticism is none-belief. Atheism is the BELIEF that no deity exists.

I cannot make myself any clearer sorry

Why did you just disregard my example that shows that the two statements aren't mutually exclusive? Why did you ignore my linguistic explanations? Why are you ignoring the subject and simply saying we agree?

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive, they answer entirely separate questions.

And, once more, atheism is not a positive belief, it is a negative rejection of a belief.

Actually, your statements were considered irrational and ridiculous. The above one, about agnosticism and atheism being a belief, is also ridiculous. Meaning 'deserving of ridicule', because it was incorrect to an extreme.

You have no right to mock me nor humiliate me.

I'm not mocking you, but your words do not deserve the same respect as the individual who says them.

And I am absolutely NOT saying that Agnosticism is a belief, I am saying it is a none-belief in the truest form.

I phrased it incorrectly. I meant to say "about agnosticism and about atheism as a belief", my mistake.

But you are still making the entirely false statement that atheism is a belief and that agnosticism is nonbelief. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. You can be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

The questions are entirely different.

So clearly there are some parts you have misunderstood.

No, it was just my mistake. I didn't phrase things clearly.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I tend to overlook some peoples posts especially the people who do not even know the importance of Calculus or what Isaac Newton has contributed to the field of science even giving ole Einstein a tool in which to work with.

Oh, I'm not doubting the contribution of Newton to science and mathematics. He was invaluable in those fields. But he was also wrong about a great many things. I know the importance of calculus, I also know that Newton more or less came up with it as an afterthought.

Of course, this doesn't make his opinions infallible. He also thought that you could synthesize the philosopher's stone. He held a deep-seated belief in alchemy. And his positions on atheism? He was merely a product of his times. In 1727 there were active laws in place against atheism.

this is a major flaw in logic as stated and very apparent in the "What did the Catholic Church ever do to You) topic which is in the 'Conspiracies in Religion section.

I'm sorry, but what does calculus have to do with philosophy. There is no flaw in logic here aside from your argument from authority.

I have another question
I heard that there are people in America who would like to have creationism taught in schools instead of the theory of evaluation

I was wandering if such people have considered the consequences of that?

If you try and make science dance to the religious tune, one of the first things to happen is that America would stop been a world power, it just wouldn’t be able to keep up with other technological countries and if that happened Americas best and brightest would leave – you would cause a brain drain.

And America could open itself up to:
Winston Churchill:
wiki.answers.com...

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step;-

and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient" Rome.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Understood – I posted the wiki link as an indication that the idea existed not that you should just accept it

ok I will go back and read your post now... but I am just saying, personally when I see blaring Wiki links I tend to skip right on over. I usually only post Wiki myself and when I do to disprove certain logic.

understanding everything is still in question somewhat opens me up to your mindset much more.

You can teach creationism in schools, its called religion. Its a humanistic field, and not a field of science, like lets say Theory of evolution and abiogenesis.

Originally posted by racasan
I have another question
I heard that there are people in America who would like to have creationism taught in schools instead of the theory of evaluation

in my opinion, not necessarily taught in schools but rather more emphasis taken off only Evolutionary theory... The sociobiology (psychology) behind it given at to early a grade level could quite possibly be damaging, and also seeing how Atheism uses this as its number #1 tool only helps to solidify this fact.

Theology should be given equal time or Evolutionary theory bumped up to nearing graduation level, much more time could be spent in other fields such as World History or Mathematics then also.

Theology = the study of ALL religions (correct ?) not just 1 religion...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Schrödinger
You can teach creationism in schools, its called religion. Its a humanistic field, and not a field of science, like lets say Theory of evolution and abiogenesis.

how about Theology then ? which encompasses all religions and equally as interesting if not more in depth than Evolutionary theory alone.

I can understand why stricter Creationists are out to attack it.

Theology is not the study of Christianity only nor just the study of Buddhism to say but all of them, which is also equally if not more so academic.

we can't be singling out individual groups now can we ? Theology paints with a pretty wide brush.

Thanks for the answers guys, yes religious education – I enjoyed that we covered many religions the teacher gave an outline of the belief system and them we would debate that – all good fun

Well you don’t know how relived I am to hear your views on this I was starting to get the idea America was going down a bit of an anti-science path with all this creation stuff

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
and also seeing how Atheism uses this as its number #1 tool only helps to solidify this fact.

edit on 12/29/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

Suppose with me:

You go to the equator and find a load of mice there; these mice will be adapted to living in hot conditions – ok

Suppose you could move those mice 1 mile north per year – after the first 500 or 600 years there might not be much change in those mice, but you keep moving them north

Eventually as the condition change, you will see that only those mice that can survive best in those conditions will get the better chance to have offspring – those new mice will acquire some of the characteristics of their parents – and for sure your mouse population on the whole will be changing to meet the new surroundings of weather and food that they find themselves in. (there is a >natural selection< for those mice that best >fit< the current environment)

Eventually you might get so far north with your mouse population that if you where to take them quickly back to the equator they would very rapidly die in the heat or be unable to eat the food and they could have changed so much that they might not be able to breed successfully with any of the equator mice (their ancestors) – you would have created a new species

That’s basically evolution – right?
So what’s that have to do with atheism, I just don’t see it?

reply to post by racasan


ok Evolution I am no longer interested in what one perceives as logical positivism of it, this topic was originally intended to discuss sociobiology aspects and any negative aspects to Darwinism being taught in schools and at too young an age, also its psychological effects it may have on its subjects especially if the teachers themselves are not guided/versed well enough in it.

what would you have to say to this ? would be alot more interesting to me and possibly other lurkers or Googlers whom are not participating in this discussion.

see: Quote below...

how about Theology then ? which encompasses all religions and equally as interesting if not more in depth than Evolutionary theory alone.

I can understand why stricter Creationists are out to attack it.

Theology is not the study of Christianity only nor just the study of Buddhism to say but all of them, which is also equally if not more so academic.

we can't be singling out individual groups now can we ? Theology paints with a pretty wide brush.

any input or acknowledgment would be rather interesting I suspect...

I guess I will have to start working on that "new topic" then ???

edit on 12/29/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by racasan
I have another question
I heard that there are people in America who would like to have creationism taught in schools instead of the theory of evaluation

in my opinion, not necessarily taught in schools but rather more emphasis taken off only Evolutionary theory...
The sociobiology (psychology) behind it given at to early a grade level could quite possibly be damaging,

Um, sociobiology and psychology are two entirely different fields.


Question 2: Where is the evidence of negative social impact with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?
Question 4: Why would it be dangerous to teach children actual, fact-based science?

and also seeing how Atheism uses this as its number #1 tool only helps to solidify this fact.

How is that atheism's- wait, hold on!

It's damaging because it may encourage atheism? So the truth is dangerous? I'm sorry, but:


Question 7: How is atheism in opposition to humanity?

Question 10: Where is your evidence that atheism is "the most abominable ignorance which hides in the darkness"?

Question 11: How is atheism "deceptive"?

And introducing:
Question 13: How is atheism damaging?


Note: You admire a great atheist, Carl Sagan.

Theology should be given equal time or Evolutionary theory bumped up to nearing graduation level, much more time could be spent in other fields such as World History or Mathematics then also.

I'm sorry, but why should the options be:
Conceal the truth of nature until a later age
or
Give superstition equal time

And I'm guessing atheists won't get a say in the 'theology' section? Well, we don't really study deities, though we have a great presence in philosophy.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Theology = the study of ALL religions (correct ?) not just 1 religion...

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12/29/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

But that is still an endorsement of religion over irreligion, which is flagrantly idiotic and illegal. Aside from the logistics of teaching world theology in a class. And this is on top of the objections that would arise, as I doubt that the Bible believers are going to be happy that their children are learning about Wicca and Islam.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by racasan

 

ok Evolution I am no longer interested in what one perceives as logical positivism of it, this topic was originally intended to discuss sociobiology aspects and any negative aspects to Darwinism being taught in schools and at too young an age, also its psychological effects it may have on its subjects especially if the teachers themselves are not guided/versed well enough in it.

Male bovine fecal matter!

The OP states the following:

Darwin has contributed so much to the world, the Theory of Evolution was the perfect tool so many Atheists and Dictators were looking for. Or did Darwin beget all these atrocities inadvertently ?

No mention of sociobiology, psychology, or children.

Now, I've listed a few questions that challenge the assertions you've made, you've yet to answer any of them. I will now provide the list in full:

Question 1: Where is the evidence in Darwin's writings that he was a racist? No, the subtitle of a book isn't enough to draw a conclusion about the material contained within.

Question 2: Where is the evidence of negative social impact with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Question 3: Where is the evidence that Darwin's writings and scientific findings influenced any dictatorship? Please provide direct quotes from these dictators.

Question 4: Why would it be dangerous to teach children actual, fact-based science?

Question 5: Do you or do you not agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best way to explain the diversity of life found upon planet Earth?

Question 6: How is evolution a racist ideology?

Question 7: How is atheism in opposition to humanity?

Question 8: Where is your evidence that all atheist are white Caucasian Anglophones?

Question 9: How is "I do not accept your proposed idea" a belief?

Question 10: Where is your evidence that atheism is "the most abominable ignorance which hides in the darkness"?

Question 11: How is atheism "deceptive"?

Question 12: In what way could "Evolution" be considered a sign of ignorance?

Question 13: How is atheism damaging?

what would you have to say to this ?

Aside from your assertion of the original intent of the thread being bovine refuse, so is the statement of the altered intent.

would be alot more interesting to me and possibly other lurkers or Googlers whom are not participating in this discussion.

It would be a lot more interesting if you actually answered my damn questions.

The closest you got to answering any of them was truncating the question to change its meaning to a yes or no question. Please, address my legitimate queries.

I guess I will have to start working on that "new topic" then ???

You mean yet another repetition of the same bigoted and ignorant attacks on atheists and lying about the works of Charles Darwin?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
*Adolf Hitler's religious views have been a matter of dispute

Originally posted by Kailassa:
Oh, Cosmic, didn't your mummy teach you that telling lies makes baby Jesus cry?

you may want to take that up with Wiki, afterall I did not write the opening statement there...
Theists would not see Hitlers ideology as Truth but more along the lines of Darwinism.

Taking things out of context like this is just one more way in which you lie, or "bear false witness."
I've added a link to the post you were mendaciously pretending to answer.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact Self Proclaimed God "absolute authority" www.merriam-webster.com...

A straight out lie. Mirriam Webster does not say this at all, as anyone can check.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact his radical racial predecessor, Darwin.

Another lie. It's been proven to you time after time that Darwin was not a racist, and you have still not succeeded in presenting one iota of eveidence to support your contention that he is.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact Hiler(sic) was godless because he was his own God

You've been presented with many quotes from Hitler in which he supports Christianity. Your only evidence for Hitler being an atheist is your mendacious use of Mirriam Webster to attribute an incorrect meaning to the word Führer. I understand that Hitler's actions are an embarrassment to all Christians who don't want to admit that committing genocides and stealing territory are logical results of accepting the old testament as the word of god, but denial and lies are not helping your case here.


Cosmic, keep these cascades of evasion and deceit you call posts, and people will soon be assuming that, if you've said something, it's worth dismissing it.


You also need to learn to correctly format a post. Wikipedia did not "originally post" anything, and your Wiki quote should be in external link tags and have a source given.

I think world religion basics should be a required sholl class, starting early, in a non-biased class, because people are largely ignorant of the way others believe. It would help people in general to know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, etc.

I agree with Darwinism on many levels, but I think in todays world, we do need a required standard of citzenship, and birthing regulations. The USA, and I suspect the world, is being over run by idiots who are breeding like rabbits. I think we need to rise above body identification and go to mental classifications, and have an IQ test of some type to allow citizenry, and birthing privilages.

It seems on the news now near everyday, some lowlife has killed or tried to, their baby or child. Would be parents need to pass a series of IQ and ability tests before they are allowed to breed.

Of course in the USA welfare socialsm liberal nation, I can't see this happening, but it will be the nations own peril if it doesn't.