| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Hitler's antisemitism is in the line of that of Luther. And it all goes back to Jews being 'Jesuskillers'. The Darwinism related with eugenics did exist. But only in Britain, not in Germany. It's sometimes referred to as 'Social Darwinism'. And it's pretty stupid. | ||
|
redmourn
United Kingdom12 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:12 IdrA wrote: are you christian? are you responsible for the crusades? the inquisition? centuries of discrimination against jews? god knows how much else? (if you're not christian just substitute in atrocities commited in the name of your religion of choice) why do you have to be spiritual to have morals? i know i dont like it when people steal from me, so i dont steal from other people because it would make them feel bad and i have no desire to make other people feel bad. or, if you want to be more cynical, i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge, which would be harmful to me. where does spirituality enter in to any of that? where is god needed in evolution? all thats needed are the mechanics of genetics/reproduction and the selective pressure caused by limited resources in any given environment, and both of those are accounted for. For a start you clearly have watched the video so you obviosuly dotn care to much to actually undersatand my point as it is an hour long and i only posted this about 20 mintues ago. Secondly the bible is an interprative book, everyone takes from it different, no one can understand what it says fully. You cannot comapre this to evolution absence of God. Because this is not a book. I can claim that the crusades was a potical agenda which used religion as an excuse, or that they inturpreted different verses wrong. You cannot deny the point that the speaker is making because its formed by logic, it isnt an inturpretaion of a historical writings, it is an ideology that has implications. You agree with an ideology, therefore you agree with its implications, a book is open to interpretaion, they are totaly different things. And its not just an ideolgy infact, its just a conculsion i am saying you are forced to draw from the facts of evolution and the decision to decide there is no God. "i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge" Not nessacrily, this is a flawed argument, there is a difference between not doing soemthing because you get something bad back, and not doing something because you think its wrong. Think up a situation that no-one could possibly know that you stole this thing therefore the person can't take revenge, in this case you could justify it. | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
On July 14 2008 21:42 Bozali wrote: In the some Richard Dawkins videos (not sure if it's listed) they thoroughly go through how social behaviors can have evolved the darwin way and I can try to give you examples if you want. How it can be a good feat in the process of natural selection to be good to one and another. No he does not. It is conjecture, and no studies have been made to support them. If you think otherwise, please present them, so that I may study them for myself. If Dawkins wants to believe that society and behaviour is created by memes, he is sure in his full right, but he cannot actually make a study to prove it. From what I have seen regarding that theory, it is actually impossible to set up a series of tests to either verify, or falsify, that theory. And if a theoriy cannot be tested, it is useless to science. And again, we are left where it comes to belief. Note that I have not said one word whether that is religious belief, of philosophical, just at it is based on belief. I have still not had that refuted in an acceptable fassion. And it is somewhat relevant, since some people feel the need, just like Dawkins, to insult those who do things based on beliefs. | ||
|
redmourn
United Kingdom12 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:20 BlackStar wrote: Hitler never mentioned anything related with Darwinism in his books, which explain his motivation. Hitler's antisemitism is in the line of that of Luther. And it all goes back to Jews being Jezuskillers. The Darwinism related with genetics did exist. But only in Britain, not in Germany. And it's pretty stupid. Hmm you should try actually speaking to hsitorains and seeing the facts. I have actually been to the Wannsee Conference House Museum were hitler and his freinds decided on the final solution. They have a whole section on evolution and the historains there talked to us about it, they actually showed us the ss mintues of the meetings and were it was actually written by an ss soldier attending the meetings about how evolution plays a role. I have seen the type-writed and hand written documents myself, so unless the historain translator was lying i think i know what im talking about. Infact alot of the people i knew there who were athiest said they were quite thrown aback by this, and this vist is what first sparked my interest in this subject. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
The three big social Darwinists are Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton. All Englishmen. Do you have a speech of Hitler mentioning them? Supporting their ideas? Paraphrasing what these men said? Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. And of course relating social Darwinism with the theory of Darwinian evolution is already stupid. Mein Kampf is pretty clear. If you search for the term 'evolution' in that book you will only find it used in a context that has nothing to do with the origin of species. Clearly nothing to do with Darwin. Also, it contains several examples of creationist dogma. Just one quote: "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.." Also, what has this to do with atheism? Why would atheists be shocked at Hitler being a social Darwinist, if he had been? | ||
|
Sentynal
Canada8 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + a few things first. redmourn, i'm not trying to be insulting but if you truly believe that a person without religion cannot have any principles and that all of them are somehow empty inside, don't even bother reading the rest of my post. next, it would greatly help your point if you at least put some effort into spelling correctly. there is a great wealth of research related to why humans would bother adhering to ANY sort of principles without god. there is a wide range of investigation, for example animal behaviorists watching the behavior of individuals within a pack of wild dogs, or analysis of almost universal preferential treatment of family members within species. the observations that come out of these, when combined with other established fields such as economics leads to theories such as the one suggesting humans may be inclined to maintain good relationships with those around them simply because in the long-term, it is a net profit. there is also an idea that the reason organisms are so willing to sacrifice for kin is because they share some of our genetic content, and it isn't so bad if one of us dies so that the others survive. these sound extremely obvious, but that's the point. research is showing that very basic human decency can be rooted deeply in our biological construction, not stemming from anything outside of our own bodies. as for your obsession with eugenics, the people you are so quick to pursue are NOT representative of the scientific community at large, or even atheists. it's like me saying... 'all religious people like to wear ridiculous hats, because the pope was wearing one last week, and i saw some muslims wearing turbans on tv.' true, advances in genetic technologies will allow us to remove (fix) many present-day illnesses from the gene pool hopefully before children are born, but it will not be by killing all mentally retarded people or anything of the like. this is such a nitpicky and fear-mongering point you're singling out, and i'm not really sure why. | ||
|
redmourn
United Kingdom12 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:36 BlackStar wrote: You don't explain how what you saw supports your position. Just that you saw it. So how am I supposed to respond to it? The three big social Darwinists are Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton. All Englishmen. Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. And of course relating social Darwinism with the theory of Darwinian evolution is already stupid. You ahve listened at all to my argument you've just arrogant dismissed it by ebing prejudice and calling em a creationist and saying "you must belong to an irational group, purely on the basis you disagree with em" Your being irrational yourself, your just deamonising and pre-judging thos that disagree with you ratehr than adressing any of my points. You also haven't read what is said either, i know this by the fact you said "Basically the only people that relate Hitler with social Darwinism are creationists. ". You making conculsions without logical basis, or any basis, thats pretty stupid as far as im concerned. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest... Of course Hitler was a racist. But Ill let you in on one thing. You can't be both a supporter of Darwinian evolution and a racist while being consistent. According to biology there are no human races. Sure, Hitler talked a lot about the Aryan race and about certain others being 'untermenschen'. But how does this fit in with natural selection? Again, Hitler shows no signs of being familiar with any of this. Not with Darwin and not even with Darwinian socialism or so-called 'scientific racism'. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:39 Sentynal wrote: I remember Hitler did have something to do with evolution. (I could have been misinformed though since it was a while back so correct me if I'm wrong.) I believe he tried to use "evolution" to create a superior race... Although I have no idea how this is relevant in the slightest... no he didn't try to use 'evolution' to create a superior race. if you don't know what evolution is you should read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution consider yourself corrected. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:21 redmourn wrote: For a start you clearly have watched the video so you obviosuly dotn care to much to actually undersatand my point as it is an hour long and i only posted this about 20 mintues ago. Secondly the bible is an interprative book, everyone takes from it different, no one can understand what it says fully. You cannot comapre this to evolution absence of God. Because this is not a book. I can claim that the crusades was a potical agenda which used religion as an excuse, or that they inturpreted different verses wrong. You cannot deny the point that the speaker is making because its formed by logic, it isnt an inturpretaion of a historical writings, it is an ideology that has implications. You agree with an ideology, therefore you agree with its implications, a book is open to interpretaion, they are totaly different things. And its not just an ideolgy infact, its just a conculsion i am saying you are forced to draw from the facts of evolution and the decision to decide there is no God. "i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge" Not nessacrily, this is a flawed argument, there is a difference between not doing soemthing because you get something bad back, and not doing something because you think its wrong. Think up a situation that no-one could possibly know that you stole this thing therefore the person can't take revenge, in this case you could justify it. no, suprisingly i did not watch an hour long lecture by someone who supports intelligent design. shocker. present information from someone credible and it'll be considered. as for morality, i was simplifying it since you're clearly pretty dumb. the 'theyre gonna get revenge' is selection pressure. individuals who feel bad about doing mean things are less likely to get killed/have their balls chopped off in retribution (because they wouldnt do the mean thing). this means they would be more likely to reproduce, the gene that causes them to feel bad about doing mean things becomes more common in the gene pool, and so on. hence we 'grew' a sense of morality with absolutely no need for spiritualism or god. | ||
|
Sentynal
Canada8 Posts
On July 15 2008 00:58 MyLostTemple wrote: no he didn't try to use 'evolution' to create a superior race. if you don't know what evolution is you should read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution consider yourself corrected. Thanks, I understand what evolution is. I think I've heard way too many creationists say that it was "evolution" rather than racism. I did put the evolution in quotes considering that Hitler's evolution probably was completely false anyways. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
But that doesn't mean that Darwinism is somehow bad or wrong or anything. It's definitely true for evolution on the whole: the species which is adapted best to their environment (not really "the strongest", but simply the one which is most suited for living in that particular environment), will survive, and others will either die off or move to a new area. That's simply a fact, and it also makes perfect sense. Of course, applying this to humans of different nationalities or humans with certain "undesirable" qualities (nationality, belief, political interests, ...) like Hitler did is just plain stupid. He simply misused the ideas of Darwinism to fuel his propaganda against jews, disabled people, and pretty much everyone else he didn't like. | ||
|
Polemarch
Canada1564 Posts
On July 14 2008 22:44 BlackStar wrote: Lol placebo effect is magic? Haha. I guess the brain is a magical artifact as well since there is a lot we can't understand about it yet. Therefore, it must be magic. You say placebo can be measured. So how can it be magical? How is the placebo effect inherently in defiance with the laws of nature? You call yourself a naturalist? Doesn't that exclude all 'magic'? damn I guess I really said that too strongly, but I thought the rest of the post would make that clear; apologies to all who were confused. Not literally unexplainable magic. Magic the way Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- I don't know the exact mechanisms behind it. And as others clarified, it's partially understood, so it wasn't a great example. On July 14 2008 16:48 BottleAbuser wrote: Polemarch: The problems of observed acceleration and gravitation that don't fit our current understanding of physics. Our best "scientific explanations" are dark energy and dark matter, respectively. Not very good explanations, are they? "Oh, everything is accelerating, and that takes energy.... but we don't see what's causing it, so let's call it dark energy." "Oh, we can measure that some stuff out there seems to be experiencing higher gravity fields than our measured mass of the surrounding area seems to indicate, which means that there must be more gravity-generating stuff (mass) out there that we can't see.... let's call it dark matter." Hum.... how about awareness? We don't know what it is, other than that for us, it happens in the brain. Probably. We know it exists. And we know the mechanisms by which the brain operates, kind of. But we still have no clue as to what causes consciousness, or how it works, or whether or not its possible to reproduce it in a machine (is a self-aware machine possible?). These three have definite answers in that a valid one won't be "it's impossible to tell," at least in principle. In contrast to "Is there a god?" which is in principle (and in practice) impossible to show either way. Thank you. I'll keep looking for more commonplace examples, though. Some people might think of gravitation as a fundamental axiom/force, universal acceleration is really hard to observe, and awareness is pretty mushy, e.g. it's hard to really say when a given thing is aware. | ||
|
Polemarch
Canada1564 Posts
On July 15 2008 01:17 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Hitler used the main idea of Darwinism, that species who are "stronger" than the rest will prevail while others will perish, to justify his crimes and everything. But that doesn't mean that Darwinism is somehow bad or wrong or anything. It's definitely true for evolution on the whole: the species which is adapted best to their environment (not really "the strongest", but simply the one which is most suited for living in that particular environment), will survive, and others will either die off or move to a new area. That's simply a fact, and it also makes perfect sense. Of course, applying this to humans of different nationalities or humans with certain "undesirable" qualities (nationality, belief, political interests, ...) like Hitler did is just plain stupid. He simply misused the ideas of Darwinism to fuel his propaganda against jews, disabled people, and pretty much everyone else he didn't like. Yup QFT. These (bad) arguments are called Social Darwinism or Eugenics. The main flaw I'd say is equating what's natural with what's good. (It's more a bad moral argument than a logical argument.) For example, finding out that the rate of murder was much higher in ancestral times doesn't mean that we should allow murder now. But whether or not an idea can be abused doesn't tell us whether or not it's true. Social Darwinism is to Darwinism as Holy Wars are to Religion. | ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
this is simple dawkins > god  Oh and I think someone said that the world can't function without the idea of a God and that is fucking retarded. The concepts of gods since the beginning of man has been here for 2 reasons... A) To explain something we couldn't at the time B) To keep the less educated, or easily controllable people in line and if you bring up the whole "finding purpose" or "being spiritual" or whatever you think your reason for being involved with religion is, then you probably fall into the B category. Prime example is the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone caught or presumed doing something that was against the church was tortured and imprisoned and/or killed. I don't want hear that bullshit that all the shit that happened in the past with religion was from some misunderstanding and I don't want to hear shit about all the atheists who have slaughtered, I understand both. Religious Slaughtering usually are a group of people who either think they are holier than everyone else and think they know what is best for the people and are just fucking retarded, or people who want power and use the concept of God to scare / keep people in line. Non Religious slaughtering is usually just someone or group who is power hungry as all people who do things like mass killings. They want some sort of control. The difference is the non religious have nothing to hide behind. and that is a good thing, because well, religion tends to keep people from getting involved or speaking up when something is definitely wrong. edited to be civil >_<! ^ that above is as civil as I get | ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
| ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) - Courtesy of www.xkcd.com Just to lighten the tension! | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
