Morality does not come from religion, what we human call morality changes and evolves as we human evolve. The standards of moral in different Times have huge difference. For example if you talk to people some few hundred years ago, they would agree that slavery is acceptable, and they would all be religious people, WHERE IS THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THAT? WHERE IS THE MORALITY IN THAT? But today we don't belief in things such as salvery, it is not accaptable as moraly permissible. If you look into the bible ( new testament) and pick and chooses bits and pieces that agrees with today's moral standard for a social equity issues, In the same time we can also point out bits and pieces from the bible where it is totally unaccaptable by today's standard of moral. and if you try to cherry pick from your bible to pick out the good parts and throw away the bad parts, THE CRITERION by which you do that cherry picking has nothing to do with your religion, and most certainly got nothing to do with any other religion at all(they all got a holy book or something like it).
Quote from wikipedia:
The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)
It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[6] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[7] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip, and reputation management.
Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.
On July 15 2008 01:32 suresh0t wrote: I missed a dawkins thread posted by nick? damn
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
I seriously doubt that is the reason religion came about.
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.
wow that's arrogant
The difference is the non religious have nothing to hide behind.
That isn't true at all. Patriotism, race, "anti-terrorism", are some examples of tools people in positions of power can use to persuade others to fight.
On July 15 2008 03:13 rei wrote: For example if you talk to people some few hundred years ago, they would agree that slavery is acceptable, and they would all be religious people
There has always been atheists. There has always been spiritual people. There have always been good, kind people. And there have always been sad empty people that only care about wealth and power.
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.
Wat?
According to biologypolitically motivated statements by some people who call themselves biologists there are no human races.
FTFY
There is a point there, but not a good one. In biology jargon, "race" has a meaning distinct from the common usage of "race". The jargon is not "more scientific" or more accurate somehow, it is just part of the irritating habit of scientists of taking established words and using them to mean something odd, for their own temporary convenience, despite the confusion it creates.
To give another example, in biology jargon, the word "bug" refers an insect of Order Hemiptera. In the common usage, which is far better established and accepted, the word "bug" is a general term which includes insects, arachnids, and other small unpleasant creatures. Jargon is just jargon, and deserves less respect than conventional English, not more.
Homo sapiens defies ordinary biological subdivision due to intelligence and technology. A biological "race" is an inbreeding group within a species, a group within which the members do not normally breed with members of the species who are not members of the group. A race may be formed by things such as geographical isolation, distinctive appearance coupled with sexual preference, or intentional breeding control by humans.
It is a vague term. It is hard to dispute that the human races developed their obvious differences through reproductive isolation as biological "races", but as technology and culture developed, the power to travel and the acceptance of interbreeding have ended, or at least reduced, this breeding isolation.
The criteria of subspecies (one type of "race") is that: 1) the members of one subspecies are clearly distinguishable from members of other subspecies 2) members of different subspecies will not normally breed when they come in contact with each other, preferring members of their own subspecies as mates
The definition is partly behavioral, and human behavior is more determined by culture and individual philosophy (traits unique to humanity) than by genetics, which is something the conventional concepts of biology are simply not equipped to handle.
So it is not that race is scientifically invalid, it is that biology is not conceptually adequate for commenting on human races, since humanity is so exceptional.
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'.
It is easy to find a bad defense of either position on the internet, due to Godwin's Law and the hostility between militant atheist evolutionists and fundamentalist christian creationists. To listen only to those groups, you would have to choose between Hitler as a mad darwinist and atheist inventor of pseudoreligious rituals, or Hitler as a religious fanatic and antiscientific mystic.
Of course, like most men, the real Hitler was not overly concerned with logical consistency, and was influenced by many opposing ideas, and like most politicians, he changed his arguments to please the people he was talking to, from discussion to discussion.
But Hitler was certainly influenced strongly by Darwinian concepts. It is absurd to suggest that he was not familiar with Darwin or with "scientific racism". At the time, eugenics was very popular in liberal circles, and it was certainly supported by the growing understanding of genetics. The Nazis certainly had strong eugenics programs, and they weren't driven by different ideals than eugenics in other countries.
It is not that people had no concept of breeding (even human breeding) before Darwin, but Darwin told them in the absence of artificial selection, natural selection would take place. Christian charity, modern medicine, and technological ease of living were recognized to promote the survival and reproduction of the weak, a selection pressure toward inferiority. Thanks to Darwin, now the way they saw it was: if they did not push forward, they would slide backward.
Beyond that, the concept of competition for survival was not new, but Darwin put a new emphasis on it. Darwinian reasoning was seen as the basis by many for a new morality that overruled religious principles such as charity and the brotherhood of all mankind. You can convert foreigners to your religion, but you can't convert them to your race. If you want your religion to prevail, you can attack the ideas of your opponents. If you want your genes to prevail, you must attack their lives.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (chapter 6) + Show Spoiler +
He continues: "At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
One could rightly argue that Darwin did not explicitly advocate the extermination of "inferior" races by "superior" ones, but he certainly spoke in a way that implied a danger of extinction for those who fell behind or lacked the will to compete to their utmost potential.
He put all of nature in the context of brutal competition between species and races, with extinction as the penalty for failure, and placed man firmly in this merciless arena of nature.
To deny the effects, both direct and indirect, this had on extreme philosophies and political movements is to stick one's head in the sand.
On July 15 2008 03:24 rei wrote: Travis read my post!
I did read your post. I am just saying that I do not think that the collective moral decisions made by humanity necessarily reflect the opinions of thinking individuals at the time.
Most people are sheep, and it is rarely the good guys that herd them.
Race, Patriotism, "anti terror" reasons only work to make wars and such acceptable to your race, or your country. While religion doesn't always make other countries accept what you are doing, they also tend not to argue with it because it's religion, and in our world religion is often used as a trump card, when it should really be looked upon as less than nothing.
On July 15 2008 03:34 Bozali wrote: Funchucks, in those really long posts, please add a summary or something in the end . I'll try to read through it now.
I'd have to read it to summarize it. I don't have time for that.
On July 15 2008 04:49 BlackStar wrote: Funchucks, give me a Hitler quote that shows knowledge of the theory of evolution.
And I'm not talking about the Nazi's. I'm talking about Hitler.
"In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution." - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch
This was a sequel to Mein Kampf which Hitler chose not to publish, due to his concern that it revealed too many of his plans. It was kept secret, placed in secure storage, and eventually discovered by an American soldier after the war.
Here is a copy of the translated text (please excuse the source, I have dodged to a google HTML version): Zweites Buch full text (edited to fix broken link)
You don't have to read more than the first two pages to see that Hitler was heavily influenced by the theory of evolution.
Here's another fun quote: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state." + Show Spoiler +
On July 15 2008 05:30 Funchucks wrote: "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins
Exactly. I think most of Hitlers ideas came from general breeding such as in dogs or grains or pigeons that was around far before Darwinism. But in the end it really doesn't matter where Hitler got his idea from. What some people try to say is that Eugenics is a natural moral consequence of believing in natural selection. That is just as stupid as saying that because I believe wars have been a large part in shaping our history that I would think that war is a good thing. Believing in natural selection as in that it happened and is happening is not the same thing as believing in it in the sense that its a good thing which we should base our morals on.
It's interesting he mentions Sparta regarding eugenics.
The first time he uses 'evolution' it could mean Darwinian evolution of species. But the second and third time surely not. It's about the evolution of an individual throughout life.
On July 15 2008 00:20 BlackStar wrote: Hitler never mentioned anything related with Darwinism in his Mein Kampf or his speeches. Never he speaks of genetics, selection or anything of that kind. It's clear he wasn't at all familiar with Darwinian evolution. Certainly he didn't support it at all. I mean, he was a pretty serious Christian after all.
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.
No one kwows if he was Familiar with "darwinism" but certainly he subscribed to the concept of "Evolution" in general, "Darwinism" its just a specific "branch" that its Evolution. There are a lot of Evolutionist theories, that doenst necesarily has to be from Darwin. About Hitler being a christian its a joke and a contradiction, If a person states himself as a "Christian" and does not follow Christianity teachings and principles he isn't no matter how many times he declares himself as one
On July 15 2008 05:48 BlackStar wrote: It's interesting he mentions Sparta regarding eugenics.
The first time he uses 'evolution' it could mean Darwinian evolution of species. But the second and third time surely not. It's about the evolution of an individual throughout life.
He still does not mention genetics or Darwin.
I'm not convinced.
Hitler almost never attributed his favored ideas to anyone. He wanted to present himself as an original thinker. He never acknowledges Nietzsche, either, for example, who was surely a large influence on his thinking (and also profoundly influenced by Darwin himself).
The word "genetic" did not appear in The Origin of Species, which was published years before Gregor Mendel published the first work on genetics. DNA was not discovered until the 1950s.
"The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy, however, is that it experiences itself not as a function (whether of the monarchy or the commonwealth) but as their meaning and highest justification-that it therefore accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Happiness is Having Power
The structure of the DNA molecule, and that DNA was actually DNA, was discovered in 1953. But that has nothing to do with genetics itself. I mean, if one talked about Darwinian evolution in 1935 one ought to have mentioned genetics.
EPT
. I'll try to read through it now.
