It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I think Vonnegut got it right... on Darwin

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Lots of back and forth.

Interesting thread idea. My favorite point made so far, and in my opinion worthy of discussion was, the shift from "Right and Wrong" thinking to "Legal and Illegal"; regardless of Darwin's writing's and religious historical reference, that one sentence alone is a fascinating topic!

When personal "Right or Wrong" (morality) is forced to accept what society says is "Legal or Illegal" (ethics); or face massive civil pressures to alter your morality until it conforms with societies ethical determinations.

God Bless,
edit on 24-3-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


Thank you... that is exactly what I hoped ATSers would see and understand.

How often is the "right thing to do" now countered by "law"? For instance, in some cities it is illegal to give money to a "panhandler"... but what if this person is genuinely hungry and is just looking for a few buck to eat? The "right thing" would be to help this person, yet at the same time helping this person has been made illegal...

The "right thing" to do would be to tackle the poverty and homelessness in our own backyards... instead more money is spent globally on "poverty" issues (which is code for buying influence and paying others countries to see things our way)... which is legal, and only done because of that legality... this doesn't mean that it is right or just, only legal.

How many of our leaders lack this sense of morality? Would we, as a society, benefit more from leaders with morals or leaders with ethics? (Of course, what are the chances of finding one with either?)


edit on 24-3-2014 by madmac5150 because: And so it goes...



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Religion is used as a façade:


History shows us without a shadow of a doubt, that religion was invariably used as a façade to hide the true purpose of all wars of aggression: That is, the consolidation of power through fear and the acquisition of wealth in all its manifestations. www.inthenameofallah.org...

"All war is based on deception." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Wars and religion are BOTH deceptions and both have the same exact source:

This is how the real agenda behind Illuminati religions works.

1) Create a "religion" that does horrendous atrocities and kills millions.

2) Make it a crime to leave that religion.

3) Blame all these atrocities on God and His "Religion".

This is how religion is used to cause people to HATE God and blame HIM for all the wars and deaths.

This is why Jesus outed the Synagogue of Satan AKA Illuminati so we would KNOW who is really behind it all.


One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. The Synagogue of Satan



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

madmac5150
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


Thank you... that is exactly what I hoped ATSers would see and understand.

How often is the "right thing to do" now countered by "law"? For instance, in some cities it is illegal to give money to a "panhandler"... but what if this person is genuinely hungry and is just looking for a few buck to eat? The "right thing" would be to help this person, yet at the same time helping this person has been made illegal...

The "right thing" to do would be to tackle the poverty and homelessness in our own backyards... instead more money is spent globally on "poverty" issues (which is code for buying influence and paying others countries to see things our way)... which is legal, and only done because of that legality... this doesn't mean that it is right or just, only legal.

How many of our leaders lack this sense of morality? Would we, as a society, benefit more from leaders with morals or leaders with ethics? (Of course, what are the chances of finding one with either?)


edit on 24-3-2014 by madmac5150 because: And so it goes...


A bit of a warped view considering the majority of world leaders believe, or claim to believe in a god!



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I agree with you religion is a tool that has been used to control, manipulate, and blame. If that tool was removed man may not be so easily controlled or manipulated. If that tool disappeared from society I just do not see how Darwins discovery could replace it as a tool. I do not see the evidence that is the case where countries embraced his discoveries as most of them are enjoying an era of peace.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by madmac5150
 


"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."

Cat's Cradle




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


And the award for "Most Appropriate Username" goes to...
edit on 24-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

GetHyped
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


And the award for "Most Appropriate Username" goes to...


Ta very much for noticing.

And, 'So it goes...'




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Vonnegut was a deeply intelligent, deeply ironic-depressed man... which stems from the war, in micro and the human farce in a cold universe where one organism must devour another to exist in the macro.

I sorta "grew" out of his writing in my teens, but have a love for the man and his clever, valid view. God, if he exists or existed, might possibly be insane... or cruel.

I have since looked at things more deeply and wonder if there's a method in the insanity of life... or hope there is, more correctly.

Breakfast of Champions broke me a little as a human in this time and place, forever... and I curse and love him for that dose of alienation.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Grimpachi
I agree with you religion is a tool that has been used to control, manipulate, and blame. If that tool was removed man may not be so easily controlled or manipulated. If that tool disappeared from society I just do not see how Darwins discovery could replace it as a tool. I do not see the evidence that is the case where countries embraced his discoveries as most of them are enjoying an era of peace.

EDIT: Accidentally hit post before finishing...

The below quotes came to mind after reading your reply, I'm wondering which countries you are referring to and if the below quotes are talking about the same ones... I honestly haven't a clue which countries they are to be honest... Just curious, that's all.


"Athesim has produced FIVE Atheist states, all bloody tyrannies killing over 40,000,000 people during the 20th Century Atheist holocaust!" Rewriting History and Making Facts Disappear (link is dead)

"...secular ideologies were responsible for the murder of 100 million innocent people during the last century." Source

The Illuminazi terrorists have used lies and propaganda to cause the world to believe that Religion is the cause of wars and death. In reality THEY are the ones are the ones behind the scenes manipulating ALL world events.

They are ALSO the creators of ALL the false religions which they use to blame it all on.



Nobody has died because of religion. When people "kill in the name of religion," they're actually going against what religion teaches.

A man could claim to be killing in the name of Mickey Mouse -- but that is a bad reflection on the man, not on Mickey Mouse.

Atheist Communist regimes, meanwhile, have killed over 100 million of their own people (and that's a conservative number) in just the last 100 years.

They didn't do it in the name of atheism, precisely, but their killing is not going against what atheism teaches. Because atheism, in essence, teaches nothing. Whenever atheism has been installed as the Official State Religion, the state in question has always given itself permission to do unspeakable things. Always.

When God is not, as Dostoyevsky wrote, anything is permitted.

Link



edit on MaruMon, 24 Mar 2014 21:46:32 -05009pm31Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:46:32 -050020144624 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 



Top 25 Most Atheist Countries in the World

25. Australia ( 24 - 25% Atheist)

24. Austria ( 18 - 26% Atheist)

23. Switzerland ( 17 - 27% Atheist)

22. Slovakia ( 10 - 28% Atheist)

21. Latvia ( 20 - 29% Atheist)

20. Canada ( 19 - 30% Atheist)

19. Israel ( 15 - 37% Atheist)

18. Slovenia ( 35 - 38% Atheist)

17. Bulgaria ( 34 - 40% Atheist)

16. Belgium ( 42 - 43% Atheist)

15. United Kingdom ( 31 - 44% Atheist)

14. Netherlands ( 39 - 44% Atheist)

13. Hungary ( 32 - 46% Atheist)

12. Russia ( 24 - 48% Atheist)

11. Germany ( 41 - 49% Atheist)

10. Estonia ( 49% Atheist)

9. South Korea ( 30 - 52% Atheist)

8. France ( 43 - 54% Atheist)

7. Finland ( 28 - 60% Atheist)

6. Czech Republic ( 54 - 61% Atheist)

5. Japan ( 64 - 65% Atheist)

4. Norway ( 31 - 72% Atheist)

3. Denmark ( 43 - 80% Atheist)

2. Vietnam ( 81% Atheist)

1. Sweden ( 46 - 85% Atheist)

iB lifestyle

Washing tonPost



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

madmac5150

As a KVJ fan I though I'd throw in a few of his other quotes on evolution :

I am too lazy to chase down the exact quotation but the British astronomer Fred Hoyle said something to this effect: The believing in Darwin’s theoretical mechanisms of evolution was like believing that a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and build a Boeing 747. No matter what is doing the creating. I have to say that the giraffe and the rhinoceros are ridiculous. And so is the human brain, capable, in cahoots with the more sensitive parts of the body, such as the ding dong, of hating life while pretending to love it, and behaving accordingly: Somebody shoot me while I’m happy!
-Timequake

I don't think that quote is correct and it's not about evolution. Hoyle was talking about abiogenesis and his belief that panspermia was the only reasonable explanation. This is what wikipedia says:

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I think KVJ mentioned Darwin as scientific base of racism. BTW concept of evolution was popular long time before Darwin's expose. Darwin contributed some mechanisms how evolution may proceed. He did the step from hypothesis to testable theory.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

JanAmosComenius
I think KVJ mentioned Darwin as scientific base of racism. BTW concept of evolution was popular long time before Darwin's expose. Darwin contributed some mechanisms how evolution may proceed. He did the step from hypothesis to testable theory.


An earlier post pointed out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian... which is a true statement. However, Nazi eugenics were clearly driven by Darwinism: the idea that one race was further evolved than others...



Published in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said nothing of substance about the origin of species. Or anything else, for that matter. It nonetheless persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races. They drew the obvious conclusion, the one that Darwin had already drawn. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word expense to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races. The point is made with abysmal clarity in the documentary, Expelled. Visiting the site at which those judged defective were killed – a hospital, of course – the narrator, Ben Stein, asks the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing. “Darwinism,” she replies wanly.

Source

Darwinism or Evolutionism (whatever label you may prefer) implies that, through "natural selection", some races of mankind (ie. caucasians) are further evolved and therefore can be labeled as a master race. "Lesser races" (ie. blacks, asians etc.) are just more mouths that have to be fed and thereby seen as "justly expendable". This IS the basis for eugenics.

For instance, look at Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a hardcore Darwinist, and took the idea of natural selection a step further... selected breeding. Here are a few of her more memorable quotes:



On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people




On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)




On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


Source


Darwinism, eugenics, genocide... it's all tied together...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

madmac5150


Darwinism or Evolutionism (whatever label you may prefer) implies that, through "natural selection", some races of mankind (ie. caucasians) are further evolved and therefore can be labeled as a master race. "Lesser races" (ie. blacks, asians etc.) are just more mouths that have to be fed and thereby seen as "justly expendable". This IS the basis for eugenics.


Evolution (or Darwin, for that matter) says nothing of the sort.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by madmac5150
 


Yes, I somehow agree with you. But: Darwin's conclusions would not be possible without for example Hegel's work (Phenomenology of Spirit is basically concept of cultural evolution), or without work of Lamarck. Darwin's most influential idea - survival of fittest - is deeply rooted in capitalistic world view and A. Smith's work. If it would not be Darwin, it would be someone else who would propose similar idea. It is similar to case of F. Nietzsche or R. Wagner or K. Marx. None of them would probably support Third Reich or Stalin's reign.
Now I remember that The Origin of Species was rushed (after many years) to print because someone else described almost same concepts in a brief letter.
IMHO it is not accurate to sign Darwin as father of eugenics. Many pioneers of quantum mechanics warned about possibility of misuse of atomic energy. But construction of bomb was still based on theirs work. Are they fathers of Little Boy and Fat Men?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Baddogma
 

Ya, life in all its forms is pretty and horrible. Sometimes people can be at a low point in life and it can't be lower and they die. Sometimes they're low and a miracle happens and they rise up higher. Sometimes they're high and rejoicing and then fall off a cliff to the bottom. There're flukes of nature. People can die at any time. They can also rejoice at any time. The universe is everything: good and bad, high and low, consistent and inconsistent, bright and dark, etc.

Sometimes the universe appears hellish and unacceptable, other times I am bewitched by its natural beauty and miracles. What I do know is, I think the best thing a person can do is help someone else when that person really needs the help. And I think the same can apply to any creature alive. There's just nothing worse than a creature to be at the bottom facing death or pain or loss of hope, even if it somewhat tolerates those things. To help another or to receive the help, is the best feeling in hte world.

i can understand the view the universe is terrible. I know that feeling, been there. Just trying to say this universe isn't all terrible.

I've also come to feel maybe humans controlling the processes on Earth isn't such a bad thing if it means less grieving and misery. Humans are afterall not a mindless agent like wind or rushing water. To make our place habitable we must shape it, we cannot sit idly. We sit idly and the ground will shift and the foundation of our house will falter and the bacteria and fungi and viruses will spill into our home and eat and/or infest everything, including ourselves and everything we didn't dare to keep alive.

"Certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
edit on 25-3-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Sort of like this...




My apologies to KilgoreTrout for using this...



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

madmac5150

JanAmosComenius
I think KVJ mentioned Darwin as scientific base of racism. BTW concept of evolution was popular long time before Darwin's expose. Darwin contributed some mechanisms how evolution may proceed. He did the step from hypothesis to testable theory.


An earlier post pointed out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian... which is a true statement. However, Nazi eugenics were clearly driven by Darwinism: the idea that one race was further evolved than others...



Published in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said nothing of substance about the origin of species. Or anything else, for that matter. It nonetheless persuaded scientists in England, Germany and the United States that human beings were accidents of creation. Where Darwin had seen species struggling for survival, German physicians, biologists, and professors of hygiene saw races. They drew the obvious conclusion, the one that Darwin had already drawn. In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. German scientists took the word expense to mean what it meant: The annihilation of less fit races. The point is made with abysmal clarity in the documentary, Expelled. Visiting the site at which those judged defective were killed – a hospital, of course – the narrator, Ben Stein, asks the curator what most influenced the doctors doing the killing. “Darwinism,” she replies wanly.

Source

Darwinism or Evolutionism (whatever label you may prefer) implies that, through "natural selection", some races of mankind (ie. caucasians) are further evolved and therefore can be labeled as a master race. "Lesser races" (ie. blacks, asians etc.) are just more mouths that have to be fed and thereby seen as "justly expendable". This IS the basis for eugenics.

For instance, look at Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a hardcore Darwinist, and took the idea of natural selection a step further... selected breeding. Here are a few of her more memorable quotes:



On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people




On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)




On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


Source


Darwinism, eugenics, genocide... it's all tied together...


Another warped view, eugenics has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Baddogma
 



Breakfast of Champions broke me a little as a human in this time and place, forever... and I curse and love him for that dose of alienation.

That book had a very serious negative impact on my mental health. I read it when I was nineteen. It took me months to recover.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join