the Dark Face of Darwinism

reply to post by blueorder


Morals are shaped by society, and then either accepted/rejected by individuals. Groups often mass-accept things due to group instinct.

As for atheism being a belief, for the gazillionth time, it's an ABSENCE of belief. I'm not making any claims as to wether or not a deity could potentially exist...but I won't walk around claiming "my" deity is the correct one when I have absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support those claims. I am fine saying "I don't know...but given that we have no evidence for his/her/its existence, I'm not gonna believe in fairytales until there's credible proof".

Reality is awesome enough, I don't need to pretend unicorns and gods with elephant heads judge me, or talking snakes, or people living in whales, or that a meteorite is holy. I love scifi, but I'm good with movies/series/games and don't need to play a real life version of warcraft

reply to post by blueorder


Bald = not a hair color
Not collecting stamps = not a hobby
Not having a cold = not being sick
Being unemployed = not having a job

Atheism is not a belief. It is a specific absence of a belief.

Oh, and morals are subjective, so what?

Originally posted by blueorder
it really is a belief as the afterlife is, whether any of us like it, a choice in whether we accept it, you can choose to believe in a spiritual realm or not, either way, you are merely indulging in a belief that there is only the phsyical realm.

I'm no preacher, but give me a supreme power any day, as, otherwise, we are just intelligent animals with no right or wrong other than for social control- ie, an animal wants to have sex with an "attractive" female, it just attacks, we could, if we take this more intelligent animal line, do likewise with nothing "intrinsically" wrong other than it is not codusive to a stable society.

Cue outrage from atheists of "how dare you say I cannot have morals etc"- you can have morals, but they don't amount to anything more "significant" than chemical processes of your brain

Belief is bullcrap.
You either know, through experience, or you don't know, through experience. Anything else is just kidding oneself, which is done for a multitude of different reasons.
There is too much hypocrisy in this world. What we need is a society that does not judge or reward people on beliefs, but accepts that each person has their own outlook. Then people might be more honest with themselves.

We often see the trite chestnut trotted out that there are no atheists in foxholes. Well I've seen devout Christians turn into shrieking atheists when they believed they were about to die. One in particular, back when I was about 12, had ranted all week at a Christian youth camp about how we were all afraid to die because we knew we'd go to hell, but, being saved, he would greet death with joy, knowing he was about to go to heaven and be with Jesus.

He drove me home. On the narrow mountain road we were forced to one side by a loaded log-truck roaring past. It kicked a rock up which shot into the (laminated) windscreen in front of the driver's face. This brave Christian, so sure he'd remember Jesus at the moment of death, remembered nothing but how to shriek in terror. Long after the truck had passed he was still sobbing on his now wet seat.

A person can kid themselves they believe all they like, but in desperate circumstances the truth shows.

Morality also comes from deep inside, and exists independantly from religious belief.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is where I disagree as a theist, an abscense of belief in a diety is still belief

Are you familiar with madame rhetorica?

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

This is where I disagree as a theist, an abscence of belief in a diety is still belief

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.

I mean, you're saying the same as "not breathing is still breathing". Stop breathing right now, and see if you still consider it breathing after the first few minutes (seconds?).

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.

Let’s say one day someone woke up and decided to see if there is anything to this religion thing, so they get out the religion menu and start looking to see which of the many religions available sounded like it made any kind of sense
So something like:
islam
christianity
hinduism
judaism
scientology
ect

they look at the claims of each religion, the ones that sound like mythology or are just plain wrong they put an X next to and the one they do like they put a tick

Ok so my question is - what would someone be if they got to the bottom of the list and found they had put an X next to each available choice?

And supposing someone else looked down the list and picked christianity for example – can you see how christianity might be seen by others as just mythology
What with:

A god that can be beaten with a shopping trolley!
Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Unicorns!
Job 39:9-10 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Zombies!
Matthew 27:51-53“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

Zechariah 14:12“Now this will be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouth. On that day a large-scale panic from the LORD will spread among them. One person will grab the hand of another, and one will attack the other.”


this guy says it better
Stephen Roberts:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Hitler was a theist who saw his ideology as truth and as something opposed to Darwin, as other posters have amply demonstrated.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

This is where I disagree as a theist, an abscence of belief in a diety is still belief

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.

I mean, you're saying the same as "not breathing is still breathing". Stop breathing right now, and see if you still consider it breathing after the first few minutes (seconds?).

Why the personal insult? I am very well aware that what I wrote might at first glance seem like an oxymoron. But it is not.

You still believe that there is no diety, that is belief. You have no proof or evidence to support you, therefore you none-belief is belief.

You have chosen to not believe in a diety. That is belief.

You are trying to use semantics and rhetorics against the theist, and it is making you look bad tbh.

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? Wanna tell people they still believe in unicorns because they don't believe in unicorns due to the lack of evidence. It's completely irrational to believe in something without evidence...and that includes god(s).

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? Wanna tell people they still believe in unicorns because they don't believe in unicorns due to the lack of evidence. It's completely irrational to believe in something without evidence...and that includes god(s).

Argumentum ad populus / ad hominem.

You have absolutely not understood what I wrote.

I am talking about belief, and to use your unicorn example; you have belief that unicorns do not exist.

What you are trying to do is define agnosticism. That is none-belief in its truest form, atheism is still belief. I stand by what i said, even though you are calling me ridiculous, irrational and what not

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
you may want to take that up with Wiki, afterall I did not write the opening statement there...

Red herring. You're simply not acknowledging the fact that we're providing ample evidence to show that Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler's ideas. You're pushing this to religion. It wouldn't matter what Hitler's religion was, he simply didn't like the ideas of Darwin.

Theists would not see Hitlers ideology as Truth but more along the lines of Darwinism.

Most people wouldn't see his ideology as anything but racist idiocy. 99.99999% of the world would say it's all stupid. That is atheists and theists alike.

Now, why are you not answering my questions? I mean, this statement specifically pertains to questions 1, 3, and 6 :

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

Question 6: How is evolution a racist ideology?


Where is the evidence to support your claims?

reply to post by Schrödinger


As MrXYZ has so kindly pointed out, your statement is entirely illogical. How can the absence of something be that thing?

Is the absence of bread a type of bread? Is the absence of hair a type of hair?

Then how is the absence of belief any type of belief? It is merely the rejection of an unproven statement. It is skepticism, and skepticism is not a belief, it is a rejection of a position.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Schrödinger

 

As MrXYZ has so kindly pointed out, your statement is entirely illogical. How can the absence of something be that thing?

Is the absence of bread a type of bread? Is the absence of hair a type of hair?

Then how is the absence of belief any type of belief? It is merely the rejection of an unproven statement. It is skepticism, and skepticism is not a belief, it is a rejection of a position.

You are apparently misunderstanding what I am saying, and I will take full blame for that.

You are talking about agnosticism, I am talking about atheism. Atheism is the belief that no deity exists! Like Aunicornism is the belief that unicorns do not exist. And so fourth.

Agnosticism is the none-belief, ie. you have not decided or put your faith in if a deity or unicorns for that matter exists.

Am I doing a better job, explaining where I am going?

reply to post by Schrödinger

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Argumentum ad populus / ad hominem.

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

You have absolutely not understood what I wrote.

I object. I would counter-claim that you have either not understood what you wrote, possibly due to a lack of understanding of the English language (not as an insult, not everyone here has English as a first language), possibly due to a misunderstanding of logic, or possibly due to misreading what you wrote.

I'm not insulting you, but I'm throwing out possibilities. I mean, you might just be thick, it's a possibility. But I'm not saying any specific one applies to you.

I am talking about belief, and to use your unicorn example; you have belief that unicorns do not exist.

No, I do not believe in unicorns.
You see, language is set up in a logical fashion.

You have a statement: I have hair.
Then you have a negative form: I do not have hair.
You could rephrase the first statement as: I do have hair.

Now, with regard to theism it is like this.

You have a statement: I have a belief in a deity. (or I do have a belief in a deity)
You have a negative form: I do not have a belief in a deity.

How is it a belief to not have a belief? Is it a disease to not be sick?

What you are trying to do is define agnosticism.

Even though I've had to deal with this question extensively and often, I'm going to be as polite as possible here.

Agnosticism. Roots: "a" "gnosis"
"a" = without
"gnosis" = knowledge

Agnosticism, without knowledge

Atheism. Roots: "a" "theos"
"a" = without
"theos" = god (in this case 'theism' would be defined as a god-centric belief system)

Atheism = without a belief in a deity.

I, and pretty much all other atheists, are agnostic atheists. We neither know if a god exists or not, but we do not belief.

That is none-belief in its truest form, atheism is still belief.

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).

I stand by what i said, even though you are calling me ridiculous, irrational and what not

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.

reply to post by Schrödinger

Originally posted by Schrödinger
You are apparently misunderstanding what I am saying, and I will take full blame for that.

You are talking about agnosticism, I am talking about atheism. Atheism is the belief that no deity exists! Like Aunicornism is the belief that unicorns do not exist. And so fourth.

See the post I've already made. Agnosticism and atheism respect two different questions. Atheism is a question of disbelief, agnosticism is a question of knowledge.

Atheism is not a positive belief. It is not 'I believe there is no god', that would be a separate issue. I do not believe in a deity. It's a separate issue. It's rejecting a positive claim. The rejection of a positive claim is not another positive claim, it's a negative position. You cannot claim that a negative position is a positive position.

Agnosticism is the none-belief, ie. you have not decided or put your faith in if a deity or unicorns for that matter exists.

No, agnosticism is not knowing. You can be an agnostic theist. I was for a few months.

Am I doing a better job, explaining where I am going?

Yes, you are demonstrating quite well that you misunderstand the words 'atheism' 'agnosticism' and 'belief'.

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'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!

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.

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'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.

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

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.

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

So clearly there are some parts you have misunderstood.

You should really research madame rhetorica, you are a class example of her being used

Agnosticism in its strictest definition is not-knowing! An agnostic theist sounds like an oxymoron to me. But heck I am a pantheistic polytheist

I don't understand what I have done to you to deserve the hostile tone. I will withdraw from this debate and leave it to you, you can consider this a victory, and boost your ego some, for having defeated/alienated/mocked/humiliated yet another ignorant theist.

Be well sir, and may the fimbul winter be kind to you and your loved ones

I thought it worked like this:

Here’s a list of gods
ancienthistory.about.com...

I doubt it’s complete but assuming it was and somebody went through that list and decided none of them where real, but that there might still be a god lurking around somewhere – then that person is an agnostic

If after examining the list and deciding none of them where real and that the whole class of things called god(s) is a non-sense –then that person is a atheist

reply to post by Schrödinger






This picture explains it well.

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

Agnosticism is not a non-belief. It is the absence of knowledge whether your belief is true or not. There can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

An agnostic theist sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Here you go:

Agnostic theism