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.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...
To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch
Originally posted by borntowatch
I am rocking and reeling with all that valuable evidence and well referenced support you have scraped together, oh wait... you have none...nothing.
Yawn
The answer is YES, they were all atheists when they KILLED millions. That cant be denied.
Multiple incompatible definitions
As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by borntowatch
I am rocking and reeling with all that valuable evidence and well referenced support you have scraped together, oh wait... you have none...nothing.
Yawn
I guess you don't know how this works. You made a claim and you must provide the proof to back it up not just ask others to provide proof against it.
The answer is YES, they were all atheists when they KILLED millions. That cant be denied.
For starters who's is "all"? Were they really atheists when they killed millions? Did they kill them because they were atheists or was there another reason?
I see you also try to lump atheists with social darwinism. Of course darwinists can be atheists but not all atheists are social darwinists and according to Wikipedia even social darwinism doesn't mean a single thing so maybe you should realize that that label doesn't apply to everyone you are trying to place it on.
Multiple incompatible definitions
As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...
To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch
The killing of the natives happened long before Darwin was born, are you kidding me? Social Darwinism, IS NOT evolution and WAS NOT what Darwin wrote about.edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by borntowatch
Actually we already went over that. Short memory?
I am actually pointing out the last few pages of you asking for proof without having properly refuted the proof against your claims in the the OP. Like the fact that Stalin allowed the church back into the USSR or the fact that the native american populations were decimated long before social Darwinism even existed.
Originally posted by borntowatch
So the atheist Stalin (we agree on that) killed millions in the name of communism, a political agenda based on atheism not religion (we agree on that), then accepted the Orthodox church to control the population he couldnt.
The Indian population were decimated after Darwin released his book. Check your history. If the Indian population was decimated before the book, why was the war still being fought?
Originally posted by daskakik
I don't hold the religious counterparts as being examples of what their particular religions teach so we're back to the flaw in your argument, which is placing the blame on their particular beliefs.
Originally posted by daskakik
As it has been pointed out, more than a few times, they were acting with other ends in mind. They used whatever moved the masses without feeling that there personal convictions were compromised. These type of people are called psychopaths. At the end of the day that is all they were regardless of their professed beliefs.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by borntowatch
Now we all know Native Indians are not atheists, dont we??
And we all know the genocide perpetrated on them was due to greed and Eugenics and justified by Darwins writings
www.csustan.edu...
To expect you to read and comprehend that link may well be a stretch
The killing of the natives happened long before Darwin was born, are you kidding me? Social Darwinism, IS NOT evolution and WAS NOT what Darwin wrote about.edit on 3-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
If you read and understood the link I placed in the comment, doesnt matter.
You will never understand
Originally posted by borntowatch
Your argument to defend atheism is my argument defending Christianity, though I accept Christians will fail. You on the other hand wont acknowledge the failures of your atheist brothers...hypocrisy.
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by borntowatch
Your argument to defend atheism is my argument defending Christianity, though I accept Christians will fail. You on the other hand wont acknowledge the failures of your atheist brothers...hypocrisy.
That is what I see as the flaw. I am not defending atheists but I am also not judging christians (religious persons) because I realize that the actions of evil persons isn't because they are one or the other.
So while I understand your premise I disagree with applying the same failed logic of painting all religious people with the same brush to atheists. It is wrong in both instances.
ETA: Sorry, I also understand that the label isn't for everyone but that is the way it is taken when someone points out a tyrant's belief or lack thereof because it seems to be pointed out as an association or underlying cause.
edit on 4-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Barcs
The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Originally posted by Barcs
The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.
I new you wouldnt read it, probably beyond you, to suggest Its about Germany though, thats very ignorant
The essay is about
Progress through Racial Extermination:
Social Darwinism,
Eugenics,
Pacifism in Germany, between 1860-1918
The main theme as the title suggests is "Progress through Racial Extermination:" the rest of the headings are how those other headings effected racial extermination.
You havnt a clue, that much is evident
Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by borntowatch
Originally posted by Barcs
The link is about eugenics in Germany and I doubt you have even read it.. What does that have to do with the killing of native americans? Come on, it's not that difficult to have a 2 way conversation.
I new you wouldnt read it, probably beyond you, to suggest Its about Germany though, thats very ignorant
The essay is about
Progress through Racial Extermination:
Social Darwinism,
Eugenics,
Pacifism in Germany, between 1860-1918
The main theme as the title suggests is "Progress through Racial Extermination:" the rest of the headings are how those other headings effected racial extermination.
You havnt a clue, that much is evident
Please direct me to the part about the natives. Thanks.
Originally posted by borntowatch
Ahhm, this is getting boring now, very tiring
The esay is about. PROGRESS THROUGH RACIAL EXTERMINATION.
The native American Indians were a nation who were exterminated, the book was used to justify their extermination
1 + 1 = 2
I am over this. My children all under 14 understand it, you are probably to young to comprehend it.