Posted on 03/19/2010 1:04:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Indeed!
He will believe in Hell when he gets there.
A patently false, fleeting generalization. Darwinism has not been embraced solely by atheists, nor applied only in violent ways.
Hitler’s embrace of darwinism lead him to the genocide of the Jews and other ‘undesirables’.
This claim has been debunked even by the Jewish Anti Defamation League.
the ADL further states:
Visit one of those concentration camps some time kosta as I have - you’ll get an in-your-face practical definition and example of evil
Why don't you tell that to the ADL staff?
A particular version of the so-called social Darwinism, which exists in a variety of social, economic, political, and moral theories, has been hijacked by a the Protestant Creationist nut jobs of the earlier part of the 20th century, who later morphed into Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific nut jobs of today.
No surprise there.
A patently false, fleeting generalization. Darwinism has not been embraced solely by atheists, nor applied only in violent ways.
I note that you skipped over the avowed atheistic governments of USSR and China - the greatest mass murdering countries of all time. Fleeting generalization, hardly for you will be hard pressed to identify a single atheistic organization that doesn't also embrace darwinism (after all, atheists don't believe in God - neither does darwinism). Speaking of false generalizations - I never stated ONLY in violent ways - please don't put words in my mouth in an effort to bolster your case.
ADF
Sorry, theirs is a suspect on this case. As I noted, it wasn't only Jew's demise justified by Hitler's genocide. His "superior race" through genetics -> survival of the fittest. The 'lesser races' - once again relate to darwinism survival of the fittest. They felt justified experimenting and killing because of their lesser, inferior status. Denial of that very real aspect of the holocaust is intellectually dishonest.
Why don't you tell that to the ADL staff?
Any time, any place
A particular version of the so-called social Darwinism, . . . . . . .
Such a twisted piece of logic kosta, I'm really disappointed in you. Linking social darwinism to intelligent design, that is simply asinine - and I'm sure others here will see the stupidity of that same comment.
Yes P-M, even in the face of reality and the application of atheism and darwinism followed to its logical conclusion in historic bastions of both such as the USSR and China (among many) and your prognostication was correct - denying the very nose on one's face
Is there any behavior or act which is, irrespective of opinion of anyone, evil? Objective evil? Or is evil defined by opinion?
G, all I wrote (#116) is "Every society has a concept of the right and wrong; their own brand of morality. In all societies, restrictions to conduct, and punishment based on misconduct, serve to protects the community."
I mean it takes really twisted logic to read into this promotion of some kind of social Darwinism, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pt, etc.
Atheist socialism did not embrace social Darwinism, which is inherently racist. There was nothing inherently racist about socialism. You are equating atheism with socialism and socialism with racism. That is asinine in my opinion and totally unsupported, an dunrelated to what I wrote in #116.
No one here is denying that Communist China and the USSR murdered people in record numbers. No one is making light of it. But that was not the topic.
Now, Nazi Germany, unlke socialist countries, promoted racial policies based on the thinking of 19th century predominantly British philosophers and scientists (such as Francis Galton, and others).
Hitler's Germany wanted to create a nation made up of "pure" Nordic race of people, the way we create dog breeds, by inbreeding "desired characteristics" based on strict Mendelian genetics.
In addition to that, the idea that the strongest prevail is still alive and well in the social psychology of many countries, including our own. Socialism was anything but competitive. In fact it was anti-competitive, dumbing down, and oppressive. Darwinism is by definition competitive and, as a social model, much closer to competitive, capitalist social norms.
That's because social darwinism has many deifnitions, some of which are direct opposite of others. You can use it to defend racism as well as competitive economic systems.
Sorry, theirs is a suspect on this case.
Talk about rejecting evidence.
As I noted, it wasn't only Jew's demise justified by Hitler's genocide. His "superior race" through genetics -> survival of the fittest. The 'lesser races' - once again relate to darwinism survival of the fittest.
Hitler's regime was a racist regime based on the belief that one can breed a better and superior race of people the way we breed dogs for desired characteristics. At that time, it was generally believed that "inferior" races were inferior because they were genetically inferior. This belief was not limited only to Nazi Germany or Japan.
That was on the par with slavery which enjoyed wide support in the Christian world. The whole idea that some human races are inherently 'cursed' or rejected prevails among some Evangelical and Jewish nut jobs to this day, such as Ishmael's descendents of Abraham (Arabs), or as some races being related to the tribe of Cain.
Linking social darwinism to intelligent design, that is simply asinine - and I'm sure others here will see the stupidity of that same comment
Way to go, Godzilla. I guess when all else fails then personal adjective are in order.
Instead of stooping down to the same level I reiterate that a particularly radicalized theory of social Darwinism as a basis for totalitarianism is a product of Creationist and Intelligent Design supporters.
You can convince yourself by going to their sites, such as Answers in Genesis, a literalist Bible group peddling this theory, the Young Earth believers, as well as people like Richard Weikart, and others associated with the ID Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.
I don't like to answer questions with questions, but in this case I think it is appropriate. Tell me why is murder intrinsically, objectively, evil? What makes it intrinsically evil? I can see it as being disruptive or even destructive for the community and as such it is a general 'evil' just as prosperity from which community benefits is seen as general 'good.'
If you became convinced tomorrow that there was no God, would you embrace evil tomorrow?
Is that the only thing stopping you?
People should be propelled by a love for that which is good, and a need to foster and protect that which is good.
I write that as someone who unwaveringly believes in God.
To the contrary, your worldview is a veiw that morality is subjective, not objective.
I am thrilled with your honesty, because your world view is the case study demonstrating that man is of little or no value...(perhaps a few cents worth of iron, copper, other minerals). Your worldview clearly demonstrates what theists have been saying for years, that darwinist, atheistic, materialism yields this type of thinking. Why think that if God does not exist, we would have any moral obligations to do anything. Who or what should impose any moral duty or obligation on anyone. If there are no objective moral wrongs, how can a materialist condemn any act....child torture, rape, murder, mass murder of 6 million people because they have a certain heritage...Dostoyevsky said it...all things are permitted. But we must remember the question is not: Must we believe in God to live moral lives? Today we se no reason to believe that materialist cannot live a moral life. Similarly the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? But there is no justification as to why the materialist atheist should do so. A "shopping list" of rights and wrongs could be adopted as the relativist. Your last statement of prosperity being a good, in your world, must be seen to conflict with the notion of 'good' or 'evil', because there is no standard to guage such a classification system. It is simply horizontal laudry list of conditions (prosperity) because it cannot be determined to be good, in a moral system which declares there is none. Prosperity simply is, and to define it or question it as 'good' corrupts the observation, and makes the comment or question absurd, as your example describes it. I would simply ask, why would you ask if I can explain something which you could see as good (prosperity). Your denial of objective moral law makes the question meaningless, in your world where it cannot be allowed to reside. There, likewise, can never be a complaint about civil rights, civil wrongs, civil lawbreakers; only broken conventions of other men who consider themselves equal and therefore there can be no proximate cause of any wrongdoing, because wrong does not exist. The Germans of the '30's had conventions and killed over 6 million innocent women, children, and men. Their conventions served their purpose. Now those conventions have changed, imposed upon them by a stronger force, and will change again apart from recognizing objective morality.
Now to answer your question...Why is murder intrinsically evil, objective, evil? The answer lies in the many truths which argue the existence of God. (Can we agree that God is defined as a necessary, not contingent, metaphysical being) (You can agree for a working definition, even if you deny that as true). I will only point to what you already know,...that is the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, the Ontological arguments all attest to the truth that God exists. I feel, however, since I am sure you are familiar with all of these arguments that I will not expound on them. I will however expound on one other...that is the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God which says, We prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary (that being God does not exist). The Transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheists materialists world is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The materialists worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability of mind to understand the world around him, or moral absolutes. The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. The laws of logic have a transcendent nature about them. They are universal, invarient, and immaterial in nature. The laws of logic are abstract and not materialistic. As invariant, they don't fit into what most materialists would tell us about the consistantly changing nature of the world. In the theistic world these abstract entities make sense because in the theists worldview there are abstract, universal, and invariant entities such as the laws of logic,spirit, mind, etc.
As these laws of logic fall prey to the materialist they cease to be laws and become conventions as you so aptly pointed out in your example and statement. If materialists are to be true to materialism they must refuse to acknowledge logic, reason, and rational thought as tools to explain their worldview, and without logic and ratioal thought their positions become arbitrary and absurd....thus the materialist inferring that prosperity is good, an impossibility for the consistent materialist. The best they can hope for is a shopping list of conventions to be agreed upon by a majority and inforced by tyrany imposed. People cannot be satisfied by absurdity and caprice, they rely on examining a rational universe by use of laws of logic. If those are abandoned nothing makes sense.
So I present you with the arguments for God's existence, a personal, necessary existent being, which you may accept of deny. But my answer to your question....Why is it intrinsically evil,....is that given there is a Transcendent God, and the case is very, very strong, and He has revealed that we are made in His likeness, our moral duty is grounded in divine moral commands, not sociological conventions. The rejection of divine moral commands lead to the place where you find yourself,...the place where despits have gathered form millenia.
I do not say that materialist cannot be moral in their behavior, they simply cannot justify being moral, just as your confusion is demonstrated in your questions. Neither are God's commands arbitrary, but the absolute objective moral law reflects God's very character.
The materialist, atheist might ask, "Why pick God's nature as definition of the good, the answer is that God, by definition, is greatest conceivable Being, and a Being that is the paradigm which exemplifies goodness. Unles we are nihilists, we have to recognize some ultimate standard of value, and God is the least arbitrary stopping point. Thus the moral argument brings us to a personal, necessary Being Who is the locus and source of moral goodness. That Necessary Being demands, "Thou shall not commit murder."
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you so much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
This guy isn't really SERIOUS, is he?!?!
Yes.
He IS
VERY SERIOUS
. . . . VERY SERIOUSLY CLUELESS.
I would simply say to the ADL that Hitler may not have needed Dawinism to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people - he could have couched his argument in Mein Kempf any way he wanted, but the fact is that he chose the language of Darwinism.
"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development."Mein Kempf is saturated with this kind of vulgarized Darwinism, which was very popular in the Viennese press of the time.
As far as the ADL's statement that Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness, I'm tempted to say, no s*** Sherlock. Darwinism, considered as a scientific theory is descriptive, not prescriptive and thus cannot account for morality at all because morality is prescriptive. I don't know on what grounds ADL Darwinists condemn "Hitler's genocidal madness", but if it is founded on some sort of Darwinian account of history then their argument is self-vitiating.
Cordially,
Just to be clear on some of the terminology being tossed around: objective is that which exists as a demonstrable object. When we say that the Bible is a book, that is an objective truth because books are real objects.
But when you say that what's in the bible is objective truth that does not follow.
Now if we begin with a premise that murder is evil and that killing someone is murder, then it follows that murder is evil, but doesn't prove it because the premise is not based on objective truth. Objective evil requires that you demonstrate that there is an object that is evil by nature. No such object can be demonstrated.
Thus, evil is a convention whether it is based on social or theological premises. Theological premises must be believed. We have only a theoretical argument that God exists. God is not an object and therefore cannot be objectively demonstrated as true. It must be believed.
On the other hand, societies objectively exist and lawless societies fall apart while lawful ones succeed. If one can show a direct relationship between murder and lawlessness and lawlessness as injurious to the community, then there is objective proof that murder is evil for the community.
Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. In fact, it seems rather asinine come to think of it. An atheist scientist uses logic. Logic does not come from beliefs, but form objective demonstrable, mneasurable phenomena. Mathematics. Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions. Triangles, squares and circles are objective premises. Numbers are objective representations of the real world.
I couldn't agree more. When Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf various versions of social "Darwinism" (political, racial, economic, etc.), theories that the fittest survive, succeed and procreate, were alive and well—and are to this day. But his hatred for the Jews, and his diabolical plan to destroy them, was his perception that there was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany economically and otherwise. What does Darwinism have to do with that?
Only that Darwinism offers no basis for condemning either Hitler's fevered imagination or what he actually did to millions of people. There is no "diabolical" in what was, if Darwinism were true, just another historical development of matter in motion. What could possibly be wrong with a series of events in an evolutionary process?
Cordially,
In this post I will deal with a few misunderstandings. Is your mind a demonstrable object? Clearly, no. It is immaterial. However I have no doubt that your mind objectivley exists. You and I are corresponding is the simple proof.
Objective evil requires that you demonstrate that there is an object that is evil by nature
I offer the same explaination as before.
We have only a theoretical argument that God Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. exists. God is not an object and therefore cannot be objectively demonstrated as true. It must be believed. I would more specifically say we have philosophical proof that God exists (the Transcendental Arguement), not to put too fine a point on the distinction of your 'theoretical' argument. As I said you may accept these arguments or refuse to accept them. But as a materialist, you did not, and I assert cannot, account for, in a matrialist world, the law of logic, reason, or rational thoght. The transcendent qualities of these things, logic, reason and rational thought are not made of matter, energy, or space. That is all your worldview will allow. Therefore you must borrow from the theists worldview to engage these tools. So again, I ask simply that you account for logic, rational thought, and reason as material entities.
Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. Now, you know I never made that assertion. In fact, I will assert that atheist, materialist scientist use logic, reason and rational thought all of the time. They simply cannot justify, in an atheist, materialstic world how laws of logic, reason, and rational thought can exist. They must 'borrow' from the thesists world view, which does account for these invarient, immaterial laws of thought in order to use these tools. Their worldview does not provide for the immaterial and thus, to affirm that the immaterial exists, violates their long-held view that only matter, energy, and space and time is all that exists while they employ a thesitic world view, though they deny it. It becomes reductio ad absurdum.
An atheist uses logic. Logic does not come from beliefs, but from objective demonstrable, measurable phenomena.
I agree that atheists use logic. Now, explain that logic does not come from beliefs,......(I agree with that)....but from objective demonstrable, measurable phenomena.....explain that!!!!Logic comes from demonstrable, measurable phenomena....what phenomena?????
Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions.< p>What is the physical nature of structural thinking....what is it made of.....Not, it is seen on a graph as brainwaves....but, What IS THINKING (thought or any mental event) made of? In other words what is the material which makes up sentience? You have asserted exclusive materialism. What is any mental event made of? Additionally, you add, Mathematics. Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions. Triangles, squares and circles are objective premises. Numbers are objective representations of the real world.
I simply reject your charicterization of numbers. All abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities, or else concepts in some mind. Abstract entities are not independently eixting realities, but in fact concept of mind. Mind is a metaphysical necessity. So unless you can account materially for mind, you have no reason to believe that 2 + 3 = 5, in a materialst worldview. They are not, as you say, in your worldview 'real' or objective representations because those abstractions do not exist in a consistent materialists world view. So, as I said, the materialist, atheist cannot exist in any other that an absurd world which is illogical and irrational, OR, they must give up their view that all is material/energy if they are to be consistent and logical. They must, in fact 'borrow' from the theists worldview to account for logic, reason, rational thought, mind, numbers or any other abstract entity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.