Athiesm & Charles Darwin

[Percepi]

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. You are so incredibly wrong on so many different fronts, I don't know even know where to begin!

Instead of telling people what atheism is, and get it wrong, ask an atheist. There are quite a few of us on here.

Laura knows squat about atheism. She talks about the "atheist world view" - THERE'S LITERALLY NO SUCH THING. That's like saying there's a theist world view - there isn't. Atheism and theism aren't world views, they describe weather or not a person believes in no gods, or one or more gods. That's it!

Furthermore, atheists don't believe we're all "worthless". What we're worth is a relative term, and in the grand scheme of things we have no objective value. But, because of our emotions and ability to perceive reality around us, we're able to apply value to life based off of those perceptions. If atheists believe life is worthless, then you wouldn't see any atheists trying to help other people, save lives, etc. And if you argue that atheists act selfless because of God - then you contradicted your statement about there being a worldview since even a "God given" sense of value contradicts this "world view" you so idiotically pretend exists.

But if God is true, and if we are made in his image - then we do have intrinsic value, purpose and worth, and Eugenics is evil.

Yes, eugenics is evil. Atheists don't support eugenics. You brought up Hitler, Hitler was a THEIST. And guess what, not all THEISTS support eugenics! That's right, you can't describe a whole group of people based on a single person! That's like saying all Catholic priests are pedophiles or that all Christians believe medicating their children is a sin!

Stop stereotyping and ASK US ATHEISTS WHAT WE THINK. Stop telling other people what we think. How would you like for me to go around and talk about how you, Laura, believe slavery should be legalized in America? You would be frustrated and exclaim that you don't hold such views. That's exactly what you're doing with atheists though!

I realise there are HEAPS of atheists that reject Eugenics and hate it - but I don't see how that's coherent from a philosophical perspective.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean your own understanding must therefore be correct. You don't understand how it's coherent from a philosophical perspective, I respect the honesty, but ASK us what we think. Just because some sort of higher entity didn't tell us we're special doesn't mean we can't appreciate life. If the only reason you appreciate life is because you believe God gave everything value, then I'm afraid it's I who pities you.

Atheism necessitates objective worthlessness. Relative value can be ascribed; but its all relative. Objective value doesnt exist. Objective purpose doesn't exist.

This is what leads to racism and eugenics.

Most racists are religious and most people who support eugenics are theists. If you don't understand why an atheist wouldn't support eugenics or racism without a God telling them to love everyone, what does that say about your own character? Does this mean the only reason you don't support racism or eugenics is because it's what God wants from you? Or would you still fight against racism and eugenics if you stopped believing in God?

Atheism represented accurately necessitates objective worthlessness. Purpose doesn't exist.

In other words, there is no different between a human being and a head of lettuce if atheism is true.

There are vast differences between people and lettuce and a belief in God has nothing to do with these differences. And if you're arguing that atheism leads to this kind of thinking, why is it that most atheists don't think this way?

To whom does the survival of our species matter? If our species goes extinct, no one will be there to care. It's meaningless.

Yes, you're right. But we are alive right now, therefore we have purpose.

Plus, why should I care if I have a purpose? That's like saying, "I need someone to tell me I'm important in order for me to work hard and enjoy my life". I don't need someone to tell me to love others, to be happy, and to do what I believe is right (which is a huge philosophical journey that I don't wish to get into at the moment).

If one person believes the purpose for humanity is to destroy the spec of dust we call earth with nuclear weapons - and another wants to preserve it - there is no objective purpose that governs which one is right.

If there's an objective purpose, what would stop someone who wanted to destroy the world from choosing their own purpose instead? Whether a purpose is objective or subjective doesn't matter because objectiveness doesn't actually influence reality - it's simply a description.

Lastly, Charles Darwin did NOT support eugenics. In fact, Darwin believed all humans were the same species - a very progressive view in a time when most religious people considered those of other races to be different species! I can't recall the quote, but there's a very popular quote mine that I'll admit is a bit confusing for those who aren't already somewhat versed in Darwin's works.

Laura, if you want to know more about atheists and how they think, just ask us. And if it doesn't make sense to you, then that doesn't necessarily mean your own idea of it is true. In fact, even if our philosophies are inconsistent, it still wouldn't mean our philosophies lead to racism or eugenics. It would just mean that there's an inconsistency that is ignored by atheists. Trust me, there are numerous inconsistencies within Christian ideology, but I don't assert that because there's an inconsistency that it must therefore mean something that clearly contradicts Christian ideology.

This is what frustrates me. You don't understand how an atheist can hold certain views without believing in God - you see inconsistencies. Therefore, you conclude that atheism must lead to eugenics and racism. But, most atheists aren't racist nor do they support eugenics - which is an inconsistency of your own claim!

 

[GuessWho]

Its been alluded to in this very thread and other discussions on this forum.

It's true. Dante's Inferno and the painting of the Last Judgment in the Sixtine Chapel had a very big influence on the mental of christians.

However, I am telling you that the Jews didn't believe that salvation meant a heavenly future awaiting for them after death. The early christians as well, they didn't know what happens with the soul right after a person dies. We know that Christ is Life and that He defeated sin and death in the cross in the middle of history and not at the end of it (and we have faith and hope that the same will happen to us also).

Christianity is about cross and kingdom. About how Christ brought to day the new age with His Sacrifice and Resurrection. This kingdom, this new age is being pre-tasted by christians in the Church, through the sacraments. That's what we believe.

Also, hell and heaven are actually the same reality that will be experienced differently by the people.

There are a lot of theologians (Origen was the first one) who believe that hell is actually a sort of painful restoration of the sinners. Well, the orthodox traditional christianity doesn't really agree with this view, but doesn't reject it categorically either.

 

[GuessWho]

ColinCat,

I don't know to tell you for sure in which council Origen's teaching about hell had been rejected. But you shouldn't understand the Church Fathers as unmerciful advocates of hell-fire, they actually wanted to emphasize the freedom of men.

Also, I recommend you to read Paul Evdokimov's book about the love of God. I don't know the exact translation of the title in English (in french is "L'amour fou de Dieu").

 

[Kerry]

Breeds of dogs have the same attributes, but why do we have finger prints that are different from anybody else?

 

[ColinCat]

Animals who grip things in their hands like we do have fingerprints. They are there to aid grip. However only gorillas have individual unique fingerprints.

Interestingly, each pig has their own unique nose print lol

 

[hopesprings]

Is this just another argue with the atheist thread, or r we actually discussing Darwin and atheism?

 

[hopesprings]

Thomas Nagel seems to think that Darwin's theory of evolution lacks common sense, even says future generations will laugh at the idea
He is an atheist

 

[ColinCat]

Is this just another argue with the atheist thread, or r we actually discussing Darwin and atheism?

That's all these threads ever turn into because theists make ignorant and ridiculous claims about what an atheist actually is and then it goes down hill from there.

 

[kaylagrl]

That's all these threads ever turn into because theists make ignorant and ridiculous claims about what an atheist actually is and then it goes down hill from there.

That goes the other way too,atheist also make ignorant and ridiculous claims about theists . BTW Hilter believed in various things,the occult for instance. I always laugh when people try to say he was a Christian.He was demented and thought he was "God".He used whoever he could to gain what he wanted.Everything he did was against what Christ teaches. But I will ask,what do atheists believe?

 

[Leannaix]

But I will ask,what do atheists believe?

The only thing that all atheists have in common regarding beliefs, is that they lack a belief in gods. That's it.

 

[kaylagrl]

To say most racists are religious is a broad generalization. Lincoln was a Christian and he freed the slaves.The Quakers had a huge part in the underground railway. All civilizations have had slavery,even before Christianity. William Wilberforce let the charge to abolish slavery in England and was a Christian. Writer John Newton eventually understood the evils of slavery and wrote Amazing Grace and was an abolitionist who worked along with Wilberforce to end slavery. William Lloyd Garrison who founded the American Anti-Slavery Society,was a Christian.Famed John Brown was a Christian abolitionist as was Frederick Douglas,himself a slave. Sojourner Truth, once a slave was a preacher and abolitionist.Harriet Tubman was once a slave and a devout Christian.But I dont know of any prominent atheist abolitionists. All of the prominent abolitionists seem to have been Christians. I may have missed it somewhere and someone may correct me. But I think it is definitely generalizing to say most racists are religious.

 

[kaylagrl]

The only thing that all atheists have in common regarding beliefs, is that they lack a belief in gods. That's it.

Well two atheists here said ask what they believe so I asked. I'm waiting their response.



Oops just checked your profile,maybe you were answering the question.Im sorry.

 

[Percepi]

Thomas Nagel seems to think that Darwin's theory of evolution lacks common sense, even says future generations will laugh at the idea
He is an atheist

So? This doesn't prove evolution is false, it just proves that there are atheists that don't accept evolution. Some Christians accept evolution, does this prove evolution to be true? No, it just proves some Christians accept evolution.

That goes the other way too,atheist also make ignorant and ridiculous claims about theists .

You're right, atheists do sometimes make incorrect statements about theists.

BTW Hilter believed in various things,the occult for instance.

This doesn't change the fact that he was a Christian.

I always laugh when people try to say he was a Christian.He was demented and thought he was "God".

He believed in God and in Jesus as the son of God. He was a Christian. He didn't think himself as "God" either, but rather he thought himself to be an incredibly powerful man.

Hitler was likely a Christian whether you like it or not. But it doesn't even matter if Hitler was a Christian or not. His actions did not represent the views of atheists or Christians. And even if Hitler wasn't a "true" Christian, he announced that God was the creator of the Earth and professed a belief in Jesus. Whatever you call this, it's a form of Christianity.

Stalin was an atheist. I don't try to make up excuses as to why he's not a "true" atheist. I simply point out that it's possible for some insane sociopaths to lack a belief in gods. This doesn't mean all atheists are communists or support the murder of anyone.

He used whoever he could to gain what he wanted.Everything he did was against what Christ teaches. But I will ask,what do atheists believe?

Let's suppose that Hitler really was an atheist and he lied about God. So what? This doesn't help your argument at all because it means Christians actually accepted his twisted version of what God wants.

You keep trying to distance Christianity from Hitler, but you just have to accept reality and simply remind people that Hitler doesn't represent Christian ideology. In fact, even critics of religion know that most Christians don't support Nazi ideas. Yet, Christians want to do everything they can to associate atheists with Nazism. Talk about dishonesty!

To say most racists are religious is a broad generalization.

I didn't say most religious people were racist, I said most racists were religious. The reason I made such a broad statement is because the overwhelming number of people on earth are religious and this was no less true in the past. You're seeing this as an attack on Christian ideology, it's not. It's simply a statement that slavery came about in religious environments and that the overwhelming number of people who supported slavery were in fact religious. But, since almost everyone was religious, the overwhelming number of anti-slavery advocates were also religious. Atheists made up for such a small number of people that you can't blame atheists for slavery.

But I will ask,what do atheists believe?

We believe a number of different things. As Leannaix said, the only similarity between us is that none of us believe in any gods.

I know I didn't give much of an answer, but your question is actually quite vague. Can you be more specific?

 

[Hizikyah]

=This doesn't change the fact that he was a Christian.

Is occultic societies there is an esoteric (inner) and exoteric (outer) religion.

Those of the esoteric usually look down upon those of the exoteric as fools, and the difference in doctrine is literally white to black or dry to wet.

So just because Hitler was "christian" does not make him christian.

IMO but also in functional practice.

 

[kaylagrl]

So? This doesn't prove evolution is false, it just proves that there are atheists that don't accept evolution. Some Christians accept evolution, does this prove evolution to be true? No, it just proves some Christians accept evolution.



You're right, atheists do sometimes make incorrect statements about theists.



This doesn't change the fact that he was a Christian.



He believed in God and in Jesus as the son of God. He was a Christian. He didn't think himself as "God" either, but rather he thought himself to be an incredibly powerful man.

Hitler was likely a Christian whether you like it or not. But it doesn't even matter if Hitler was a Christian or not. His actions did not represent the views of atheists or Christians. And even if Hitler wasn't a "true" Christian, he announced that God was the creator of the Earth and professed a belief in Jesus. Whatever you call this, it's a form of Christianity.

Stalin was an atheist. I don't try to make up excuses as to why he's not a "true" atheist. I simply point out that it's possible for some insane sociopaths to lack a belief in gods. This doesn't mean all atheists are communists or support the murder of anyone.



Let's suppose that Hitler really was an atheist and he lied about God. So what? This doesn't help your argument at all because it means Christians actually accepted his twisted version of what God wants.

You keep trying to distance Christianity from Hitler, but you just have to accept reality and simply remind people that Hitler doesn't represent Christian ideology. In fact, even critics of religion know that most Christians don't support Nazi ideas. Yet, Christians want to do everything they can to associate atheists with Nazism. Talk about dishonesty!



I didn't say most religious people were racist, I said most racists were religious. The reason I made such a broad statement is because the overwhelming number of people on earth are religious and this was no less true in the past. You're seeing this as an attack on Christian ideology, it's not. It's simply a statement that slavery came about in religious environments and that the overwhelming number of people who supported slavery were in fact religious. But, since almost everyone was religious, the overwhelming number of anti-slavery advocates were also religious. Atheists made up for such a small number of people that you can't blame atheists for slavery.



We believe a number of different things. As Leannaix said, the only similarity between us is that none of us believe in any gods.

I know I didn't give much of an answer, but your question is actually quite vague. Can you be more specific?

Colin just mentioned,I think it was him, that Christians assume what atheists believe and dont ask.So I guess the question was more directed at him.I do understand that many apologetics websites link Hitler and atheism.Lets face it,no one wants to be associated with Hitler.Whatever he believed was warped and of his own design.Jesus was a Jew so clearly Hitlers mass murder of Jews would be against what Christianity teaches.Hey you can sit in a garage all day and call yourself a Maserati but it sure doesnt make it true.I'm not going to link atheism and Hitler because I havent done enough research on it.I do watch the History channel often and I do know he did believe in the occult.So he definitely had some messed up ideas and beliefs.
Slavery has been a part of society since the beginning of time.I still dont think you can posit that slavery came about or grew out of religious belief.But I'd have to do more looking into that.There have been black and also white slaves in all countries. I didnt blame atheists for slavery. But many atheists do blame Christians for slavery.I was showing how there are two sides to that coin.
Finally you did say that you dont believe in any God.I find most people are agnostics because they really dont know and cant prove there is no God. I guess my question,if you can answer it simply,is how did you come to the conclusion that you can safely say there is no God? And might I add have you ever had anything to do with religion that may have shaped your decision to be an atheist.If thats too personal that fine.

 

[ColinCat]

Colin just mentioned,I think it was him, that Christians assume what atheists believe and dont ask.So I guess the question was more directed at him.I do understand that many apologetics websites link Hitler and atheism.Lets face it,no one wants to be associated with Hitler.Whatever he believed was warped and of his own design.Jesus was a Jew so clearly Hitlers mass murder of Jews would be against what Christianity teaches.Hey you can sit in a garage all day and call yourself a Maserati but it sure doesnt make it true.I'm not going to link atheism and Hitler because I havent done enough research on it.I do watch the History channel often and I do know he did believe in the occult.So he definitely had some messed up ideas and beliefs.
Slavery has been a part of society since the beginning of time.I still dont think you can posit that slavery came about or grew out of religious belief.But I'd have to do more looking into that.There have been black and also white slaves in all countries. I didnt blame atheists for slavery. But many atheists do blame Christians for slavery.I was showing how there are two sides to that coin.
Finally you did say that you dont believe in any God.I find most people are agnostics because they really dont know and cant prove there is no God. I guess my question,if you can answer it simply,is how did you come to the conclusion that you can safely say there is no God? And might I add have you ever had anything to do with religion that may have shaped your decision to be an atheist.If thats too personal that fine.

What do I believe? I believe in reality.

I don't believe In the supernatural, or gods, devils and angels etc.

What do I know? Nothing.

I don't know how we got here or when we got here. That doesn't justify me leaping to baseless conclusions.

Ive always been an atheist. Religion is responsible for some disgraceful things but that didnt cause me to be atheist. I simply cannot accept the stories as fact, I need evidence for that.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

I had to stand and walk outside about one minute for every minute I watched of that foul video. There was nothing but lies until the "host" came to beg for money. That was at least an honest attempt to "fleece the flock."

The part of Darwin's 1870 book that was read out was presenting the existing argument made from the start of the anti-Smallpox vaccination effort. Do you know when that was? It was in 1796. That was 15 years before Charles Darwin was even born. In Darwin's comments, he first described the arguments used for three quarters of a century after wide spread smallpox vaccinations were practiced. That is the only part professional creationists liars ever read out loud to their followers. But, Darwin then presented his counter argument; that under the same category of "natural selection" was the fact that humans needed the "social instincts" in order to survive. Here is the part creationists never tell you to read;

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; (Darwin, C. R. 1871 "The Descent of Man, Volume 1" London: John Murray, 1st edition, Chapter V. pg.168)

Prov 14:5. A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

 

[kaylagrl]

What do I believe? I believe in reality.

I don't believe In the supernatural, or gods, devils and angels etc.

What do I know? Nothing.

I don't know how we got here or when we got here. That doesn't justify me leaping to baseless conclusions.

Ive always been an atheist. Religion is responsible for some disgraceful things but that didnt cause me to be atheist. I simply cannot accept the stories as fact, I need evidence for that.

.

Thanks for the honest response. I would only say that people are responsible for horrible things in the name of religion. Christianity is not responsible for what evil people do in the name of God. All I can say is keep seeking.You may surprise yourself if you keep an open mind.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

There were actually three lies ahead of the video itself. See if you can spot them;

Charles Darwin was not only racist, but influenced Eugenics in Nazi Germany through his writings!

1) Darwin was not a racist.
2) Darwin was not a Eugenicist.
3) Nazis were not influenced by Darwin.

I'll expose them in reverse order. The full lie was that Darwin influenced Nazi thinking in "Germany through his writings!"

This is one of the easiest lies to rebuke which is why I took it first.

As early as 1936, the Nazi Party recommended reading list on human heredity, Rassenkunde: Eine Auswahl des wichtigsten Scrifttums aus dem Gebit der Rassenkunde, Vererbungslehre, Rassenpflege und Bevölkerunspolitik mentioned only two books by non-German authors: American Madison Grant's Passing of the Great Race (translated into German in 1925, and French Arthur Comte de Gobineau's The inequality of Human Races (1853-1855). Grant's book was an anti-Darwinian screed warning that the true greatness of America was all from the Aryan Anglo-Saxon. He was a Republican billionaire who's political influence extended to the White House (Teddy Rosevelt was even his college room-mate).

And then, if the Nazis were so enamored of Darwin, why did the ban all his books? Not only Darwin's books on evolution which were over 50 years old when the Nazis took power, but they banned all books about evolution.

Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

Not only Darwin, but even obscure works such as Arnold Dodel's 1875 book "Die Neuere Schöpfungsgeschichte nach den gegen wärtigen Stande der Naturwissenschaften" were removed from German libraries and destroyed in the infamous public book burnings.

The Nazis were almost as anti-evolution as today's creationists. They just had the political power to enact their wishes.

It is hugely important that you stop lying. It is bad for you.

 

[JesusIsAll]

There were actually three lies ahead of the video itself. See if you can spot them;

1) Darwin was not a racist.
2) Darwin was not a Eugenicist.
3) Nazis were not influenced by Darwin.

I'll expose them in reverse order. The full lie was that Darwin influenced Nazi thinking in "Germany through his writings!"

Maybe so, but who's to know? You know what the biggest problem is with your theses? You're always following the Hurd instinct.