by Perry 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"Did Hitler not say that any race who would not fight for it's survival, was not worthy of living, citing "survival of the fittest"?" warlock - hitler was a catholic and was supported by the catholic church
Yes Mia, but he still based his genocide on "survival of the fittest". Warlock
Atheism is dangerous, I dont know about Evolutionism but my brother is atheist and everyday he tries and tries to prove there is no God but he never wins because you can't prove there is no God
Can you prove there is one??
I'm trying hard to not concern myself lately what goes on on this board, but just reading this topic makes me pissed off, forgive my French.
It looks the moment you turn your back to this board a dark mindedness of religious fanaticism sets in.
Blaming evolutionary theory for evils of this world is like blaming Calculus for engineering of atomic weapons. Just insane.
I mean, many good thoughts have been expressed already so I'll try not to repeat it all again. But, I'll ask you to name one war lately that was led because of "evolutionary theory" or a leader of a country who led it into a war because of "atheism or evolutionary theory" and I'll name 10 in opposite camp, oh yes what is the name of that with connotation of Moses and a burning ... Bush.
Give me a break!
OMG LOL!
what's "evolutionism"? LMAO! i haven't heard of that term since way back in the late 18th century. what books are you reading perry? oh yeah. the 18th century is cutting edge for you in comparison.
and then there was some stuff about violent war-mongering atheists. LOL! stop it guys, my sides hurt. har har...
and then at some point RAF said that evolution is dangerous because it makes people think that they are more evolved than others.
but honestly, it's not evolution. it's threads like this convince me that i am more evolved than others.
i would love to stay and chat wit (sic) all the fundies, but it's saturday night and i had plans already. maybe later, maybe tomorrow, if i am not able to get off of this big space ship we call Earth first.
tetra (of the 'not all opinions are equal' class)
Sorry if I'm repeating what anyone else said. There are already a lot of posts and I just found this thread. Sorry it's so long, but a lot of stuff has already been posted that I want to talk about.
I must admit that I've always been confused by this sort of reasoning. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a moral imperative or a way of life. It is something that--as far as scientists can tell--happened and is still happening. It is no more dangerous than theories on meteorology or math by itself. Theories on physics can tell us how to build an atom bomb or a power plant that provides eletricity to millions of people or an engine that will take us to Jupiter and back. Modern medicine can be used to cure millions of people with diseases or give diseases to millions. Like any form of knowledge, it is neutral in and of itself. Again, none of these sciences have anything to do with any sort of moral philosophy.
I really wish people would lay off the Nazi stuff, BTW. Some even think the Nazis were atheists who believed fanatically in evolution and claim that all atheists must lack a moral center. Perhaps that's why someone mentioned them here. But nothing could be further from the truth on all counts. (I would rather not know it if anyone here really thinks this way)
The Nazis started out as the political/paramilitary wing of a German cult which believed in a form Arianism. They believed that they descended from a race of supermen that descended from Heaven. They were supposedly giant in size and great in supernatural power. They blamed the Jews, and other "lesser" races, for robbing them of this great heritage. Their mistreatment of these races was more about revenge than anything else. In their belief system, the Jews somehow conspired to dilute their race until they lost all their great powers. But the Nazis believed that some remnant of this superior heritage remained in certain people, and so they began a breeding program to restore themselves to their former glory through selective breeding. This was called the Labensborne (spelling?) program.
It was based on occult superstition, not evolution or other science. They believed that certain features--such as hair/eye color and the size of one's head--indicated that a person had some of this ancient Arian heritage still in them. The idea was to breed these people together and to slowly strain out all the impurities over many generations. It is true that they used a kind of Social Darwinism on the populace, but this was not born from evolutionary theory. It was actually part of Nazism itself. They simply detested weakness and thought that anyone who was weak must be too contaminated by the "lower" races to be of use. They eliminated them from the gene pool to avoid the risk of further contamination. Science had very little to do with any of it beyond the basic principles of heredity.
I have to point out that your question to we unbelievers is less than fair. Some atheists don't even accept the theory of evolution. I think some believers pigeonhole atheists into some very negative (and offensive) stereotypes. Asking why atheists don't embrace the survival of the fittest doctrine to be consistent with our "beliefs" is to suggest we are mindless automatons and fanatical monsters. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see it that way, of course, but I think this needs pointing out. Evolutionists don't "believe" in evolution as a set of moral principles, nor should anyone. I accept it as a scientific theory, and that's it. Evolution is not a philosophy or a religion of any sort and neither is science. To me, you seem to be objectifying us and forgetting we are people just like you.
If I started listing every line in the Bible that would be considered immoral by today's standards and asked why Christians and Jews didn't obey them to the letter, it would pretty much be a similar situation. Surely you would take offense. You have a brain and a conscience just like we do. You are not a fanatic or an automaton. I honestly think you are making the same mistake I would be if I thought this way. But I know better.
Just remember that atheists are human, and I think common sense will take care of the rest. Perhaps you should back up a few steps and start another thread asking why atheists believe (and don't believe) as we do. Evolution is another topic altogether. After this post, I'll probably just leave this topic alone. Hope I didn't upset anyone, and I'm not mad. I'm assuming the points were made without consideration of their implications and nothing more.
Peace.
IsaacJ
Tetra : RAF said that evolution is dangerous because it makes people think that they are more evolved than others.
I guess you never heard about racisme ? (of any kind - because it's not only about race) - Do you remember that if some religions didn't get into the we are all brothers stuff (cause they did forget about it for a while too JW's included at the begining - means that they weren't truth believers anyway) ... some things might have take more time for for instance black people to get to the point we are now socially in most part of the world.
Since I don't appreciate some of the comments I've seen, I will post a few links for those who are interested in learning about the confusion of Social Darwinism with evolution and then I'll leave you guys to fight it out without me. I probably won't see any replies to this or my earlier post because I honestly don't care to follow this debate any further.
Prejudice just plain bums me out. As ex-Witnesses, I so thought we were smarter than this. My bad.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsworship/a/WorshipScience.htm
And to comment on a few of the false beliefs about atheists some seem to have, here's a fair start.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
With that, I'm outta here.
IsaacJ
DantheMan answered:
Might what is considered "good" today later be found to be quite "bad" based on future and different social conditioning?Yes.
So, it is possible (probably likely) that the social conditioning of future generations will condemn as immoral or unethical many of the notions of right and wrong, or, good and bad of today's atheist. So, what is it that makes your current notions regarding such "true" since they have changed in the past (like the emergence of altruism for one) and will likely change in the future?
Whatever your answer, isn't that a doctrine of "present truth"? When the social conditioning changes, your beliefs change. So, the best you can say is that you have "present truth". When a person places his notions of right and wrong outside of himself, and into the hands of others, isn't that dangerous? Does that make him more or less easy to manipulate? Is it possible for powerful influential people to steer or guide social conditioning? What is the liklihood that powerful influential people have your best interests at heart?
Perry,
So then, what justification does the athiest have to believe that social conditioning will accurately determine for him what is "good"? Might what is considered "good" today later be found to be quite "bad" based on future and different social conditioning? If so, how can the life that he lives today be justified?
It sounds like you're saying that the man cannot know either good or bad but must have those notions dictated to him socially.
Though I would not put things quite so vigorously as Norm, I have to agree with him. In order for you to actually understand the very questions that you ask, you need to lay aside pre-conclusions and look at the issues from all sides. I am not sure that you are able to do this. The thread of logic that you attempt above is naieve at best.
You are hoping for the discovery of some innate sense of goodness in people placed there by some Almighty grandfather whose benign wisdom will put all things right in the end. This is a fairytale Perry, though one I truly wish were not. The notions of good and bad have always been regulated by what social and evolutionary constraints.
If the 'heavens are declaring the glory of God', then you must attend to the issues raised in my original posts before we can move forward in debating this issue. Not to do so is intellectually dishonest.
Why do the religiously inclined studiously avoid facing this issue? Therein lies the answers to all your questions.
Best regards - HS
Perry,
I wish I had the benifit of your clarity in determining what is good and bad. Since you seem to think that there is some kind of "absolute" Good and Bad rule book somewhere can you please tell me if the actions of the following people were Good or Bad.
Able commiting incest to populate the Earth. Good or Bad?
God created Satan. Good or Bad?
My uncle killed a man to save his wife and child from being murdered. Good or Bad?
Of course specific morals, good actions and bad actions or Ethics are ever changing and are decided by the culture and times that events occur in. With that being said ,Is there a such thing as universal morality, that sufficiently philosophical humans have arrived at without any need for belief in the Christian God? The evidence seems to suggest that despite some minor variation and the shrill, bigoted objections of fundamentalists, there most certainly is. There are certain truths which really doappear to be "self-evident", and which philosophers have discussed for thousands of years in various places all over the world, reaching similar conclusions with or without Christianity. So is "universal morality" dependent upon faith in the Christian god? I dont think so.
The world has many religions. If there is no morality without God, then should we believe that morality doesn't exist in any part of the world until it converts to Judaism or one of its offshoots? The ancient Chinese religious triumvirate of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism wasn't based on Christianity. The Greeks had democracy, civilization, philosophy, and science long before Jesus was born. The Egyptians built a thriving civilization more than four thousand years ago. The Romans built an Empire without any help from Jesus or his God. Tribes and civilizations flourished throughout Africa, Australia, South America, North America, and islands all over the Pacific Ocean. All these places had different religions, different customs, different languages ... but most still shared certain moral concepts. Murder was considered immoral. Theft was considered immoral in all societies too large to function as tribal collectives. It was considered noble to help another, and contemptible to hurt others for the sake of personal gain. Honesty was praised. Deception and betrayal were vilified. Governments and gods didn't always obey these laws, but philosophers in all these places somehow found a way to come to similar conclusions. The question that fundamentalists ignore is: if morality flows from God and God alone, then how did this happen? Given the enormous differences in religious beliefs between all these cultures, how did people independently arrive at similar conclusions all over the world, with regard to murder, betrayal, theft, and altruism? Could there (gasp!) be a moral standard out there which doesn't require God?
So where did "we" get these "universal morality" concepts. Are they programed into us? Are they REALLY self-evident. I say no to both. These "truths" have been arrived at through the oldest form of learning we have as smart animals. TRIAL and ERROR!! We have had thousands of years of human expieriance to try most every sort of interaction and to learn what works and what doesnt from a survival standpoint. In a word our moral system has EVOLVED along with us.
Simply put:"Ethics are rules for a stable society and can be arrived at by observation and analysis of the results of behavior and predictions based on rules derived from experience."
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."- Albert Einstein, in an article which appeared in New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.
Asheron (the sinful Atheist)
Hillary-Step,
Who are you to judge God so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Him as you tempt me to do? He is infinite in all respects. You are but a vapor. Have you ever denied a young child a sharp steak knife at the dinner table and gave him a butter knife instead? Here you pronounce the same kind of object both good and bad. Good for you because of your greater ability, agility and carefulness and bad for the toddler because of his lack of such qualities.
A trustful child will go with the idea that you know better as an adult even though he can plainly see that the sharp knife works better. He's not stupid just trustful. A child with a much stronger will might challenge you a bit with various "logical" protests and throw a fit about it, but then calm down and decide that he must eventually trust your judgement to keep peace and avoid a removal from the family table.
The truly evil child judges you unfit to continue living, snatches the sharp knife from your hand and slits your jugular vein so as to remove the apparent evil you dared perpetrate on him by denying him that which you yourself used.
Can the finite judge the Infinite accurately? Impossible. Since life and death have entirely different meanings to God compared to us because he is the Life, death to us may not be death (or a big problem) to Him. He has forbidden us certain things that he is quite capable of sorting out. "Life" and "Death" just two of them.
He has also given us our "play tools" faith, hope, and love. However, these are just imitations of his real things ... infinite faith, hope and love which is impossible for you to see due to your lack of being infinite yourself. What you see as evil from God will eventually be revealed as otherwise..... in due time.
So you put him on trial and kill Him. We all did this . We are God killers by nature. None are the first child in the illustration.
After we do this, we look for various step-parents for guidance since we are orphaned. Apparently, you have chosen "social conditioning" as your source for your knowledge of what is good and bad. A source that is ever changing and therefore unreliable as a guide unlike the One that you killed.
