Me Myself
Back to my username
I´´ll make it simple for you:
Hitler is dead and had no children, so no, according to evolution´s principles, Hitler failed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I´´ll make it simple for you:
Hitler is dead and had no children, so no, according to evolution´s principles, Hitler failed.
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
Actually Hitler did have a child from his time during WWI with a French Woman.
Hitler had son with French teen - Telegraph
Me Myself
Back to my username
The issue is simple: evolution says that the most adaptable species survives.
the most adaptible species need not be the one killing everything in it´s path. That tends to be a very inefficient way to "adapt".
Evolution is not about who is good or who is evil, it just tells you what happens with the species that survive, and the species that survive are the ones that managed to adapt to environment.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
Well, he would probably have had more if he hadn´t go to war anyways
Indeed, I am still confused how Darwin, Hitler, and evolution have all gotten lumped together. This seems like the shotgun approach to debating. Throw as much crap together as possible and hope it sticks.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The method was not bizarre the application was. I said someone did (oh never mind if you haven't gotten it by now there is no hope, and saying it again will not help).
As for your scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
How is anything related to evolution concerning creatures more than 5000 years old verified by that method?. They can't observe it, can't recreate it in a lab. Even when their best efforts to create life in a lab fail over and over they claim it happened by chance anyway even if it is against their own laws of biology. The scientific method is nothing but an honorable concept that is ignored at will.
However none of that had any thing what so ever to do with your use of it in response to my claim. It's use made no sense and was irrational.
Christian: So Mr Evolutionist how can you explain the existence of morality without God?
Evolutionists: Well that's easy because we are smarter than everyone else. Evolution made some behaviors become instinctual or inherent and be passed on because they benefitted survival.
Christian: So Evolution would make behavior like killing all competitors that are not a direct benefit a moral behavior.
Evolutionist: Oh no, if were a little smarter you would see that evolution would only create benevolent morals.
Christian: What are you talking about?
Evolutionist: You are not smart enough or have enough degrees to appreciate how smart we are.
Christian: Ok lets change the subject. For evolution to even be possible life came from non-life.
Evolutionist: How dare you insinuate that abiogenesis has any bearing or influence on the pure pristine field of evolution. But yes it happened because I would have no evolutionary science to do unless it did.
Christian: How do you know that life came from non-life?
Evolutionist: Because my primitive and ignorant friend, we have the all mighty and virtuous scientific method.
Christian: So you made life in a lab somewhere?
Evolutionist: NO
Christian: So you observed it happen in nature?
Evolutionists: NO
Christian: So you have seen the undeniable evidence it had happened but didn't directly observe it happening?
Evolutionist: NO
Christian: Then at least scientific theory suggests it must have happened.
Evolutionists: No. We even have laws that state it can't ever happen and many reasons to believe it could never have happened.
IN Summary.
Christian: It seems Evolution either produces morals that are only benevolent, or none at all based on convenience. That life came from non-life even though the scientific method has never shown that, it can't even be done in a lab where they cheated, and there is no example of it ever occurring anywhere, yet it is still a fact even though the entire food industry is based on the fact that it doesn't happen.
Evolutionist: Stupid creationist.........I have many degrees...........gravity...........Dawkins drew a cartoon proving the eye evolved........bias.
This was of course for the sake of humor and entertainment but there is certainly a lot of truth in it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Being that the human mind is it's self a product or evolution in theory anyway, that is begging the question and rediculous.
McBell
Unbound
You must have an interesting definition of the word truth...
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I do not demonize him and I don't know any Christians who do. They do demonize his theory or aspects of it but not him.
To claim he was a Christian is not a stupid claim it is simply not true. The confusion come from the fact that his father raised him to be religiously oriented and even nudged him towards the clergy. However as time went by Darwin grew more and more away from Christianity. If you follow his writings at one time he determined that he no longer believed that the OT was reliable then later on he said:
Summing up the above, he wrote, "by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."
It just kept getting worse until he finally said this:
On another occasion he wrote, "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."
I will mention my opinion and provide some data below about his faith. There are two complementary types of faith in Christianity. There is a superficial intellectual consent to a theological philosophy and even though sincere does not make one an actual Christian. To actually become a Christian one must have what is referred to as saving faith. This faith triggers the salvation event. That event is a spiritual experience with Christ and the Holy Spirit and is for lack of a better word "spiritually empirical". That leaves the Christian in position of the Holy Spirit which becomes what transforms him over time. Superficial faith is what the Bible says has no roots and when challenges come is swept away. Saving faith grounded in spiritual power the Bible says cannot be conquered and was what enabled the millions of martyrs to face death over the centuries. It appears by every indication that Darwin only had a casual superficial faith that always withers when the storm comes. Below is the storm.
One immediate effect of Darwin's rejection of the Bible was his loss of all comfort from it. The hopeless grief of his later letters to the bereaved, contrasts sharply with the earlier letter of condolence quoted above. In 1851, his dearly loved daughter Annie, aged 10, died from what the attending physician called a "Bilious Fever with typhoid character." Charles was devastated, and wrote, "Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life." Two years later, to a friend who had lost a child, Darwin's only appeal was to "time," which "softens and deadens... one's feelings and regrets"
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
I can explain this in page after page of scripture buy there is not much point as whatever is convenient for a persons views will be chosen anyway. The point is Darwin was never by the Bible's definition an actual Christian. See Christ definition of a Christian in his conversation with Nicodemus in John's Gospel. That being said I do not think any of that had anything to do with his evolutionary views. They were incidental. If there is to be debate it should be about the truth or as near to it as is possible. There is nothing gained by debateing why the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour for instance nor is there in debateing Dawkin's Christianity.
Not so, and not by a long shot. Evolution is a simple biological reality. There are those who see some sort of possibility of extending it somehow for moral purposes, but they are few and far between.
Most of us find that morality is much too linked to values and discernment for blind evolution to have any significant role in it, however.
You would have to give me a more developed set of assumptions for me to give a meaningful answer. I maintain that the premise isn't all that useful: why would anyone try to base morals on natural selection? Makes no sense to me; natural selection is explicitly indiferent to moral values.
Of course I can. There is no need to depend on either a conception of God or on a concept of evolution to do so.
It depends on which criteria you use. By some the conclusion would be uncertain. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, sure.
In the sense that it is possible to do so, I agree. I do however strongly disagree if you mean that God makes it easier to account for moral choices. If anything, he is a further complication, due to the need to wonder how he would evaluate each choice.
Not sure what you are talking about here. You were talking about a world without evolution, which is not the one we live in. It might be an interesting sci-fi concept, I suppose, and therefore would be conceivable.
That, I fear, is not at all apparent from your statements. There must be some major misunderstanding at work here.
Yes, there are those who believe in the validity of such extrapolations. Not too many, nor too influential. Even for those, it is still an extrapolation, not the Theory of Evolution proper.
We may discuss the validity of the ideas of any specific authors if you want to, but generally speaking evolution is simply not recognized as having moral implications.
Your statement that it must and that it is the only conceivable alternative to god-based morals makes no sense; for all of human story it has been shown that theistic morals always had alternatives, which have rarely if ever been found wanting by comparison.
Who would say such a thing? It is, at the very least, rather unusual.
I fail to see what one thing has to do with the other, myself. Do you think you could explain me? Morality needs neither God nor evolution. If anything, it is more needed because God is of dubious existence and evolution has no moral implications.
If I must. It is no big deal.
Methinks, this thread may have devolved into some variation on the fallacy of appealing to nature.
Me Myself
Back to my username
precisely what robin1 is doing
Hitler was a theist.
I do not think it says much about him. Beyond the fact he was a theist.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Not hardly, My example only concerned humans and we do not see each other as a food source so killing off everyone who does not contribute to my clan actually increases the amount of food I have. As well as behaviors evolved in predators that caused them to kill off their food source would die when they did soon after they destroyed the herbivores. If I used emoticons to make arguments I couldn't, then this is where a face palm would go.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Elephants kill off forests and acres of grass.
You are dumbing down evolution until it bears no resemblance to reality. Factors that affect survival are complex and include among others lethality, evasion, camouflage, BEHAVIOR, flight, armor, poison, intelligence, sight, etc.....However no of this has any relevance to my example. Can you please explain why killing off all rival clans that do not directly benefit mine is not beneficial to my survival. Since I am apparently more familiar with the debates concerning these issues than you I will save you some time and let you know it is impossible. The only explanation ever offered is one concerning unknown benefits that would have been killed off and it is pathetic. That would only effect .00000000000001% of an unknown survival rate and is based in cognitive reasoning skills far higher than instinctual or primal evolutionary thought.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my example or any claim I made. In fact I have said the exact same thing many times. Lethality is just one factor but is often a determining factor as is obvious. If you can't show my claims about killing off the competition for humans then my points stand. We were discussing the moral implications concerning Humans in evolution.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Well where have you been Mestemia? I have been missing your thought fragments and comments made for effect alone, and never for content or persuassive power.
Me Myself
Back to my username
You see that? that used to be a perfectly functional irony meter.
I hope you are proud :cover:
Me Myself
Back to my username
we were discussing Hitler being a theist :areyoucra
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That was dealt with in about two posts. Hitler was a superficial theist and it means nothing however he did say he used evolution to justify his actions and there we went. I hate debateing evolution as it is boring and much adue about nothing much that is actually known. If there is a concensus that this thread show be returned to Hitler then I certainly would not mind. I have only been responding to fill down time at work anyway. What say yeee?
