Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[LuisDantas]

This is another semantical argument and has no effect on reality. The fact is that if survival is the governing dynamic as it is in evolution then I should kill every one that does not contribute to my survival to lower competition for resources. I would consider the lethal ability to kill all rivals that do not contribute a survival skill that is completely implied by evolution. How is it inconsistent? Not to mention wiping out the old or sick that are a drain on a tribe's resources. Many things determine what survives including lethality, camouflage, hardiness, defensive strategies etc..... what I said is consistent with the dynamic it is however inconvenient for evolutionists and there in lies the equivocation.

You are confusing a known biological reality with a questionable (and immoral) ideology.

What does this have to do with anything Hitler did and used evolution to justify? I am not debating evolutions reality only if true what it implies.

Then you don't understand evolution at all, for it is real and can't possibly "imply" anything in an ideological sense.

That is false. For evolution to even have a chance many things that biologically do not happen must necessarily happen. God is the perfect and only candidate for these natural impossibilities. However the issue is whether the evil Hitler did is or is not consistent with evolutionary principles.

I would comment, but really, the whole of that paragraph is fictional.

I never said that. In fact the Bible and I both claim that change within a "kind" is a reality. I did not claim what you suggest and it is not the issue being discussed. I however can discuss the issue if you wish. Without God it is infinitely more probable that nothing would exist than anything including evolution, is a starting point.

It may well be that there is a God, I wouldn't know (although I doubt it). Still, it seems silly to discuss whether things known to exist do exist.

 

[1robin]

Do you have access to it via logic, evidence, study and testing.

Now that is one bizarre tactic. I said that the claim

Originally Posted by Dingbat

I have a feeling you don't even know what the word evolution means.

was based on nothing and the person who made it has no access to what he claims to know. Your reply is to ask me if I have access to something you do not even mention. What are you talking about?

Also, the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. Biblical literalism does not have a monopoly on the concept of god.

When did I claim either of the things you say? I believe in at least micro evolution and the Bible confirms it's reality. I usually assume that evolutionists are arguing from a a Godless context and taylor my comments to address that assumption but that has nothing to do with what you claim here. There however is a world of difference between a Godless concept of evolution and the context that allows God to oversee it's operation and it has profound moral implications.

 

[1robin]

So is gravity. What's your point?

Nope. gravity has no moral implications or associations what so ever. Evolution being that it includes behavioral elements unlike gravity does have moral context. It however does not have SUFFICIENT moral context for justice and the needs of society. Trying to equate two unequal things like gravity and evolution is desperate and any conclusion derived there from are meaningless.

 

[LuisDantas]

There however is a world of difference between a Godless concept of evolution and the context that allows God to oversee it's operation and it has profound moral implications.

I wonder which they would be. And above all, I wonder why don't you simply examine what is known about evolution instead of wondering which other kinds could have happened in other conceivable worlds.

 

[1robin]

Evolution cannot be artificially accelerated. It has nothing to do with "superiority".

1. Evolution includes behavioral aspects.
2. The manipulation of genetics with intention is no less a behavior than any other.
3. The manipulation of genetics by intention is a behavior which is the result of the intelligence that evolution produced.
4. You may not define evolution by arbitrary boundaries with intent or inconvenience as the out of bounds indicators. It appears evolution is remarkably pliable and is bounded or unbounded as necessity or convenience dictates.
5. Moralists, philosophers, and secular evolutionists claim that evolution explains morality in debates when it is convenient or expedient for them to do so.

Please have a meeting and get a consistent story together.

It's the bible that contains mass bloodshed, whereas evolution is simply the passing on of genetics that are beneficial toward survivability

The Bible is a historical text and history is full of wars. It is quite ridiculous to claim a book that condemns violence and murder caused more of it and that nature "Red in tooth and claw" is Innocent of any objectionable dynamics or implications. It appears a bias is driving these claims.

It's nature. Man can't play a hand in it.

So every creature and it's behaviors are a part of nature with the exception of man because almighty evolution must not be insulted. How exactly do you decide which behaviors evolution is consistent with and which it is not. Convenience, random chance, the last Dawkins interview?

We're going to go by the academic definition of the theory, not some backwood bumpkin misrepresentation that willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest fundies use.

I will do you one better. Lets use.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

By the way I note the arrogance and Hubris in your superiority claims which serves only to lessen your credibility. My arguments and claims come from Dawkins, Harris, Gould, Sagan, Craig, Wilder and other professional evolutionary debaters on both sides. I have seen every one I can find and have transcripts from many. I am probably more familiar with both sides of the moral implications and what even the evolutionists admit than you are and I know your views do not reflect their consensus. Whenever evolution is said to be defficient in morality then it's defenders assert that it has created every noble altruistic moral ever known. If it is shown that it would produce a brutal morality then it is is completely morally benign and innoscent of any negative implications. One minute it is strictly a biological process with very narrow context the next moment it produced art, science, and anything else needed. It appears to be quite dynamic and convenient.

 

[1robin]

@1robin: Maybe you are simply unaware of that, but what you are describing as "evolution" does not really have much of a resemblance to the ideas that go by that name in biology.

In fact, from what you have been saying about evolution, it seems that you have been fed misinformation on the matter.

The issue is simple.

1. Does evolution account for behavior. I say and most evolutionists say yes.
Done.

In professional debate the issue is not even contested, in fact evolution is universally claimed by that most prolific debaters to account perfectly for every benevolent moral known. I can supply debates and names and maybe even a transcript if it will end this arbitrary only biological limit on a very complex issue.

If I have been misinformed then Dawkins, Gould, Harris, Bennett, Craig, Collins etc have been all wrong. What you are describing is natural selection or only the biological issues of a much bigger and more complex issue.

 

[tomspug]

Offering my two cents here. Even if Hitler did believe in God he put upon himself the mantle of a God. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible he claimed to believe in. And some the major forces That opposed his regime were in the Christian movement.

 

[1robin]

You are confusing a known biological reality with a questionable (and immoral) ideology.

IMO you are arbitrarily confining your claims to only the biological issues and ignoring the obvious moral implications and aspects of a larger issue.

Then you don't understand evolution at all, for it is real and can't possibly "imply" anything in an ideological sense.

There is nothing morally neutral or lacking behavioral implications about On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

I would comment, but really, the whole of that paragraph is fictional.

You guys seem to be woefully unfamiliar with what is debated at university's all around the world concerning these issue. The claims I bring up are what the scholars discuss. If you do not recognize the obvious relevance of what I have claimed then that says more about you than my claims.

It may well be that there is a God, I wouldn't know (although I doubt it). Still, it seems silly to discuss whether things known to exist do exist.

I am not discussing whether evolution (at least micro evolution exists) I am discussing the implications of that reality. I do not follow your point. I will say there is infinitely more evidence and reason to believe God exists than that life came from non life but if you are allowing that God is possible then the issues are not quite so black and white.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nope. gravity has no moral implications or associations what so ever.

Neither does evolution. Next.

 

[Father Heathen]

Now that is one bizarre tactic.

That "bizarre tactic", also known as the scientific method, is where our medical and technological advancements come from.

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue is simple.

1. Does evolution account for behavior. I say and most evolutionists say yes.
Done.

In professional debate the issue is not even contested, in fact evolution is universally claimed by that most prolific debaters to account perfectly for every benevolent moral known.

That sure doesn't agree with the info I have. You must have some very specific (or biased) understandings of the concepts you use in that phrase.

Not that I am surprised; so far you have shown a very exotic understanding of "evolution" indeed.

I can supply debates and names and maybe even a transcript if it will end this arbitrary only biological limit on a very complex issue.

If I have been misinformed then Dawkins, Gould, Harris, Bennett, Craig, Collins etc have been all wrong. What you are describing is natural selection or only the biological issues of a much bigger and more complex issue.

As it turns out, I am reading Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" these days. Which I recommend, by the way; he is a great author, with a superb understanding of the roles of religion and science.

There are those who believe that biological evolution has moral consequences, yes. But that is by no means a consensual view, and hardly even a majority view.

 

[LuisDantas]

Offering my two cents here. Even if Hitler did believe in God he put upon himself the mantle of a God. He acted contrary to the teachings of the Bible he claimed to believe in. And some the major forces That opposed his regime were in the Christian movement.

Which is why it matters IMO. It takes believing in God for one to see oneself as His agent or proxy, which Hitler clearly did, if the actual text of "Mein Kampf", his justifications for anti-semitism and his cooperation with both Christian and Muslim authorities are any indication.

And then there are his messianic posture, his prophecy of a "reich of a thousand years", his unyielding arrogance, his refusal to accept unpleasant realities.

All traits that are often found in true believers and anathema to disbelief.

 

[LuisDantas]

IMO you are arbitrarily confining your claims to only the biological issues and ignoring the obvious moral implications and aspects of a larger issue.

It is not my fault that you are confusing the issues and misrepresenting them, intentionally or otherwise.

There is nothing morally neutral or lacking behavioral implications about On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

I take it that you never read them? Because that actually makes your claim more credible.

You guys seem to be woefully unfamiliar with what is debated at university's all around the world concerning these issue. The claims I bring up are what the scholars discuss.

That is hardly believable. Would you please bring some sources and references?

If you do not recognize the obvious relevance of what I have claimed then that says more about you than my claims.

I beg to differ, but suit yourself.

I am not discussing whether evolution (at least micro evolution exists) I am discussing the implications of that reality. I do not follow your point. I will say there is infinitely more evidence and reason to believe God exists than that life came from non life

That is neither true nor a choice you actually have to make, however.

but if you are allowing that God is possible then the issues are not quite so black and white.

Except that it makes little if any difference, since Creationism is still so rooted in lies and distortions to even exist. And it is its own fault, too, since it only exists as the deliberate oposition to a well-documented, well-proven Theory.

 

[Dingbat]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Darwin the Monotheist is demonized by Christians? Always gives me a good chuckle.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most Creationists nurture a fantasy that Darwin was some sort of rabid enemy of Christianism. Maybe they must, in order to be Creationists in the first place.

 

[sportinnc]

The creation of earth is a touchy subject, many define it as a purely scientific claim, while others believe it necessary to prove their respective view in order to uphold their religious or non-religious views. Many people misunderstand Darwin and his findings, they think he was totally opposed to "Christianity." This was not the case. He did, however, take the view that Evolution was a scientific claim, set apart from his religion. As a Christian Creationist, I disagree with this view, but nevertheless do understand that Darwin was not a mortal enemy of the religion.

 

[1robin]

I wonder which they would be. And above all, I wonder why don't you simply examine what is known about evolution instead of wondering which other kinds could have happened in other conceivable worlds.

I will give one example: without God evolution is the most likely force that either creates or implies moral values. However if God is in the mix then his morality would supersede morality implied by survival goals and instincts. Differences do not come any larger. To illustrate this: In an evolution only context can you show that the murder of children is actually wrong? Can you show slavery is actually wrong? Can you show that a man is more valuable than a fly? Heck can you show that right and wrong have any actual meaning at all? With God of course both are easily accounted for.
You couple of "guys" I am debating in this thread have made some of the most irrational and almost incoherent claims about my positions I have ever heard. For example will you provide that single claim I made that concerns what you say above "What happened on other conceivable words" That concept has never been mentioned by me and I have never even thought about it. I am going to say one last time a large portion of my understanding comes from evolutionists themselves. I have seen every debate on evolution I can find and have many transcripts from them. THEY not me are the ones who originally claimed that evolution can generate morals. Of course only good ones, omniscient evolution apparently is always benevolent. I have found evolution to be so pliable it can do anything. This all started because the theistic debaters were saying that if there was no God and evolution was true then why does morality exists. They said surely morality can't be produced by nature alone. Well the evolutionists were in a tight spot but came back to life by insisting that evolution could in fact generate morality. In fact the only issue still debated by the scholars is what is the nature of the morality that evolution results in. If you disagree with that then argue with the evolutionary scholars who’s majority claims it.

 

[1robin]

Neither does evolution. Next.

The biological aspect does not the sociological aspect does. When your own evolutionists say it is responsability for morality. Has in fact anly generated benevolent morality somehow buty morality none the less. Evolution has included, does include, and will always include a behavioral aspect. Instincts for example, fight or flight, over predation, the way they pair bond. It is just far too obvious to waste any more time with a person who has their fingers in their ears yelling no it isn't over and over.

If you wish to waste time responding with the irrelevant reference to gravity then dig up Darwin and tell it to him.

In the chapter On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times of The descent of man (1871) Charles Darwin set out to explain the origin of human morality in order to show that there was no absolute gap between man and animals. For Darwin, morality was a problem of natural history. He believed that a moral sense (altruism) would have little selective advantage for the individual, but it would be adaptive for the group.
Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Normative evolutionary ethics aims at defining which acts are right or wrong, and which things are good or bad in an evolutionary context. It is not merely describing, but it is prescribing goals, values and obligations. For example eugenics is a form of normative evolutionary ethics, because it defines what is "good" on the basis of genetics and the theory of evolution. Social Darwinism is a more wide ranging topic. However, to the extent it promotes ethical values and policies based on the theory of evolution, it can also be classified as a normative evolutionary ethics. According to philosopher G. E. Moore (see above) all systems of naturalistic ethics, including normative evolutionary ethics, do commit the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy does not apply to descriptive evolutionary ethics because no ethical statements are inferred from facts. Also, the naturalistic fallacy does not apply to weaker forms of normative evolutionary ethics, namely those which are consistent with evolution, but not derivable from evolution.[citation needed]
Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I can supply quotes from evolutionists that claim morality comes from evolution or is at least implied by it forever but I don't think it would make any difference.

 

[Me Myself]

This is another semantical argument and has no effect on reality. The fact is that if survival is the governing dynamic as it is in evolution then I should kill every one that does not contribute to my survival to lower competition for resources.

If what you say was true, then herbivores would never survive too much before extinction

I don´t see the elephant killing stuff around so that it doesn´t die

Evolution means survival of the fittest, not of the pathological killer. :areyoucra

Sometimes the fittest simply knows how to hide, or reproduces fast enough, or others.

 

[Father Heathen]

I will give one example: without God evolution is the most likely force that either creates or implies moral values.

Nnnnnope. :no:

Morals are derived from the human mind. Has nothing to do with genetics.