10 Nov 09
1 edit
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Bi-products of evolutionary philosophy. Nietzsche, Hitler, Stalin were heavily influenced by Darwin.
How many people have died as a result of religious wars? Less than three million in known history.
How many people have died as a result of the above named individuals influence on the course of history? 70 million plus in less than a century.
10 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwwhile i sympathise and fully agree with your statement Joseph in that the evolutionary hypothesis was certainly a contributing factor not only in the second, but also the first world wars, it has been shown that wars and the ensuing atrocities have been committed by a broad range of perpetrators, religious and non religious alike.
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Bi-products of evolutionary philosophy. Nietzsche, Hitler, Stalin were heavily influenced by Darwin.
How many people have died as a result of religious wars? Less than three million in known history.
How many people have died as a result of the above named individuals influence on the course of history? 70 million plus in less than a century.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageUnderscores my point don't you think.
FAIL
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
If evolution is true, then death and destruction follow in it's wake. It seems then that since death is merely a normal consequence of evolution judgement of motive on the part of those that kill is purely subjective and has no basis in morality.
10 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwNo, it shows that your figures are completely false.
Underscores my point don't you think.
If evolution is true, then death and destruction follow in it's wake. It seems then that since death is merely a normal consequence of evolution judgement of motive on the part of those that kill is purely subjective and has no basis in morality.
You seem to think of evolution as some mysterious force. Try think of it as nature, pure and simple. Yes, death is a natural occurrence.
'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. Was that statement a cop-out?
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwNot influenced, but misinterpreted for their own agenda.
Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Bi-products of evolutionary philosophy. Nietzsche, Hitler, Stalin were heavily influenced by Darwin.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that was never even used by Darwin.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut why do people kill? What is the motive?
while i sympathise and fully agree with your statement Joseph in that the evolutionary hypothesis was certainly a contributing factor not only in the second, but also the first world wars, it has been shown that wars and the ensuing atrocities have been committed by a broad range of perpetrators, religious and non religious alike.
It's not so much about who kills who, but about what motivates. While there may be legitimate reasons to kill, self preservation, protection, survival, there seems to be more killing for reasons such as greed, hate, pride, and the like.
It appears that evolution engenders a philosophy that allows for the dismissal of morality in the name of natural selection.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by lauseyEven if Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" his followers did.
Not influenced, but misinterpreted for their own agenda.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that was never even used by Darwin.
Not influenced, but misinterpreted for their own agenda.
Not influenced? Misapplied certainly.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwNatural selection is a process. Nothing more, nothing less. To base a philosophy, or define political policy on this is ludicrous.
But why do people kill? What is the motive?
It's not so much about who kills who, but about what motivates. While there may be legitimate reasons to kill, self preservation, protection, survival, there seems to be more killing for reasons such as greed, hate, pride, and the like.
It appears that evolution engenders a philosophy that allows for the dismissal of morality in the name of natural selection.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by josephwEven though Jesus never advocated killing Jews as 'Christ-killers', his followers did.
Even if Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" his followers did.
[b]Not influenced, but misinterpreted for their own agenda.
Not influenced? Misapplied certainly.[/b]
I think you are trying to ask: is religion a necessary condition for morality?
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLausey is correct in stating that basing philosophy or politics on evolution is absurd, whether or not this has been tried in practice.
then perhaps you are in need of a lesson in history and sociology?
Quite often the most absurd policies have considerable mass appeal.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am aware that there are people who have attempted to use Natural Selection for such agenda, and what they have been doing is ludicrous.
then perhaps you are in need of a lesson in history and sociology?
For example, Hitler exterminating whom he believed to be "unfit". Natural selection does not need any influence from us, as the clue is in the title. It works naturally.
10 Nov 09
Originally posted by lauseyI think 'natural selection' is a bogus term, a ghost in the machine. There is no agency that 'selects', is there?
I am aware that there are people who have attempted to use Natural Selection for such agenda, and what they have been doing is ludicrous.
For example, Hitler exterminating whom he believed to be "unfit". Natural selection does not need any influence from us, as the clue is in the title. It works naturally.
10 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwthat anyone can doubt that there was a ideology built around or certainly influenced by Darwins theory, i do not think can now be disputed, imperialism and even the economic basis for slavery were now justifiable, the Nazis were able to justify and fully accept in almost clinical terms, the genocide of an entire race, euthanasia programs etc etc My own opinion is that the natural exercise of conscience gets supplanted with another ideology, thus atrocities are committed.
Even if Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" his followers did.
[b]Not influenced, but misinterpreted for their own agenda.
Not influenced? Misapplied certainly.[/b]