Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about evolution:

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    ... I find it hard to avoid when arguing with a fool. ... No, but neither does liberalism or democracy or conservatism. ... In much the same way as any other
    Message 1 of 68 , Jul 6, 2008
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, a a <Praesto12@...> wrote:
      > I do like to discuss ideas, I do however think that debates turn
      > into ad homenium attacks too easily however.

      I find it hard to avoid when arguing with a fool.

      > In any case, again I stated that Communism, which is a world-view,
      > does not engage or acknowledge the exsistence of God or a God of
      > any kind.

      No, but neither does liberalism or democracy or conservatism.

      > So, Communism-depending on futher definition-does not maintain a
      > theos, Communist may, but in spite of being Communist, not because
      > of.

      In much the same way as any other political system.

      > "Beside there isn't a good reason to believe in a God anyways." I
      > really wonder how much thought you 've given that statement, if
      > any?

      Do you have any evidence for the existence of a god? If you don't
      have any evidence then I am fully justified not to believe (in fact
      the rules of logic pretty much require it).

      > Hitler believed in the "purity of the races" becasue some races
      > were "better " or "stronger."

      Yet no one has ever actually provided any good evidence for that.

      > You simply don't know your history if you believe that Hitler was
      > not influenced by Nietzsche or Darwin.

      No, I simply realise that Hitler got his ideas from the bible.

      There may have been people who read Nietzsche or Darwin that
      influenced Hitler but any influence was not direct (Nietzsche was not
      a nationalist nor was he an anti-Semite whilst Hitler was both and
      Hitler's belief about racial superiority was based on purity of
      bloodlines which doesn't make any damn sense in Darwinian theory
      (though it is in the straw man version of evolution that you seem to
      be using)).

      Herbert Spencer's social 'darwinism' is related in name only to
      natural selection and Hitler did express some ideas from it though you
      won't find too many people who actually think it was a good idea.

      > I can't help you if you're chosing to be ignorant, but if you
      > really want to know the truth then do your research.

      The belief that Hitler was anything other than a Christian without
      knowledge of Darwinian theory and with beliefs almost directly
      opposite Nietzsche is a good sign of ignorance.

      > Then you go to say that "we do not have to follow nature." To me
      > this is a bit strange if you're coming from a naturalistic
      > standpoint.

      Not at all.

      The standpoint you are coming from is one of intrinsic purpose in
      which the universe is moral but a naturalistic standpoint is that of a
      no intrinsic purpose and an amoral universe that doesn't care if we
      live or die (and which may have an asteroid heading our way right now).

      If we don't like the way nature does something then it is in principle
      possible to change (look at what we've done to the world already).

      > Which countries do you believe have "accepted" evolutionism, and
      > are more peaceful? Eastern Europe, Nazi Germany,Stalinish Russia,
      > China? What are you going for with that statement? It doesn't make
      > sense, with respect to reality or history.

      Pretty much all of Western Europe has vast majority acceptance of
      evolution along with lower crime rates than the US.

      Stalinist Russia certainly did not accept evolution though, you might
      want to read up a little on Lysenkoism to see the consequences of not
      accepting evolution (mass famine come to mind?).

      > Who said anything about worshipping an "evil God."

      An all powerful and all knowing god who would use a process like
      evolution that relies on suffering and death would be evil.

      > I see no more evil force than believing that morality is just "made
      > up" by culture and that Purpose,love,meaning,hope,faith,
      > rationality and doing what is right is simply a result of a cosmic
      > burp.

      That just so happens to be the way the world really is. Denying
      reality tends to result in bad things happening (the problems with
      communism do largely come down to exactly that).

      Morality is something that we have to come up with on our own (even if
      there were a god it would still require us to judge whether it is
      moral and for that we need to have a human developed morality) with
      purpose and meaning being that which we come up with ourselves.

      Morality does seem to have some biological basis as a way of enhancing
      survival by allowing humans to work together and love is a feeling
      that comes from the brain.

      If we want hope we need to have something to hope for, faith isn't
      something we should want to have though.

      > Your world view of Evolutionism is evil.

      No, it is merely true.

      Science is not about good or evil but true or false whilst you seem to
      be arguing otherwise.

      > God, of the Bible, is not.

      Have you actually read it?

      The God referred to in that document is a genocidal maniac.

      > Maybe you simply feel angry at God?

      I don't feel angry about Santa Claus, why should I feel angry about
      any other fictional character?

      > Hey man, I'm very willing and really really desire to accept
      > scientific fact, though that is not the only epistomology that
      > matters,

      What other epistemology's matter? Religion, politics, lit crit, etc
      haven't exactly shown themselves able to explain the world, when
      history works out it is usually because the historians are following a
      very scientific approach.

      > but Science does not support Macro evolution,

      Because there is no such thing as macro-evolution and micro-evolution,
      there is just evolution which varies in scale from small changes right
      up to speciation.

      > and truly it emprically can't.

      A quite look around talkorigins will show otherwise.


      That which you call macro-evolution far from being impossible to prove
      has in fact been shown to happen in the lab.

      > Science supports Creationism,

      No it doesn't.

      Even old-Earth creationalism is nonsense (though it is less
      nonsensical than YEC).

      > if anything, though the line between philosophy,religion, science,
      > and history needs to be established.

      I see no need to bother with religion, it was our first attempt at
      understanding the world, providing a moral code, providing a purpose
      for life and eliminating death but it was also a bad attempt and we've
      managed to do better at all of those things without religion.

      > Stay with one point and let's discuss it. If you have a question or
      > something of philosophical or scientific value then discuss it.

      The only thing from you that appears to have any value was the
      objection to truth based on it being 'evil', whilst it doesn't
      actually contribute anything to reality it does show some insight into
      your thinking processes and that of people like you.
    • Richard Godwin
      May I suggest you put down the joint, wait a while, and then write. ... From: Justin Kolata To: Sent:
      Message 68 of 68 , Jul 7, 2008
        May I suggest you put down the joint, wait a while, and then write.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Justin Kolata" <justink@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:53 AM
        Subject: RE: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about

        Dawkins says it best...

        "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to
        believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
        but I'd rather not consider that)."
        --Richard Dawkins

        -----Original Message-----
        From: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of a a
        Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:32 PM
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about

        No, my friend, you are speaking out of ignorance. First of all, Communism
        does not believe in a God, so what is, in general, the only other option for
        the creation of man? Evolutionism. In addition Nietzsche was heavily
        influenced by Darwin, and Nietzsche strongly influenced
        Hitler(superman/nazism) who also influence Mussolini. Look up your

        First, let's just take dictionary.com


        // ", "6");
        interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");
        interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");
        interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");
        interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");
        // ]]>

        Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
        Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

        a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
        universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or
        agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often
        containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

        Well, we've already discussed the moral ramification of an Evolutionary
        worldview( and all the murder it leads into) so let's see, beliefs
        concerning the cause, macro-evolutionism ascribes, poorly i might add, to
        the idea of a cosmic burp(big bang) so you got that going, next in the
        evolutionary religion, one generally believes life is purposeless and many
        state so; Existentialism, and you certainly believe in a superhuman agency
        of somekind, though I'm not sure what other than choas in the creation of
        everything so, yes, Evolutionism is a religion. This is too easy.

        2nd, I'm not supporting communism so I have no response to that, however
        if someone kills in the name of Christ it is against his message. If someone
        kills in the name of "survival of the fittest" then it is for it's message.
        Hitler used members of the Catholic Church in order to support his
        pagan/evolutionary ideas but in practice or in theory he was not Christian.
        Try again. Come on guys, give me some intelligent discussion.

        Lastly, Talkorigins is a joke. I want your ideas not some lame website.

        Anyhow, Evolution is an idol. People have created it as an idol in order
        to avoid facing the reality that there is a God that will Judge us when we
        die. Humans are too proud, generally, to admit that they are wrong so they
        hang on to outdated illusions like Evolutionism. I see your talkorigins, and
        I seen other sites and they all fail to see the forest for the trees.

        Why reject Jesus?

        --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
        > Guys, evolution, as the religion it is, has not won anything,
        > expect for being a leading idealogy in the killing of millions of
        > people. In all due respect, why would anyone *believe in the
        > religion of Evolution? And by that term what are you guys referring
        > to?

        You are an idiot.

        First of all evolution is not a religion.

        Second, evolution has not been an ideology involved in the killing of
        millions of people, Christianity and communism on the other hand...
        Remember that Adolf Hitler was a Christian and Joesph Stalin a
        communist who supported Lysenko.

        Third, there are very good reasons to believe that evolution happened.

        http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ faq-misconceptio ns.html#observe
        http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ comdesc/
        http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ jury-rigged. html

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.