Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 5:01 PM
408 online now:
DrJones*, Larni, NoNukes, PaulK (4 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,904 Year: 27,510/21,208 Month: 1,423/1,714 Week: 266/365 Day: 35/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10069
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 106 of 123 (794723)
11-21-2016 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dwise1
11-19-2016 1:15 PM


Re: Nazis were Creationists
Nazi ideology and practice taught and relied entirely on artificial selection (used by breeders of livestock), not Darwinism's natural selection.

While it is true that eugenics is about artificial selection, that alone does not prevent eugenics from being based on Darwin's observations and writings. Origin of species has a lot to say about artificial selection, and builds upon ideas observed about artificial selection to make statements about natural selection.

Eugenics was once considered a progressive idea in the US and was not completely disavowed until late in the twentieth century. From the wikipedia article on the Eugenics in the US.

quote:
Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[5] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands

So what was the scientific basis for eugenics (if any?)

quote:
The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples;

Now given the connections between Galton and Darwin, I think it would be foolish to deny the source of some of the ideas behind eugenics. On the other hand, there is little reason to blame Darwin for reporting truthful observations. Galton and his followers, or the other hand...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2016 1:15 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
KyleConno
Junior Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 04-28-2017


(1)
Message 107 of 123 (807302)
05-02-2017 4:03 AM


Here's a page I found on Cram http://www.cram.com/flashcards/evolution-2013900 that gives all biology terms related to Evolution.
    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 108 of 123 (813502)
06-28-2017 7:13 AM


evolution, theistic evolution, intelligent design, and creationism
Brian Josephson, Welsh physicist and 1973 Nobel laureate discusses evolution, theistic evolution, intelligent design, and creationism
https://www.closertotruth.com/...volution-and-god#video-2473
  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 109 of 123 (816662)
08-09-2017 6:45 AM


God, Gods, and Fairies
God, Gods, and Fairies
One of the strangest claims often made by purveyors and consumers of today’s popular atheism is that disbelief in God involves no particular positive philosophy of reality, much less any kind of religion or creed, but consists merely in neutral incredulity toward a certain kind of factual asseveration. This is not something the atheists of earlier ages would have been very likely to say, if only because they still lived in a culture whose every dimension (artistic, philosophical, ethical, social, cosmological) was shaped by a religious vision of the world. More to the point, it is an utterly nonsensical claim—so nonsensical, in fact, that it is doubtful that those who make it can truly be considered atheists in any coherent sense.
Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 8:44 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:41 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5164
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 110 of 123 (816665)
08-09-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
08-09-2017 6:45 AM


Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
This is jibberish - jumbled, confused thinking and newage babble.

Atheism is a non-belief in god/s. That's it, nothing more.

For some reason believers need to make it a really complicated thing invoving all sort of pseudo-philosophical bunk like this. Accept it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:45 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:38 AM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10079
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 111 of 123 (816667)
08-09-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
08-09-2017 8:44 AM


Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
Tangle writes:

For some reason believers need to make it a really complicated thing invoving all sort of pseudo-philosophical bunk like this. Accept it.

Accept what?

I dont think you are addressing the philosophical argument behind this article.

Perhaps many believers do attempt to make it complicated, but you are dismissing a concept without providing any reason other than the simple idea that you don't embrace or accept it. Do you have any idea of the basic argument in this piece?

  • First, you cannot simply make the argument that you are merely ignoring something with no evidence. You are ignoring a philosophical assertion without providing a counter-philosophy.

    quote:
    To speak of “God” properly—in a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bahá’í, much of antique paganism, and so forth—is to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

    God so understood is neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being.


    Do you believe that there is no infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined? Of course, you do...you believe in human wisdom and assemblage of evidence and scientific methodology. All that the article is saying is that God=Reality. Would you be prepared to defend the idea that consciousness=reality, or would you argue only that matter and the behavior of matter (as observed through consciousness) = reality?


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 110 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 8:44 AM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 113 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 10:09 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 115 by Stile, posted 08-09-2017 10:31 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
  • Phat
    Member
    Posts: 10079
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 112 of 123 (816668)
    08-09-2017 9:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
    08-09-2017 6:45 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    CRR writes:

    More to the point, it is an utterly nonsensical claim—so nonsensical, in fact, that it is doubtful that those who make it can truly be considered atheists in any coherent sense.

    I wouldn't call the philosophy nonsense, but I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy than simply “I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”!

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 109 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:45 AM CRR has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 114 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2017 10:14 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 116 by dwise1, posted 08-09-2017 10:33 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 117 by ringo, posted 08-09-2017 3:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5164
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.5


    (1)
    Message 113 of 123 (816672)
    08-09-2017 10:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 111 by Phat
    08-09-2017 9:38 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    Phat writes:

    Accept what?

    That an atheist is simply someone that accepts that there is no god/s. That's it end. Nothing more.

    I dont think you are addressing the philosophical argument behind this article.

    I am. I'm stating that the article is built on the false premise that there is some underlying philosophical notion in not believing in a fantasy god. There isn't.

    First, you cannot simply make the argument that you are merely ignoring something with no evidence. You are ignoring a philosophical assertion without providing a counter-philosophy.

    The concept that there is a counter-philosophy, is a believer's fallacy. There isn't.

    Do you believe that there is no infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined?

    You see, you just can't understand or even contemplate the idea that there is nothing beyond what we have now. That's why this silly straw man keeps being built by believers about non-believers, the crudest version being that atheism is a belief system.

    Of course, you do...you believe in human wisdom and assemblage of evidence and scientific methodology.

    That is not a replacement for 'infinite wellsprings' whatever they are. Nor is it a 'belief'; the scientific method is just a useful tool for properly understanding how stuff works. It saves us from wrongly making stuff up. Human knowledge is the sum of what we've learned - it's not a belief system. If you must make me believe in something, it's that people need to create their own mechanisms for the survival and well-being of our societies out of what we have here and now and prepare our children to do the same.

    All that the article is saying is that God=Reality. Would you be prepared to defend the idea that consciousness=reality, or would you argue only that matter and the behavior of matter (as observed through consciousness) = reality.

    How can god=reality if he doesn't exist? He's totally inaccessible even to those who believe in him.

    Discussions of what reality is are irrelevant to atheism and always end in semantics and a logical mess. Like this one.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5164
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.5


    Message 114 of 123 (816673)
    08-09-2017 10:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
    08-09-2017 9:41 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    Phat writes:

    I wouldn't call the philosophy nonsense, but I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy than simply “I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden”

    Then you're just wrong. All you're doing is inflicting your own views on others - you simply don't get it. 'I don't believe in god' is atheism. Period.

    You imagine that a non-belief in god must leave a hole to that must be filled by a belief in something else. It doesn't. You can't get that can you?


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3037
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 3.2


    (1)
    Message 115 of 123 (816675)
    08-09-2017 10:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 111 by Phat
    08-09-2017 9:38 AM


    Reality = Reality
    Phat writes:

    Do you believe that there is no infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined? Of course, you do...you believe in human wisdom and assemblage of evidence and scientific methodology.

    What do you mean by "of course?"

    Because my answer to this question is: "No, I do not believe that there is an infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined."

    Why should we "of course" believe in such a thing?

    I do believe in human wisdom existing, assemblage of evidence existing and scientific methodology existing.
    I believe that each exist with their benefits, their limitations, and their errors.

    But I do not believe that any of them (or even all of them together) "quite literally define all things."
    I think such an idea is naïve.

    All that the article is saying is that God=Reality.

    Yes, I understand that this is what the article says.
    I simply do not see the article providing a reason why I should agree.
    Without a reason to take it seriously, I simply do not agree that God = Reality.

    Would you be prepared to defend the idea that consciousness=reality

    No.
    Consciousness exists within reality, but consciousness is not equal to reality. Reality is reality.

    or would you argue only that matter and the behavior of matter (as observed through consciousness) = reality?

    Again, no.
    Matter exists within reality, but matter is not equal to reality. Reality is reality.

    Why can't Reality=Whatever Reality Is?
    Why must it be dumbed down or stuffed into some other definition?
    Reality is vast.
    There is lots we know.
    There is more we don't know.
    There is some that, perhaps, we can't know.
    It is what it is.
    And it definitely is not any of these other suggestions.

    Why can't Reality = Reality?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 2999
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 116 of 123 (816676)
    08-09-2017 10:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
    08-09-2017 9:41 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    I wouldn't call the philosophy nonsense, but I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy than simply “I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden” or “Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less”!

    Yet Christians keep telling us that a Christian is just one who has a personal relationship with Jesus. No deeper philosophy in that.

    Of course, then Christians go off into deeper theologies, most of which conflict with each other. Similarly, most atheists also have deeper philosophies, most of which don't agree with the deeper philosophies of other atheists. So what's your point?

    Here's a glimpse into mine. All theists have created their own gods. Even if some supreme supernatural entity does exist, not only are we incapable of determining that, but even if it were to communicate directly with one of us we are incapable of understanding it accurately. Therefore, theists have to create their own gods just to be able to talk about such ideas.

    I cannot believe in your made-up gods. I cannot put my faith in your misunderstandings about your made-up gods, especially when you insist that your made-up understandings are the absolute truth. We all have to work that out for ourselves and your own heresies would just get in my way (refer to the first quote in my signature).

    This topic is not a debate topic.


    {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
    ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

    Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
    (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

    Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
    (Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

    Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
    ("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

    It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
    Steven Colbert on NPR


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13885
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 117 of 123 (816699)
    08-09-2017 3:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
    08-09-2017 9:41 AM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    Phat writes:

    ... I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy....


    Why can't it just be an absence of philosophy?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by Phat, posted 08-09-2017 9:41 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    CRR
    Member
    Posts: 578
    From: Australia
    Joined: 10-19-2016


    (2)
    Message 118 of 123 (816710)
    08-09-2017 6:26 PM


    Re: God, Gods, and Fairies
    Guys, NOT a debate thread. Propose it as a new topic if you want, there seems to be enough interest.
      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13313
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    (1)
    Message 119 of 123 (816745)
    08-10-2017 11:51 AM


    A Christian takes on Creationism
    an example post

    Note that the book mentioned in the opening has since been published.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 120 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2017 2:17 PM PaulK has not yet responded

        
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13313
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.0


    (1)
    Message 120 of 123 (816753)
    08-10-2017 2:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 119 by PaulK
    08-10-2017 11:51 AM


    Re: A Christian takes on Creationism
    And another Naturalis Historia
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2017 11:51 AM PaulK has not yet responded

        
    Prev1
    ...
    4567
    8
    9Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017