The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Unfortunately rape and murder it is so natural that it happens all over the species spectrum...hopefully further evolution of Evolution will lead us to a more Civilized standard of competition to keep reassuring diversity in the genes pool in those extremely adverse social environments situations where rape uses to thrive and murder keeps paying off...so drop the drama...

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Darwinism says only the material world exists.

No it doesn't.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What's "pure Darwinist philosophy?"

All's fair in love and war. Which means, as HO says, that there isn't a Darwinian in sight on A2K.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think what that means is people like you don't understand Darwinism; that's been proven often enough on these threads.

Adding adjectives to Darwin is a ploy only creationists use when there is no need for such. Most people understand the meaning of "evolution."

0 Replies

@failures art,

Firstly, Spendius, thank you for maintaining civility. I think we can agree that civility is important in debates such as this.

Now, Failures, that's a very logical argument! But all it proves is that Hitler's logic was clearly flawed. I think we all agree on that. And while I agree that he replaced 'fittest' with 'select', it does not disprove my last point. In Hitler's mind - that's the key part, it was in his mind, not anyone on this forum's mind - his actions were justified by natural selection.
We can most likely all agree that Hitler was not particularly rational. The point I am making is that in HIS mind, his actions were merely reinforcing nature, he was helping nature out. He considered Jews an inferior race, but that does not mean they are.
Again, it is fact that Hitler considered his actions justified by natural selection, whether this is logical and rational, or neither, I am no longer debating. It is simple FACT that Hitler believed his actions were justified. It is also a simple FACT that others are now proposing that rape and other forms of murder are also justified by natural selection. Again, I KNOW this is not a rational way of thinking, so let's not try to start a debate on the rationality of the beliefs they hold, but can we agree that through a certain philosophy - fatally flawed or otherwise - there have been and are people who are advocating rape, infanticide, and genocide as natural and perhaps even beneficial to humanity?

And to Tenderfoot's point, yes. There are many zealots in many religions who are guilty of the same things.

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Firstly, Spendius, thank you for maintaining civility. I think we can agree that civility is important in debates such as this.

Please behave everyone. We are in the presence of a sage.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandel, You made me have an involuntary choke! LOL

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I, for one, would like to hear what this sage has to say. Surely nobody would assault his logic as being 'diarrhea' or 'bullshit science' or call that sage 'full of ****'. As such things are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand unless it could be proved that someone's logic was literally based on bovine excrement or diarrhea.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

They are just people to avoid HO. One can easily imagine that every argument they participate in is conducted in a similar fashion.

Evolution theory, when approached superficially, is bound to bring out the latent fascist is every powerless person who has an inflated idea of his or her perfection which the world is stupid enough not to have yet recognised.

And a superficial approach is axiomatic in those who daily prove that they are verging on illiterate. The lack of originality in their invective and their constant recourse to the repetition of a few stock words and phrases learned in infants school are quite sufficient for me gauge their weight.

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Now, Failures, that's a very logical argument! But all it proves is that Hitler's logic was clearly flawed. I think we all agree on that.

Yes, his logic was flawed, and it has nothing to do with natural selection.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

And while I agree that he replaced 'fittest' with 'select', it does not disprove my last point. In Hitler's mind - that's the key part, it was in his mind, not anyone on this forum's mind - his actions were justified by natural selection.

Selection, not natural selection. This cannot be understated. If his philosophy had been based on natural selection, there would have been no need for him to take action against the Jews, Roma, Social Democrats, etc etc etc.

There's no logical corollary for what you propose. How can evolution be blamed for the application of a philosophy which doesn't follow the proper analogy?

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

We can most likely all agree that Hitler was not particularly rational. The point I am making is that in HIS mind, his actions were merely reinforcing nature, he was helping nature out. He considered Jews an inferior race, but that does not mean they are.

If we agree that Hitler wasn't rational and came to this conclusion, then you've provided the fault in your own argument.

You said that the belief in evolution is what lead to Hitler's genocidal philosophy, but if this philosophy only comes from an irrational person, it can hardly be considered as intuitive as you claim.

None of this provides reasonable support that people who believe in evolution face any sort of dilemma. Rational people do not come to the philosophical conclusion that you insist they must.

As I stated before, I believe your conclusion is flawed due to a misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. Given statements you've made in this thread, I think that the first step in understanding the mechanisms involved in evolution is to know the proper definition of "fitness." Beyond that, you need to confine your criticisms of evolution to the scope in which evolutionary theory is contained: Bio-diversity.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Again, it is fact that Hitler considered his actions justified by natural selection, whether this is logical and rational, or neither, I am no longer debating.

He didn't. Totalitarians aren't concerned with justifying their actions. They are only concerned with the end product. Presenting Hitler as someone who was deeply invested in evolutionary theory is medley of false assumptions.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

It is simple FACT that Hitler believed his actions were justified. It is also a simple FACT that others are now proposing that rape and other forms of murder are also justified by natural selection.

These are not facts. You're applying a narrative that is not supported. In the instance of rape, studying rape in a species is not the same as justifying it.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Again, I KNOW this is not a rational way of thinking, so let's not try to start a debate on the rationality of the beliefs they hold, but can we agree that through a certain philosophy - fatally flawed or otherwise - there have been and are people who are advocating rape, infanticide, and genocide as natural and perhaps even beneficial to humanity?

No. We do not agree.

A
R
T

0 Replies

Concerning murder rape cannibalism and such like oddity´s :

To state that something is beneficial or prejudicial in general without determining the objective function is obviously a dangerous generalization...beneficial to whom ? and what situation ? its more like it should be don´t you think ?...further, when a given factual phenomena is presented without natural justification, just what is one wondering about ? purposeless "ghosts" in the causal machine ? Occam´s razor is intuitive enough against it ? why should nature use energy and "creativity" in no needed behaviours ?
Now, an entirely different matter is to understand, why such fringe behaviours are scarce rare oddity´s that most of the time are just not needed or accepted by the large majority of people...nevertheless concerning explanation we are to deal with the entire spectrum and not just with the comfortable part.

1 Reply

I'll make this simple.

FACT:
Hitler considered natural selection valid in philosophy.
He used the philosophical natural selection(that he considered valid) to justify genocide.

There are others attempting to justify that other such terrible acts with this same concept.

There is NO debate to be had on that. I agree it's an illogical way of thinking, to try to justify genocide, etc.

But, illogical or not, people think that way. And that, is a fact.

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Its is amazing how the human race pulls toghether. When genocide becomes the topic. Maybe that should mendend into the theory. Smile

Then again im not educated in the subject. It might be already Smile

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I'll make this simple.

FACT:
Hitler considered natural selection valid in philosophy.
He used the philosophical natural selection(that he considered valid) to justify genocide.

There are others attempting to justify that other such terrible acts with this same concept.

There is NO debate to be had on that. I agree it's an illogical way of thinking, to try to justify genocide, etc.

But, illogical or not, people think that way. And that, is a fact.

Pronouncements made by you are not fact unless you provide support. When did Hitler ever talk about natural selection? Who are these "others" that you keep referring to?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Princeton Professor and Darwinist Peter Singer wrote "the life of a newborn(human, that is) is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
He believes parents should be allowed to kill their newborn any time up to 28 days after he/she is born.

Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer wrote in their book "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases and Sexual Coercion" that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, just like the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck."

Hitler
"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist."

"it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure." That's natural selection.

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Hitler apparently didn't understand natural selection. The selection he talks about is racial.

I don't know who Peter Singer is. His statement says nothing about natural selection.

Is there any indication that the book "A Natural History of Rape" led to a school of philosophy?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I think you'll find Fil that your post is a bit too hot to handle. Most of the argument of evolutionists is posited on the horrors of unChristianlike behaviour.

I can't see why Hitler bothers them one way or the other.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I am not arguing that Hitler did.

Peter Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Criticism_of_Singer

Who is saying it led to a school of philosophy? THESE people think this way. If anything, this book is derived from their prior understanding of philosophy and so forth. Whether it's a right approach or not, I am not debating.

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I am not arguing that Hitler did.

Peter Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Criticism_of_Singer

Who is saying it led to a school of philosophy? THESE people think this way. If anything, this book is derived from their prior understanding of philosophy and so forth. Whether it's a right approach or not, I am not debating.

Then, why are you alarmed?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

rational or not, there are people advocating genocide and infanticide. Touting it - based on their understanding of natural selection - as natural and morally acceptable. Whether it's rational or not, it's pretty obvious some people will believe it. Heck, there were people in Waco that believed Jesus came back not at all in the biblical description, amassed an arsenal of automatic weapons and challenged the ATF to a brawl.
People believe some strange stuff. If the people who believe this are at all like the Westboro Baptist Church - which is not doctrinally anywhere NEAR a baptist church - then a lot of violence will likely ensue.

0 Replies

The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know