The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Your Hitler quote supports my point. Hitler talks about strength. Survival is not based on strength; it is based on fitness. Hitler is also citing nature in divine terms on what she wishes etc etc. Nothing about evolution anthropomorphizes nature. It seems that Hitler's reasoning is not based on evolution, but rather on the idea of divine entitlement.

I'm not sure who Peter Singer is, but let relate his statements to say the Catholic church which will allow for an abortion if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. So even this ultra pro-life camp of the Catholic church recognizes that an existing life is of greater value than the unborn if put in conflict? I don't think you've found some sort of unique point here.

"A Natural History of Rape" doesn't condone rape does it? It says it occurs amongst species. We already knew murder occurs. Does that mean that stating such is to condone? No.

You aren't passing on facts, and you're moving further and further away from your initial claim. What dilemma does a person face while believing in evolution? I face no dilemma on matters of rape and murder.

Let's skip the foreplay. The end of this conversation; the point you want us to arrive at is that we should reject evolution because you think you know why people should feel guilty about it. You believe that the belief in it (irrelevant of the facts and data) is the subscription to a indefensible moral philosophy, and that since nobody carries such a philosophy, they must somewhere not really believe in evolution.

You keep shouting facts. Here is a real one: Evolutionary theory is only scientific theory on biodiversity, not a social theory on the formation of morals.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I am not arguing that Hitler did [understand evolution]

A
R
Then you can't use it as an example.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Dude, how many times do I have to say it? I don't consider hitler's thinking logical. Neither do you, okay. The fact is that that ILLOGICAL thought process still caused the death of millions of people.

"A Natural History of Rape" doesn't say 'hey everyone, go out and rape!' but it does seek to justify it as being natural. But again, this isn't the issue. You're focusing on whether their logic makes sense or not, and good! But what I'm arguing is that they still think it's right whether or not it is right.

And nooooooooooooooooooo. I think we've moved past my initial claim and thanks to the input from everyone on here, I have refined my statement to what I now am saying.

I am NOT seeking to get anyone to stop believing evolution based on this claim. Stop saying that. I have said it enough times now that the point should get across...
We agree the logic being used by these people is very flawed, but they still believe it and they still follow it and hitler still killed millions of people.

"You keep shouting facts. Here is a real one: Evolutionary theory is only scientific theory on biodiversity, not a social theory on the formation of morals."

Yes I am pointing out facts, I'd hope I'm not coming across as shouting them.
As for your fact, I SAID THAT! There, I shouted a fact. Yes, I agreed with that after a certain point in the debate.

2 Replies

@failures art,

you're still misunderstanding my current argument.
I dropped the issue of whether Hitler's understanding was right or not. But he thought it was and that led to genocide.

1 Reply

@failures art,

That makes sense even to me. And besides the mass extiction of most of the spicies of the world. (this recent one caused by mankind) its something completly difeferent then the subject covered by it Smile

Did I understand it correctely was that the point? Smile

or did my mind go to left field again Smile

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Dude, how many times do I have to say it? I don't consider hitler's thinking logical. Neither do you, okay. The fact is that that ILLOGICAL thought process still caused the death of millions of people.

His philosophy caused those deaths. Not some made up "darwinist" philosophy. He was not moving towards anything that resembled evolution in his philosophy.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

"A Natural History of Rape" doesn't say 'hey everyone, go out and rape!' but it does seek to justify it as being natural. But again, this isn't the issue. You're focusing on whether their logic makes sense or not, and good! But what I'm arguing is that they still think it's right whether or not it is right.

They didn't declare it was right. See the murder example again. Is nothing that murder happens in nature condoning it? It is saying that murder is right? No. You've failed to support this claim.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

And nooooooooooooooooooo. I think we've moved past my initial claim and thanks to the input from everyone on here, I have refined my statement to what I now am saying.

So you do not believe that people who believe in evolution have a moral dilemma. I'm glad we got that clear.'

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I am NOT seeking to get anyone to stop believing evolution based on this claim. Stop saying that. I have said it enough times now that the point should get across...

So the belief in evolution should be based solely on the the evidence, not an association with a so called "darwinist" philosophy.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

We agree the logic being used by these people is very flawed, but they still believe it and they still follow it and hitler still killed millions of people.

Hitler did not employ any such reasoning. You've given plenty of examples of exactly how far from evolutionary thought he was.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

"You keep shouting facts. Here is a real one: Evolutionary theory is only scientific theory on biodiversity, not a social theory on the formation of morals."

Yes I am pointing out facts, I'd hope I'm not coming across as shouting them.
As for your fact, I SAID THAT! There, I shouted a fact. Yes, I agreed with that after a certain point in the debate.

You're failing to address the major hole in your logic about the progression of a philosophy that was NEVER used. Hitler didn't use natural selection. Hitler said Germany was divinely entitled to rule.

If I created a life philosophy to kill off all people with green eyes and I said some stuff about Football, it would be ridiculous to say that my philosophy was based on football if my word ans actions showed no knowledge of football. Imagine for a second if you were trying to blame Hitler for his use of Football to create a philosophy to kill millions, and I kept reminding you that Hitler thought the game was played with a tennis racket. It would then appear that Hitler had no real idea what Football actually was. The same applies here. Hitler's mantra demonstrates no real understanding of evolutionary principle. Your logic on the progression from a belief in evolution to a genocidal philosophy is false.

As I stated earlier: It seems more dangerous to have a misunderstanding of evolution.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

you're still misunderstanding my current argument.
I dropped the issue of whether Hitler's understanding was right or not. But he thought it was and that led to genocide.

No. I understand it fine. You're not reading what I'm telling you. What Hitler thought is not what you are asserting. That is what you need to digest.

What he thought, and what evolution is, are far far far apart. His non-evolutionary philosophy has no basis in evolution, nor is it reasonable to give evolution any credit for his genocidal philosophy.

That understood, you can't continue to present evolution as being a part of his mantra. That's simply false.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

"What he thought, and what evolution is, are far far far apart. His non-evolutionary philosophy has no basis in evolution, nor is it reasonable to give evolution any credit for his genocidal philosophy."

Yeah... I agree... But in HITLER'S mind, it was. And it made enough sense to him and to the Nazi party that they were willing to do everything they did.
We're 1/2 arguing the same thing, that Hitler's logic does not stand to any logical scrutiny, but that fact does not negate the fact that he used that logic and that logic led to genocide.

3 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

It would be cool if you could open a window in time. So we could find out exactly how he came about these ideas. That I personaly consider 'madness'. But then again this is just my point of view Smile

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

i think what worries me most is you claiming to know what was in hitlers mind, you know he was mad don't you (and i don't mean angry, though he was probably that too)

0 Replies

Frank Harris wrote-

Quote:

The old doctrine of original sin, we now call reversion to type {{FH means in the light of Darwin}}; the most lovely garden rose, if allowed to go without discipline and tendance, will in a few generations become again the common scentless dog-rose of our hedges.

What discipline and tendance are evolutionists proposing for our new generations?

Hiding behind Hitler for the rest of your lives is the baby option.

1 Reply

@spendius,

well, Rolf Harris wrote "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport"

1 Reply

@djjd62,

What a powerful argument. I hadn't thought of that.

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

"A Natural History of Rape" doesn't say 'hey everyone, go out and rape!' but it does seek to justify it as being natural. But again, this isn't the issue. You're focusing on whether their logic makes sense or not, and good! But what I'm arguing is that they still think it's right whether or not it is right.

I have never read "A Natural History of Rape," but I'm fairly confident that the author doesn't seek to justify rape. Saying that something is "natural" is far different from saying that something is "right." You're assuming that there's an "is-ought problem" where none exists.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I can make make the argument that rape is right. It ensures that only the strong and aggressive pass on their genes and there is no mileage whatever in evolution theory for compassion and pity.

One can argue that sportsmen are getting mating opportunities from their sport which the same blokes wouldn't be getting if they were fork truck drivers.

One look at a photo of a gathering of footballer's WAGS (wives and girlfriends) tells anybody with an ounce of observational power that women favour strength, success over other men and aggression. The number of WAGS and cheerleaders is sufficient to show the argument to be a statistical certainty.

The Zulu tribe only allowed males to mate when they had "dipped their spear in the blood of the enemy."

Still--we are all good Christians here and don't accept such arguments. Which doesn't mean that the biological argument is invalid. It just means that the religious argument has precedence for us and thus evolution theory should not be taught to adolescents. They know it well enough instinctively without giving it official approval.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Yeah... I agree... But in HITLER'S mind, it was [a part of evolutionary theory].

Which doesn't support your argument even if it was true. Your logic about how evolutionary theory doesn't add up. Basically, the only harm you've described that can come from evolutionary theory is to misunderstand it. That does not support the idea that evolution promotes some sort of "darwinist" social theory.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

And it made enough sense to him and to the Nazi party that they were willing to do everything they did.

...and what they did had nothing to do with evolutionary principles. You make it seem as if this is irrelevant. The nazi philosophy is not based on evolution.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

We're 1/2 arguing the same thing, that Hitler's logic does not stand to any logical scrutiny, but that fact does not negate the fact that he used that logic and that logic led to genocide.

He did NOT use that logic. You cannot assert this as fact.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@spendius,

Well put. If strength and aggression were the prime considerations (as if standards of morality were nothing), then young Nazi SS officers would be the first choice.

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

wmwcjr wrote:

Well put. If strength and aggression were the prime considerations (as if standards of morality were nothing), then young Nazi SS officers would be the first choice.

Fit

Strength and Agression.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

As a health club member committed to a bodybuilding program, I certainly agree that being physically fit doesn't equal strength and aggression. There are individual athletes, even in rough contact sports, whose minds aren't afflicted with machismo. I referred to those two attributes because spendius mentioned them specifically in his post. Of course, high levels of physical fitness (including strength) can be achieved without participating in any sport. I was simply agreeing with spendius' statement. I don't know if I answered your reply or not. Sometimes I misunderstand people. Perhaps I also need to read earlier posts in this thread. Wink

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

It's not a problem. I've been addressing the evolutionary concept of fit as opposed to the misconception of power and strength. Poor timing I suppose.

A
R
T

0 Replies

The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know