Is Islamic faith reasonable.

[Dirty Penguin]

There is no end to a war of web sites. Hitler was insane and no doubt made many statements about many subjects. The issue is whether he ever used evolutionary principles to justify his actions and whether his actions are consistent with the implications of evolution.​

Biological Evolution happens regardless of ones madness. Biological Evolution is not on trial here. Your issue with Hitler seeking to weed out the undesirables is similar to what we do today with animal breeding or plant/crop cultivation. There's a difference between Social and Biological Evolution. What Hitler sought to do was a mixture of the two using his own warp sense of Christian morality but it's hardly the fault of Biological Evolution in itself.

The first is true but don't think you will ever aknowledge it. The second is obvious whether you aknowledge it or not. Even Richard Dawkins (who knows more about the subject than you do apperantely) admits it (he is surprisingly candid at times)

First of all you don't even know me so show some respect newbie. Secondly don't be under the impression Dawkins, Gould or any other Atheist/Philosopher speaks for all of us.
​

I don't care if Hitler mentioned Darwin's name. However no one can know that for sure but it is completely irrelevant.​

Nothing is certain that is true so considering Hitler seems to really be against certain aspects of Biological Evolution I see no reason to pit him alongside Darwin or any other person that accepts the facts of Evolution.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I guess if a person screams at you that a dodge impalla is about to hit you, you will instead of moving examine the history of GM with this person.

I know what an Impala automobile is, they're actually a Chevrolet product.

However, the words you make up as you go along are nonsensical.

 

[F0uad]

This question keeps popping in my brain when watching this thread (what has nothing to do with the title)

If Germany was a secular state at that time can't we blame the secularist state of being evil, i mean the way of life (secularism) hasn't prohibited it and was the main cause of it.. Or did i just make a false conclusion?

 

[Road Warrior]

I have 190 semester hours credit at a very respected school of engineering and a associates in math. I know of no Christian whatsoever that rejects or dismisses science in general. Many of the breakthroughs in science were found by Christians. I have never even stated that evolution is untrue because of the negative implications it has. I just simply pointed out that it has them

As I mentioned in my previous post, evolution is simply a fact. It's neither good nor bad. The Nazis may have claimed they were using evolution, but in reality they were using "eugenics". Regardless, it isn't that science or engineering is bad, but how it is applied. The Nazis are a prime example of bad. They had "bad" engineers too such as the ones who designed the "showers" and crematoriums. I don't see anyone here bad-mouthing engineering or claiming that engineering violates any religious principles. Engineering, like any other form of education, is simply a skill and tool of understanding. Whether or not it is good or bad depends on the Engineer himself, not engineering in general. Same goes for evolution, eugenics, nuclear research, biology or any other field of human study.

 

[A Troubled Man]

This question keeps popping in my brain when watching this thread (what has nothing to do with the title)

If Germany was a secular state at that time can't we blame the secularist state of being evil, i mean the way of life (secularism) hasn't prohibited it and was the main cause of it.. Or did i just make a false conclusion?

In a way, yes. A secular state protects those who wish to practice their religions without being told what to believe and how to live based on other people beliefs in their religions.

A secular state will allow you to practice Islam without having to worry about a Christian or Jew or Pastafarian telling you what to do and how to live your life. The same goes for them, that they are protected to practice their religions without having to worry about you telling them what to believe or how to live.

So, a secular state can't really be at fault or be the cause as it only serves to protect people.

 

[F0uad]

In a way, yes. A secular state protects those who wish to practice their religions without being told what to believe and how to live based on other people beliefs in their religions.

A secular state will allow you to practice Islam without having to worry about a Christian or Jew or Pastafarian telling you what to do and how to live your life. The same goes for them, that they are protected to practice their religions without having to worry about you telling them what to believe or how to live.

So, a secular state can't really be at fault or be the cause as it only serves to protect people.

But it was clearly its fault it was ruling and had not protected the Jews at that time so you made a false assumption.

We all know that Social pressure is a major problem for ''Atheistic Moral'' or a secular-states to tackle because it was one of the reasons to justified the killings of the jews and therefore seen good. While if it was a ''real religious state'' social pressure cannot be justified it would directly contradict the 3/4 Abrahamic beliefs as far as i know.

Maybe you didn't know but ''Social pressure'' is the argument against Atheism.

 

[A Troubled Man]

But it was clearly its fault it was ruling and had not protected the Jews at that time so you made a false assumption.

Germany was far from a secular state when Hitler came to power. He demanded all religions align with Nazi policies. He even tried to create a unified national church. Of course, it didn't matter what policies Hitler (Concordat for one) signed or agreed with any given religion, the Nazis still prosecuted and killed clergy, and anyone else who didn't align with his policies.

 

[F0uad]

Germany was far from a secular state when Hitler came to power. He demanded all religions align with Nazi policies. He even tried to create a unified national church. Of course, it didn't matter what policies Hitler (Concordat for one) signed or agreed with any given religion, the Nazis still prosecuted and killed clergy, and anyone else who didn't align with his policies.

Lol this is actually the point i was making!

Secualrism cannot defend itself from Social pressure what Hitler was advocating towards Jews. So Secualrism is indeed a ''Problem'' it couldn't protect those Jews within Moral laws because it has none.

Because Hitler created a ''Church'' or wanted to create it or tried something doesn't mean we should challenge what he ''beliefs in religion'' it means we should challenge what didn't stop him because it was that system that he got the opportunity to do the things he did.

Yes the man can think that White-Supremacy is good according to secularism and secularism does promote the idea of ''Freedom of Speech and free-thinking'' until the idea becomes action so its again a case against a Secular Viewpoint. If a Secularist state cannot defend you from social pressure then it already failed and these violent acts are already good enough not to belief in it to work.

Lets see this in a bigger-picture if Secualrism is based on Atheism then Moral is just a part of ''evolution'' like your hair and nails under secularism, now what if you were born in Germany in that time it means in a atheistic perspective that you have ''evolved'' to have a moral idea that killing Jews is good in the sack of society. So who can judge you for your behaviour because of evolution?... NOTHING!

Now look it in the bigger context what if Person A was raised ''evolved'' in believing that doing act A is good then who is Person B to judge Person A or the actions of Person A? If you say hes superiority of thinking then define that superiority and then we will have a circle of Social pressure mixing in the discussion and so forth.

 

[1robin]

Biological Evolution happens regardless of ones madness. Biological Evolution is not on trial here. Your issue with Hitler seeking to weed out the undesirables is similar to what we do today with animal breeding or plant/crop cultivation. There's a difference between Social and Biological Evolution. What Hitler sought to do was a mixture of the two using his own warp sense of Christian morality but it's hardly the fault of Biological Evolution in itself.

My point was the implications of the theory of evolution have been used to justify much more violence than religion, even though religion has way too much itself. It does not mean evolution is false. It means that should be considered when discussing the idea. The implications are so appaling that it may be a good idea to ignore it even if true. I would never have brought it up unless someone had not introduced the old canard of how religion the source of most violence.

First of all you don't even know me so show some respect newbie. Secondly don't be under the impression Dawkins, Gould or any other Atheist/Philosopher speaks for all of us.​

I don't remember why I said you wouldn't change your mind, I don't know why you consider it disrespectful esecially compared with what atheists have thrown at me, but consider it withdrawn. I never suggected they did speak for all atheists. I meant they are competent authorities of classic atheism and it's implications.​

Nothing is certain that is true so considering Hitler seems to really be against certain aspects of Biological Evolution I see no reason to pit him alongside Darwin or any other person that accepts the facts of Evolution.

Whether madman or garden variety tyrant, evolution is used to justify genocide, euthenasia, abortion, etc....... and should be taken into account.
​

 

[1robin]

I know what an Impala automobile is, they're actually a Chevrolet product.

However, the words you make up as you go along are nonsensical.

I had hoped you had grown tired of something so useless, meaningless, and trivial. I did not invent the words atheist, or evolution. I am not even the first one to use them together. You can find that label applied to a certain concept all over the net. For the last time please either present an actual point or quit waisting my time.

 

[1robin]

As I mentioned in my previous post, evolution is simply a fact. It's neither good nor bad. The Nazis may have claimed they were using evolution, but in reality they were using "eugenics". Regardless, it isn't that science or engineering is bad, but how it is applied. The Nazis are a prime example of bad. They had "bad" engineers too such as the ones who designed the "showers" and crematoriums. I don't see anyone here bad-mouthing engineering or claiming that engineering violates any religious principles. Engineering, like any other form of education, is simply a skill and tool of understanding. Whether or not it is good or bad depends on the Engineer himself, not engineering in general. Same goes for evolution, eugenics, nuclear research, biology or any other field of human study.

I think you are still missing my point here. The Nazis didn't say they wanted to wipe out the Jews because Darwin said so. They wanted to wipe out the Jews mainly to confiscate their wealth and because Hitler was nuts. However they justified it by a denial of the sanctity of life, and the superiority of one race over another, etc..... Evolution was justification probably not motivation. Engineering has no implications that are applicable here and so that was not a good comparison. It is evolution which justifies the idea that the individual person has no more value than any other creature so why not shove them into gas chambers. If it was a universal world wide paradigm then no one could even justify calling it evil, and could have appealed to no ultimate standard by which to judge Hitler. His views are just as valid if non-theistic evolution is true as anyone elses.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It does not mean evolution is false. It means that should be considered when discussing the idea.​

No it shouldn't. People performing atrocities in the name of science has more to do with the person than it does with the science itself. The understanding of evolution is used everyday in a positive way.

The implications are so appaling that it may be a good idea to ignore it even if true.

This makes absolutely no sense. Again, the understanding of biological evolution has lead to many benefits and saved lots of lives. Since evolution is true it would be illogical to ignore its beneficial implications

Whether madman or garden variety tyrant, evolution is used to justify genocide, euthenasia, abortion, etc....... and should be taken into account.
​

Some may have but it's hardly something we need to ponder over.
​

 

[A Troubled Man]

Lol this is actually the point i was making!

Secualrism cannot defend itself from Social pressure what Hitler was advocating towards Jews. So Secualrism is indeed a ''Problem'' it couldn't protect those Jews within Moral laws because it has none.

Perhaps, you missed the part where I said that Germany was far from secularism in that time, so no, your point is moot.

However, I really don't see the point you're trying to make anyways. If secularism is a system that protects you from others, why would think it was a problem? Would you rather not be protected and live with others who would persecute you for your beliefs?

 

[Road Warrior]

I think you are still missing my point here. The Nazis didn't say they wanted to wipe out the Jews because Darwin said so. They wanted to wipe out the Jews mainly to confiscate their wealth and because Hitler was nuts. However they justified it by a denial of the sanctity of life, and the superiority of one race over another, etc..... Evolution was justification probably not motivation. Engineering has no implications that are applicable here and so that was not a good comparison.

Sorry, but I think your leap from what the Nazis did to using Evolution as justification is an attempt to make evolution guilty by association. Also, Engineering can be used to justify something as evil as the Nazis by saying "purity of design". Like NOMAD, the hybrid satellite on Star Trek OS, which looked for "perfect lifeforms" and destroyed anything which didn't match up to it's machine engineered sense of perfection.

Regardless, evolution isn't wrong or evil because the Nazis used it anymore than engineering is wrong or evil because the Nazis built super weapons:

[youtube]TR1BXZDppKI[/youtube]
Nazi Secret Super Weapons 1939-1946 - YouTube

 

[1robin]

No it shouldn't. People performing atrocities in the name of science has more to do with the person than it does with the science itself. The understanding of evolution is used everyday in a positive way.

I think the implications of an ideology or worldview that can and has been used without inconsistency to justify horrors is worth a mentioning. If non-theistic evolution is true there is no effective argument to what Hitler, the aztecs, or Stalin etc..... did within its self. These is no absolute standard that renders their positions unacceptable. They could still be stopped but not with a justification found within evolution and therefore it is insuffecient to derive morality from. Did you read what Dawkins said on this particular topic.

This makes absolutely no sense. Again, the understanding of biological evolution has lead to many benefits and saved lots of lives. Since evolution is true it would be illogical to ignore its beneficial implications

There is nothing derived from the THEORY of evolutions that could not have been gained without it. Many competent scholars that believe in the theory have suggested there has been no benefit from it whatsoever that could not be found without it.

Some may have but it's hardly something we need to ponder over.
[/left]

I would agree if it was missused like religion sometimes is to justify horrible things. That's the problem is that their use of it as justification is a logically consistent implication of the theory. So something used to convince thousands of people to murder milllions is not worth discussing.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but I think your leap from what the Nazis did to using Evolution as justification is an attempt to make evolution guilty by association. Also, Engineering can be used to justify something as evil as the Nazis by saying "purity of design". Like NOMAD, the hybrid satellite on Star Trek OS, which looked for "perfect lifeforms" and destroyed anything which didn't match up to it's machine engineered sense of perfection.

Regardless, evolution isn't wrong or evil because the Nazis used it anymore than engineering is wrong or evil because the Nazis built super weapons:

[youtube]TR1BXZDppKI[/youtube]
Nazi Secret Super Weapons 1939-1946 - YouTube

Evolution is a non intentional agent and guilt is not applicable. However it's implications being things like I have mentioned not to mention making absolute wrong and right meaningless mean it's use as an description or basis for moral actions is worth consideration. Your engineering comparison is not really applicable. Only if the Nazi's used it inconsistent with the obvious implications of the theory would that seperate it from the theory. I accept the wars and violence in the bible why won't evolutionists return the favor.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think the implications of an ideology or worldview that can and has been used without inconsistency to justify horrors is worth a mentioning.

But Biological Evolution isn't a "worldview" nor is it an "ideology"....so it's hardly worth treating it as such.

If non-theistic evolution is true there is no effective argument to what Hitler, the aztecs, or Stalin etc..... did within its self. These is no absolute standard that renders their positions unacceptable. They could still be stopped but not with a justification found within evolution and therefore it is insuffecient to derive morality from.

I think you're misunderstanding what biological evolution is. One's morality is not judge by Biological Evolution.

Did you read what Dawkins said on this particular topic.

Yes. Are you under the impression I should agree with him?

There is nothing derived from the THEORY of evolutions that could not have been gained without it.

You make the claim so prove it.

Many competent scholars that believe in the theory have suggested there has been no benefit from it whatsoever that could not be found without it.

Are you talking about the same evolution I'm talking about? "Scholars" are not qualified to biology. If I wan to know about scripture or history I will look to a scholar. If I want to understand the natural world around me I look to biologist.

I would agree if it was missused like religion sometimes is to justify horrible things. That's the problem is that their use of it as justification is a logically consistent implication of the theory. So something used to convince thousands of people to murder milllions is not worth discussing.

Hardly. a select few within our history possible exploiting certain aspects of evolution to further their agenda is not a crippling blow to the theory itself. It remains a fact and it is actually how our society functions on a molecular level. Without the understanding itself our species may have been wiped out long ago due to some unknown, untreatable pandemic.

 

[Road Warrior]

Evolution is a non intentional agent and guilt is not applicable. However it's implications being things like I have mentioned not to mention making absolute wrong and right meaningless mean it's use as an description or basis for moral actions is worth consideration. Your engineering comparison is not really applicable. Only if the Nazi's used it inconsistent with the obvious implications of the theory would that seperate it from the theory. I accept the wars and violence in the bible why won't evolutionists return the favor.

Do you accept that engineering is also a "non-intentional agent" and the fact the Nazis couldn't have accomplished so many evils if they didn't have engineers and engineering to provide them the weapons, crematoriums and other mechanical systems to do so?

 

[1robin]

Do you accept that engineering is also a "non-intentional agent" and the fact the Nazis couldn't have accomplished so many evils if they didn't have engineers and engineering to provide them the weapons, crematoriums and other mechanical systems to do so?

I really can't figure out how these are parralels. I will try it this way, when asked the Nazi's did not use engineering to justify their position but did use evolution. If this is not satasfactory I am unclear how to make it so.

 

[1robin]

But Biological Evolution isn't a "worldview" nor is it an "ideology"....so it's hardly worth treating it as such.

It most certainly is a world view. It encompasses (at least the evolutionists say) the basis for morality, the absence of God or any other compteting moral systems (non-thistic evolution anyway), any way of assigning value to life, the absence of any absolute objective system to appeal to, etc....... There is hardly an issue that implies as much, or deserves scrutiny as much as non-theistic evolution.

I think you're misunderstanding what biological evolution is. One's morality is not judge by Biological Evolution.

If your restricting the theory to only biology then that is a waste of time for this topic. Non-theistic evolution has many implications that cannot be seperated from it. Famous evolutionists readily admit this and spend large amounts of time discussing them. If this was a biological topic then your statement would be relavent.

Yes. Are you under the impression I should agree with him?

Absolutely not but you should agree that the topic he is addressing is inherent with the theory it is derived from regardless of whether you agree with his conclusion.

You make the claim so prove it.

I belive that either this original statement or the similar one I made after this includes, That scholars have stated this. I did not mean to imply that I am competent to claim this on my own. Some of the famous evolutionary debaters I have heard admitted this. If you require it I will try and find their quotes.

Are you talking about the same evolution I'm talking about? "Scholars" are not qualified to biology. If I wan to know about scripture or history I will look to a scholar. If I want to understand the natural world around me I look to biologist.

If we were discussing a bilogical topic then I would agree. However that hasn't stopped Dawkins etc.... from making claims outside of their field.

Hardly. a select few within our history possible exploiting certain aspects of evolution to further their agenda is not a crippling blow to the theory itself. It remains a fact and it is actually how our society functions on a molecular level. Without the understanding itself our species may have been wiped out long ago due to some unknown, untreatable pandemic.

Could you explain how evolution cured a pandemic in our past where the study of genetics alone could not. If if evolution was a fact then yes it still is. I am not arguing the truth or untruth of it only it's obvious implications. I hope you are not one of these evolution is responsible for everything good in history and religion is responsible for all the bad people. One time in a similar discussion, I posted a list of great accomplishments of Christians because of their faith. That person claimed it as proof of evolutions benevolence.