case

Now, would this be a red herring, or just shifting the burden of proof? A number of us have pointed out where your arguments (if we can call them that) go awry. Were you going to bother to respond to us, or just resort to five year old mentality?

lcb

the BIG SOLUTION:end tax subsidies to the churches and enforce separation of church and state:wow! Brilliant! this is Nobel Prize material here! that would solve all the problems fur shure dude!

Sojourner553

I blame superstition and greed -- with the two often feeding off each other into a frenzy.

Who do you blame? Afterall you believe in an all good, all powerful God? Do you then also blame God for all the evil you see in the world? How about "some" of the evil.

(1) Regarding social darwinism.

Victorian England used the "Survival of the Fittest" model of evolution to
promote competitive capitalism, arguing this would lead to the best form of
economics in the world. Extremist ideological organizations, including BOTH
Nazi's and communists, would later seize upon Darwin's theories-- radically
interpreting them along different moral lines to support their own individual
ideologies: Nazis saw the Aryan race as the "fittest" human stock who DESERVED
to rule the world. Likewise, Russian communists adapted Darwin's views to
justify a utopian view whereby society would naturally improve after a class
struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

None of these views were truly "scientific"-for natural selection does not presuppose the "fittest" survive, only that a species
develops some mechanism that allows it to survive. If the strongest really survived why are there so many bunny rabbits? {instead of the ferocious ones seen in Monty Python's HOLY GRAIL?]

Instead survival is usually based on traits other than STRENGTH -- including the following:
large numbers of offspring, an offensive or poisonous odor, color camouflage, etc

You see, it was the ideology of justifying the "fittest" that came first to meet the needs of conservative philosophies/religious-- not as any consequence or derivation of the true model of natural selection!!!


Regarding absolute or objective morality:

(2) Most laws are derived by the observation of what is best for a well-functioning society and based on the humanistic principle that one must treat others well, if one can expect to be treated well in turn.


That is why all societies basically have this premise built into them.

The differences can really be seen according to what EXCEPTIONS societies give as a philosophical reason for harming another innocent person.

Most agree that violent criminals for example should be put away (sometimes executed) for the good of the society.

Conservative religious societies believe that the will of God is greater than the rights of the individual. That is a person whose "sin" is to be gay is to be executed. Likewise if it is God's will that women hide their faces behind a veil, then punishments can be expected against any female who dares goes against "God's Will."

Some societies determine politically that certain individuals/groups are bad for the "many". That is a few individuals have to be "sacrificed" for the good of the many. [This theme pops up in Trekkie shows/movies a lot].The few sacrifed can be political opponents. This can also apply to a group who has been demonized as destructive of the foundations of a well-functioning society. (For Hitler this was the Jews; for ancient Catholics this was also the Jews).

(3) Many of our humane, but secular laws were NOT derived from a Judaic-Christian background. Indeed, historically-speaking, there was religious hostility (primarily from the Right Wing) to impose them. Examples include:

-- laws outlawing torture (not in 10 Commandments nor are the rest...)
-- laws outlawing slavery
-- laws against child abuse (the Bible says in summary "spare the rod, spoil the child"
-- laws outlawing discrimination against gays, the color of one's skin, sex.
--not to mention our ideals of democracy and freedom (these were founded on ideals from deism which is a belief in God, But is is not Judaic-Christian based!)
-- laws to preserve the environment for future generations.

Sojourner

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

ex-preacher

We have only ourselves to blame. Is that why you believe in God - so you'll have someone to blame?


<strong> Name a problem and I'll give you my opinion. Let me warn you: realizing that God doesn't exist does not provide an automatic solution to world hunger.

ex-preacher

What are you smoking, dude? I didn't say this would solve any problems. You asked how things would be different if atheists were in charge. What were you expecting, the true agenda of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM)? Don't you realize they'll kick me out if I give away our secret plan?

Sojourner553

The sad thing about lcb is that he does not realized that many of the moral laws he takes for granted (such as prohibitions against slavery and torture) was the result of atheistic/deistic philosophies that were bitterly opposed by conservative Christians over the centuries.

lcb this is a site for you to read and comment on, because (excuse me for saying this) you appear to me to be ignorant of a lot of history of religion:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>


Sojourner

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

case

Watch yourself, ex-preacher! The elders are watching you...

Icb:

You have obviously decided to either ignore the problems we brought up with your arguments, or don't care. If the later is the case, I would stick with RRP threads. If you actually wanted to debate the issue, then get back to us.

Scorpion

Don Morgan and crazyfingers just suggested Icb to stay out of RRP (up there in Feedback & complaints forum)... so maybe this is not such a good advice

To contribute something to the actual topic: Yes, we should definitely exterminate the inferior races and individuals (whatever "race" and "inferior" means) so we can finally get on with the man-made paradise. The only problem is that when I go and politely ask George W. to shoot himself for the greater good of humanity, he might not see my point (usual problem when dealing with the intellectually inferior) - and if I try to force the euthanasia, the result would be more wars, suffering etc, not less.

-S-

Jamie_L

How do we know Social Darwinism actually supports the "betterment" of the species? Just because it tries to do so doesn't mean that it does.

Even if it does, why should I care about the improvement of the species?

I care about my situation, and the situation of others I care for. A moral system that looks out for people in times of need protects me and mine. A system that does the opposite puts me and mine at risk. I don't give a rat's patootie if it makes the species better or worse off 1,000 years down the line. Doesn't help me none.

Jamie

case

Yes, I love to make the mods' lives a living hell.