Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Jnwaco]

Ok, great. And? Still a quote-mine - and it still demonstrates nothing.

It's a logical outworking of a materialistic, moral nihilistic philosophy. But you say it's just a coincidence that many atheistic philosophers & scientists thought it was a great idea (Shaw, Russell, Wells, Lorenz, Holmes, Sanger, and Darwin himself). I'm sure it was just.... chance.

 

[BananaSlug]

It's a logical outworking of a materialistic, moral nihilistic philosophy. But you say it's just a coincidence that many atheistic philosophers & scientists thought it was a great idea (Shaw, Russell, Wells, Lorenz, Holmes, Sanger, and Darwin himself). I'm sure it was just.... chance.

Gag me with a spoon

Atheism=/= nihilism

 

[Skaloop]

It's a logical outworking of a materialistic, moral nihilistic philosophy. But you say it's just a coincidence that many atheistic philosophers & scientists thought it was a great idea (Shaw, Russell, Wells, Lorenz, Holmes, Sanger, and Darwin himself). I'm sure it was just.... chance.

[citation needed]

 

[Cabal]

It's a logical outworking of a materialistic, moral nihilistic philosophy.

I guess you missed the point where I pointed out that scientific theories don't prescribe behaviour.

And I would really hate for you to be going down the "science = atheism" route.

But you say it's just a coincidence that many atheistic philosophers & scientists thought it was a great idea (Shaw, Russell, Wells, Lorenz, Holmes, Sanger, and Darwin himself). I'm sure it was just.... chance.

Darwin wasn't an atheist all his life, certainly not when he formulated ToE.

But still, well done, you're on 8 atheists (maybe).

Maybe eventually you'll have a statistically significant sample.

Maybe eventually you'll also address the point about hypocrites being more dangerous than the malicious.

 

[Jnwaco]

[citation needed]

Eugenics and Euthanasia Quotations

 

[Cabal]

Eugenics and Euthanasia Quotations

14 atheists. Maybe.

And a quote-mine source, too!

Keep it up man, maybe you'll eventually have a point!

 

[Jnwaco]

What? You guys don't like generalizations?

 

[Cabal]

What? You guys don't like generalizations?

Not especially - maybe you could follow our example and not make any.

 

[BananaSlug]

14 atheists. Maybe.

And a quote-mine source, too!

Keep it up man, maybe you'll eventually have a point!

Hold on now. There is nothing on that site that says the people who made these quotes were atheist.

 

[Jnwaco]

That was the whole point. Obviously you don't like it, as someone reported one of my posts. Think about it before you mock other people's beliefs just for the fun of it.

 

[Cabal]

Hold on now. There is nothing on that site that says the people who made these quotes were atheist.

Oh I know. I was being charitable. Hence the maybe

I love how some people can be so certain about the spiritual condition of those that they name drop.

 

[Cabal]

That was the whole point. Obviously you don't like it, as someone reported one of my posts. Think about it before you mock other people's beliefs just for the fun of it.

And that wasn't done anywhere. Nor were any generalisations posted about Christians the way you were doing so with atheists.

At the point of the thread where you entered, this was a discussion (just) about EU theory vs LCDM. There was no call for the general swipe at atheists you issued. If you thought there was a generalisation there to respond to, perhaps you just need to read the current posts a little more carefully in future

 

[Jnwaco]

I didn't bring up eugenics.

 

[Cabal]

I didn't bring up eugenics.

I was referring to Doveaman's post stating that an irrelevant cosmology means an irrelevant life. That to me is as silly as the usual creationist objection to evolution, that it engenders eugenics.

I wasn't broadbrush-accusing Christians of being for eugenics.

That's the only reason I can think of for this tangent anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't broadbrush-accusing Christians of being for eugenics.

As techno-stupid as I am, it seems to me though that evolution would support eugenics,* at least in theory.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to [try to] see how.

* The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

 

[Skaloop]

As techno-stupid as I am, it seems to me though that evolution would support eugenics,* at least in theory.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to [try to] see how.

* The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Evolution would support the possibility of eugenics, but it does not necessarily support it in principle. That's up to people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution would support the possibility of eugenics, but it does not necessarily support it in principle.

So further research would be required?

 

[Cabal]

As techno-stupid as I am, it seems to me though that evolution would support eugenics,* at least in theory.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to [try to] see how.

Short, simple answer: Too many unknowns.

I think the biggest argument against it is, we don't necessarily know for sure how our environment will change. It's possible that by breeding for something superficial like looks, intelligence etc, we might reduce our genetic variation to a level that makes us less adaptable to environmental changes.

It's also not yet clear just how much of human mating choice is down to "free will" or is also governed by genetics - genetically speaking, it's possible we're not really doing as badly as it might seem to some.

In theory - perhaps evolution would result in a trend towards eugenics. But that would require an extreme level of knowledge of how genetic changes would propagate and how our enviroment would change, geologically, climatologically, socially. I personally don't think we'll hit that level.

 

[Skaloop]

So further research would be required?

What? That doesn't correspond to anything I wrote. Evolutionary theory certainly says it would be possible to breed a "better" human population. But it says nothing about whether it would be right or wrong to do so. Further research is required only in that it would expand our knowledge even further. But it still wouldn't lend anything to whether we should get gung-ho about eugenics.

 

[sandwiches]

By asking that question you have clearly indicated you have no idea how science or proper debate works

I hate to say this to you Cabal but you're obviously a bit behind on the times.