There is no such thing as Darwinian atheism.
I'm callin' Poe. There's no way you actually believe what you're saying.
Most atheists I know are Darwinists.
Most Darwinists I know are atheists.
You are confusing me, IAmCatwoman.
Upvote
0
There is no such thing as Darwinian atheism.
I'm callin' Poe. There's no way you actually believe what you're saying.
No, because there is really no such thing as a Darwinist. There's such thing as an Evolutionist, to some anyway, though personally I find such labels useless.
What you're saying is "people who believe in Darwin", in which case I hope we're all Darwinist since it's fairly well documented that Darwin was in fact a human being that existed.
Are you implying people who believe the principles and theories Darwin suggested? Some people believe some of them. Some people don't. Some people see their practical application. But absolutely no one believes we should be actively applying them. Darwin studied non-human animals my friend - that's where he got his conclusions from. He wasn't presenting a moral system. He was presenting an examination of how creatures typically react. In fact I see more CHRISTIANS who seem to want to follow that "survival of the fittest" scenario. Look at the amount of Christians who want to remove public services and what not. But no one bases their moral system on that. Absolutely no one.
You are making things up. Your attempts to slander me and my beliefs is very offensive. And I know if I did it to yours, I'd probably be banned.
Where do you get your ideas about what is right and what is wrong from?
Who gets to decide this for society?
What's makes your morality more moral than mine?
Where does the conscience come from?
Whose to decide who's conscience is 'correct'?
What's to stop the 'elite' deciding that, under 'survival of the fittest', they are more than justified to dominate the rest of us?
Why does every society under 'humanism' decay (and yet the Judeo-Christian ethic remains as strong as ever)?
Isn't the logical conclusion of a 'humanist' society built on the principles of Darwinism, one of domination by a dictatorial elite?
Whatever Darwin's intentions, social-Darwinism has been the inevitable and logical result.
We get them in the same way everybody else get them. It´s like asking "Where do atheists get their movements from (if not from God)?"This is a question for atheists and humanists...
Where do you get your ideas about what is right and what is wrong from?
Depends on the system and structure of society.Who gets to decide this for society?
Not my claim. Can´t answer this question.What's makes your morality more moral than mine?
Do you want an exhaustive explanation, or just an unsupported claim like "from God"?Where does the conscience come from?
Nobody.Whose to decide who's conscience is 'correct'?
The fact that we are more than them, just for starters.What's to stop the 'elite' deciding that, under 'survival of the fittest', they are more than justified to dominate the rest of us?
Examples?Why does every society under 'humanism' decay (and yet the Judeo-Christian ethic remains as strong as ever)?
You would have to present that logic to us so we can consider its validity.Isn't the logical conclusion of a 'humanist' society built on the principles of Darwinism, one of domination by a dictatorial elite?
My mind, generally. I am influenced by peers, friends, family, altruism and empathy. I just to derive them from reason as often as possible though given that morals in part derive from compassion of others they are influenced by emotion.This is a question for atheists and humanists...
Where do you get your ideas about what is right and what is wrong from?
Society, collectively. No-one in particular gets to declare what ought or ought not over a diverse group of millions.Who gets to decide this for society?
Tell me more about your morality and I'll be able to answer.What's makes your morality more moral than mine?
By way of consent: More of us than them.What's to stop the 'elite' deciding that, under 'survival of the fittest', they are more than justified to dominate the rest of us?
What societies are you referring to?Why does every society under 'humanism' decay (and yet the Judeo-Christian ethic remains as strong as ever)?
No.Isn't the logical conclusion of a 'humanist' society built on the principles of Darwinism, one of domination by a dictatorial elite?
Darwinism = survival of the fittest.You would have to present that logic to us so we can consider its validity.
Hitler wasn't a humanist, mate.Darwinism = survival of the fittest.
The 'fittest' (those stronger, more powerful, wealthier etc) are justified to maintain their position under social Darwinism.
Hitler used his Darwinism (and Theosophy) to justify his 'race theory' for eg.
Society, collectively. No-one in particular gets to declare what ought or ought not over a diverse group of millions.
Darwinism = survival of the fittest. The 'fittest' (those stronger, more powerful, wealthier etc) are justified to maintain their position under social Darwinism.
You asked what ought, not what is or what was. There are plenty of examples of dictatorships and theocracies across the planet right now and I am in favour of their removal and the emancipation of their citizens.Really? That's not what happened in Hitlers Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia etc. A few dominated the many. Why? Because the populations where weakened by relativistic morality via atheism, occultism and humanism and were seduced into accepting these tyrants!
Hitler wasn't a humanist, mate.
You asked what ought, not what is or what was. There are plenty of examples of dictatorships and theocracies across the planet right now and I am in favour of their removal and the emancipation of their citizens.
If a humanist is someone who believes the highest moral authority is the human... Hitler was a humanist.
Darwinism =/= social Darwinism. The Theory of Evolution makes no statements whatsoever about ethics or politics, e.g., who should maintain a social position.
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have been lied to. You have been used.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Depends on if you're interested in just making up definitions. If your definition of humanist is that broad it could effectively lead to any circumstance (barring rule by deity) and no prediction whatsoever could be made on the consequences of 'rule by human'. Certainly the progression of nationstates in Western and Northern Europe as well as the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand suggest that secular democracy is just as likely if not more likely the logical conclusion of humanism.Depends on your definition of humanist.
If a humanist is someone who believes the highest moral authority is the human... Hitler was a humanist.
[citation needed]Social Darwinism is the inevitable result of the Theory (incorrect I might add) of Evolution. You might not agree with it, but many will and take it to it's logical conclusion... a dominant elite class.
[citation needed]
The biological theory of evolution has nothing to say on morality. You do not derive what ought from what is.