Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[Ken-1122]

I said "regarding such manners." I didn't say you were, I don't know anything about your views personally,

But when you paint all skeptic views with the same broad brush, you offend all skeptics, him included. Imagine if he painted all Christian views with the same broad brush perhaps in a way that you disagree? Wouldn’t you be offended?

I am talking of the world views of skeptics in general.

But you don’t know the world views of skeptics in general.

Abortion is ok for them. And that is a morally depraved standpoint.

Untrue. As I said before, my brother is an evangelical Christian who disagrees with abortion, yet he is a skeptic. Again; you shouldn’t paint all skeptic views with the same broad brush

I just showed how evolution, and abortion are not following the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is a moral position and evolution is an explanation of how things work; one has nothing to do with the other. you might as well claim math or art is not following the Golden Rule. To accepts the moral position of the Golden Rule has nothing to do with their views on evolution (or math and art)

 

[Ken-1122]

sir just because someone disagrees with your fundamental life view, does not mean they are committing ad hominems. I am a christian, does that mean an atheist commits adhominems, simply because He disagrees? No it does not, one needs evidence of said allegations. But accusing me, without evidence does not remove the fact that basic tenants of darwinism were racist and evil.

Just because a person is an atheist does not mean he agrees with the basic tenants of darwinism (whatever that means)

 

[Ken-1122]

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

the term survival of the fittest was coined by darwin,

In your above quote from Darwin, he doesn't even mention "survival of the fittest", so your argument fails. As you can see from the below link, the term was coined by Philosopher Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin's book.

Survival of the Fittest: Who Coined It, and When?

 

[VirOptimus]

I hope I addressed all of this with citations in my last few posts, please check them out. Thanks for the post.

Yes, you keep reinforcing my points.

You truly know nothing about the subject(s).

 

[VirOptimus]

here is part two it's sort of long, but shows other sources other than darwin, like the original followers of darwinism, (his right hand man), and how they viewed racism via natural selection:

"Only the fittest should survive."

"He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].

"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

"Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ‘Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 85.

"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ‘Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

"Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an avid, self-appointed spokesman for Darwinism in Germany . . Haeckel professed a mystical belief in the forces of nature and a literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm. The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and theMonist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism.

" . . English Darwinism interlinked two main themes, natural selection and the struggle for existence. SocialDarwinism is an attempt to explain human society in terms of evolution, but Haeckel’s [proto-Nazi] interpretation was quite different from that of capitalist Herbert Spencer or of communist Marx. For him a major component was the ethic of inherent struggle between higher and lower cultures,—between races of men."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 48.

"Again, Marx wrote to Engels, January 16, 1861, ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history . . not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to ‘teleology’ in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

"In turn, biological evolutionism exerted ever-widening influences on the natural and social sciences, and its repercussions were neither sound or commendable. Suffice it to mention the so-called Social Darwinism, which often sought to justify the inhumanity of man to man, and the biological racism which furnished a fraudulent scientific sanction for the atrocities committed in Hitler’s Germany and elsewhere."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Evolution at Work," Science, Vol. 127, May 9, 1958, p. 1091.

"Along with his social Darwinist followers, [Haeckel] set about to demonstrate the ‘aristocratic’ and nondemocratic aspect of the laws of nature . . Up to his death in 1919, Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed-bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany’s main ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. xvi.

"The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors . . Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution."—*P.J. Darlington, Evolution for Naturalists (1980), pp. 243-244.

"Darwinism helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."—*Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (1966), p. 64.

"The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of war between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us."—*Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 149.

"Darwinism consistently applied would measure goodness in terms of survival value. This is the law of the jungle where ‘might is right’ and the fittest survive. Whether cunning or cruelty, cowardice or deceit, whatever will enable the individual to survive is good and right for that individual or that society."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 145.

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx’s] ideology of ‘class struggle.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

" ‘This is the book,’ he [Marx] wrote to his disciple Engles in 1866, ‘which contains the basis in natural history for our view,’ and he would gladly have dedicated his own major work, Das Kapital, to the author ofThe Origin of Species if Darwin had let him.

"At Marx’s funeral Engels declaimed that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history. With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents . . After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 24.

"Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life . . But there are even finer points of comparison. In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or ethical quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product [and also the workman]."—*J. Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), p. 8.

(many more where that came from)
Above quotes from:

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-19.htm

Holy biased nonsense.

Learn to critique your sources.

 

[VirOptimus]

sir just because someone disagrees with your fundamental life view, does not mean they are committing ad hominems. I am a christian, does that mean an atheist commits adhominems, simply because He disagrees? No it does not, one needs evidence of said allegations. But accusing me, without evidence does not remove the fact that basic tenants of darwinism were racist and evil.

Darwinism isnt even a real term.

The ToE is incredibly well supported science. You want to argue against it, write an article for peer-review. If you cant your "view" dont matter at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

pratt is points refuted a thousand times, and excuse you me, your the one trying to insinuate that acceptance of evolution leads to racism, whose being rude and offensive now?

sorry sir, again you have to prove all assertions. And 'proving points a thousand times" can go both ways.

 

[createdtoworship]

you really quoting someone before evolution came about and explained how that could have happened as evidence against it? Please try harder.

No evidence, just the dozens of feathered dinosaurs that we've found, the coligen *I think that was it* found in the t-rex bones that are simular to modern dinosaur coligen, had formations in the bones that could be calcium depoists like a bird does when about to lay eggs. Oh yeah, there is also that preserved feathered dinosaur tail we discovered a few years ago pretty amazing I would say.

funny how all this non existant evidence lines up with what was predicted before hand. Need we go on? How about the fact that dolphins have genes for air smell and whales with hind limbs.

photographs please, I don't rely on evidence of transitional forms unless I literally see the photographs. That should not be too hard is it? I mean how easy is it for a scientist to say something is a transitional form, but not actually have evidence? This is far too common. So evidence please, real evidence. Or peer review, I accept those too.

 

[VirOptimus]

photographs please, I don't rely on evidence of transitional forms unless I literally see the photographs. That should not be too hard is it? I mean how easy is it for a scientist to say something is a transitional form, but not actually have evidence? This is far too common. So evidence please, real evidence. Or peer review, I accept those too.

No you dont.

If you did, then this "debate" wouldnt be had.

 

[createdtoworship]

A ad hominem is where you use a insult or a attack in the place of a argument. Your implying evolution is false because racists have used it, thats a fallacy.

where did I say this? I believe what I said was that darwin was a racist, and his darwinian ideas of "survival of the fittest" was used by racists in history to annihilate inferior races. I didn't say evolution was false because it was racist, I said darwinism was.

An attack on christianity of the same way would be to imply that Christianity was false because martin luther was a racist, or that hitler believed he was doing gods work.

Christianity is actually based on Christ. Not the adherents of martin luther. Evolution is based in part by it's founder, Darwin. So my point stands.

Again racism or not doesn't disprove evolution,

I am glad you admit darwin was racist, that is a start.

it's just ad hominem with a touch of poisoning the well and possibly a red herring fallacy, I will no longer respond to them as they have no berring on evolution being truth or not.

sir I believe at this point you should see the comment that started this discussion and reply to it:Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

 

[VirOptimus]

where did I say this? I believe what I said was that darwin was a racist, and his darwinian ideas of "survival of the fittest" was used by racists in history to annihilate inferior races. I didn't say evolution was false because it was racist, I said darwinism was.
Christianity is actually based on Christ. Not the adherents of martin luther. Evolution is based in part by it's founder, Darwin. So my point stands.
I am glad you admit darwin was racist, that is a start.

sir I believe at this point you should see the comment that started this discussion and reply to it:Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

There is a science subfora if you want to discus the ToE.

The ToE has nothing to do with morals.

 

[createdtoworship]

No you dont.

If you did, then this "debate" wouldnt be had.

There is a science subfora if you want to discus the ToE.

The ToE has nothing to do with morals.

sir I have debated this topic since 2004. I have heard it all. No conclusive transitional links have been solidly proven. If you have one, lets hear it. If you don't have one, then don't say it's proven when it's not.

 

[VirOptimus]

sir I have debated this topic since 2004. I have heard it all. No conclusive transitional links have been solidly proven. If you have one, lets hear it. If you don't have one, then don't say it's proven when it's not.

Science doesnt "prove" things. Thats for axiomatic systems like math.

Science is all about data and what can be supported by evidence.

This is off topic for this subfora, you want to debate the science visit that sub-fora.

And I'm not repsonsible for your education so I suggest a biology 101 if you want to cure your ignorance.

 

[createdtoworship]

Science doesnt "prove" things. Thats for axiomatic systems like math.

not even gravity?

Science is all about data and what can be supported by evidence.

speaking of which you have provided none

This is off topic for this subfora, you want to debate the science visit that sub-fora.

I don't debate in those threads, I refuse too, because skeptics are too rude. However if you wish to message me your evidence you can, I presume this is just an excuse not to find your "one evidence of macro evolution."

And I'm not repsonsible for your education so I suggest a biology 101 if you want to cure your ignorance.

YES, thank you for proving the OP. Being rude is what a skeptic does. Again when a skeptic debates they remove themselves from feeling. And this in turn makes what you said ok to them. Even though it's goading.

 

[VirOptimus]

not even gravity?
speaking of which you have provided none
I don't debate in those threads, I refuse too, because skeptics are too rude. However if you wish to message me your evidence you can, I presume this is just an excuse not to find your "one evidence of macro evolution."
YES, thank you for proving the OP. Being rude is what a skeptic does. Again when a skeptic debates they remove themselves from feeling. And this in turn makes what you said ok to them. Even though it's goading.

The theory of gravity, while wellsupported, is not ”proven” or even as wellsupported as the ToE.

Gravity is to the theory of gravity as evolution is to the theory of evolution.

Your whining about rudeness, although hilarious, does not impress.

 

[Gene2memE]

not even gravity?

Nope.

There is the Theory of General Relativity, which describes gravity.
There is also Quantum Mechanics, which describes gravity.

Unfortunately, these two descriptions of gravity are incompatible with each other.

A unified theory, which did what both the above does PLUS describe gravity accurately, could therefore replace both.

speaking of which you have provided none

Could you provide criteria by which you would consider a species a transitional one?

I don't debate in those threads, I refuse too, because skeptics are too rude.

I have detected arbitrary skepticism, and rudeness, in this thread.

Being rude is what a skeptic does. Again when a skeptic debates they remove themselves from feeling. And this in turn makes what you said ok to them. Even though it's goading.

Nope, that's just your re-definition of what a skeptic is.

A skeptic is someone who expresses doubt about a claim and applies the tools of logic to assess its veracity against the evidence available. As a general rule, the more out of the ordinary the claim, the higher the degree of doubt and the higher the evidentiary bar needed to get over before a claim is accepted.

If someone claimed they had a $10 note in their pocket, that would be a totally mundane claim and could probably be accepted at face value.
If someone claimed they had a genuine 1804 silver dollar in their pocket, that would be an extraordinary claim that would require extremely high levels of evidentiary support;

As David Hume tells us: “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”. That, quintessentially, is what skepticism is.

 

[Yttrium]

I said "regarding such manners." I didn't say you were, I don't know anything about your views personally, I am talking of the world views of skeptics in general.

Well, when you include all skeptics, that includes me. It's best not to generalize too much, I think.

Abortion is ok for them. And that is a morally depraved standpoint.

I understand your position on that, and I sympathize. It's a very heated topic, though, and one could get endlessly sidetracked on it. Let me just say that compassion also applies to women who may be in very difficult positions. If presented with a woman who is engaged in casual sex with a number of men, gets pregnant, and wants an abortion out of convenience, my use of the Golden Rule does not support her. If presented with a 13-year-old girl who was raped and is emotionally distraught, and can't bear to go through with the pregnancy, my compassion will favor her over a fetus that doesn't have a functioning brain yet.

My use of the Golden Rule forces me to consider the problems that the women are facing. Ignoring their situations can show a lack of compassion that bothers me greatly.

how does the golden rule apply to abortion, or hitler's use of the "survival of the fittest" to kill millions of jews.

The Golden Rule is directly opposed to Hitler's killing of the Jews. Obviously.

I just showed how evolution, and abortion are not following the golden rule.

Evolution is part of science. It has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. Hitler's moronic rationale on racism is not supported or excused by the science of evolution.

Or course, being a skeptic and all, I remain skeptical of the Theory of Evolution, although I do consider it to be a very sound theory.

 

[loveofourlord]

photographs please, I don't rely on evidence of transitional forms unless I literally see the photographs. That should not be too hard is it? I mean how easy is it for a scientist to say something is a transitional form, but not actually have evidence? This is far too common. So evidence please, real evidence. Or peer review, I accept those too.

thats not how science or anything works, your basicly destroying the entire concept of most of science, the bible and forensics.

 

[loveofourlord]

where did I say this? I believe what I said was that darwin was a racist, and his darwinian ideas of "survival of the fittest" was used by racists in history to annihilate inferior races. I didn't say evolution was false because it was racist, I said darwinism was.
Christianity is actually based on Christ. Not the adherents of martin luther. Evolution is based in part by it's founder, Darwin. So my point stands.
I am glad you admit darwin was racist, that is a start.

sir I believe at this point you should see the comment that started this discussion and reply to it:Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

Darwin by our standards was a racist, but he was very progressive for his time as most people back then were far worse, including many Christians. So your poining out racists has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, and darwanism, as close as there is to such a thing includes all of evolution, where is the racism in the idea that we all evolved from apes, ALL evolved, and while darwin started evolution we since have better understanding of it and how it all works. We don't rely on his beliefs in evolutin racist or not, modern evolution has little to do with what darwiwn thought was right or wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Christianity is actually based on Christ. Not the adherents of martin luther. Evolution is based in part by it's founder, Darwin. So my point stands.

First of all, Darwin was not the founder of evolution, (people were observing it long before Darwin published it for peer review) he was just the one who wrote about it.

Second; just as Christianity is based on Christ not the adherents of Martin Luther, Evolution is based on observation not the adherents of Charles Darwin. So your argument fails.