Why do YOU love Jesus?

[joobz]

I can accept that Hitler used Christian rhetoric for convenience, and that this doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Christianity. That is, nothing about Christianity in particular promoted anything explicitly Nazi.

Sociopaths like Hitler (or Stalin, for that matter) leapt upon anything available to justify their crimes against humanity. It was all propoganda and complete excrement.

True, religion provides a handy button for these nasty people to push, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to condemn religion entirely. Still, many bad things can flow from religion. Science on the other hand might provide technologies to do wrong, but it does not provide a reason. This is why religion is often held culpable for the horrible actions of its followers: it provides the motive for it.

The fact that it can be used to excite people to commit tremendous ill speaks volumes about it's "truth".

 

[plumjam]

You wish to claim that Hitler didn't believe what he said. That doesn't matter as he wasn't the only one involved in the holocaust.
You do remember the slogan, "Gott mit Uns" right?

What I am saying is what should be obvious to most 7 year olds.
Scheming, political dictators who are seeking World Domination are not very likely to be telling the truth in their public pronouncements e.g. speeches and books.
An ordinarily skeptical person would be wiser to pay more heed to their pronouncements that were made in private, among, say dinner guests, and that were not designed for publication or broadcast in order to achieve political aims.. e.g. Hitler's Table Talk.

Should I start quoting Martin Luther to show the underpinnings of the Holocaust?

So Darwin's ideas had no influence on the holocaust, but Martin Luther's did?

Despite the fact that Luther had been dead for 3 centuries before the publication of The Origin of Species?

If Luther was so darned influential, why no massacre of similar scale in the intervening (almost) four hundred years?

It is just an observation on your argument.

Yeah, an empty one.

Are you claiming that the Roman Catholic church doesn't enact Doctrine in the Name of Jesus?

The Roman Catholic Church does stuff, and they may claim some of that is in the Name of Jesus. So what?
If you die on Monday, and on Tuesday I eat a cake in your name, what does that mean?

 

[eerok]

The fact that it can be used to excite people to commit tremendous ill speaks volumes about it's "truth".

Absolutely. There is no doubt that religion provides a dangerous button that maniacs can push.

 

[plumjam]

My sincere apolgies, I was accrediting you with someone else's thread

No worries, apology accepted.

 

[eerok]

So Darwin's ideas had no influence on the holocaust

Right. I'd love it if you could provide some coherent explanation as to how the ToE is in the slightest way prescriptive rather than descriptive. So far you've impressed me as having no clue at all as to how evolution works, which is typical for Christian fundies who piss and moan so much about it.

Animal breeding has been around for millennia, and has no bearing on the ToE. The racial purity crap of the Nazis was all about the principles of animal breeding. Hitler actually banned the writings of Darwin.

Fundie Christians hate the ToE because they feel that it attacks Genesis, and they're willing to put forth any baloney to try to discredit established science, even to the point of Godwin. Very foolish and idiotic.

 

[John Jones]

The Apex of Science will almost be the suicide of the species.

Unsupported assertion

 

[joobz]

What I am saying is what should be obvious to most 7 year olds.

tsk. tsk. tsk.

Scheming, political dictators who are seeking World Domination are not very likely to be telling the truth in their public pronouncements e.g. speeches and books.
An ordinarily skeptical person would be wiser to pay more heed to their pronouncements that were made in private, among, say dinner guests, and that were not designed for publication or broadcast in order to achieve political aims.. e.g. Hitler's Table Talk.

And yet, the language swayed millions of people. Doesn't matter if he believed it or didn't. Jews were killed, and people thought it was what Jesus/god wanted.

So Darwin's ideas had no influence on the holocaust, but Martin Luther's did?
Despite the fact that Luther had been dead for 3 centuries before the publication of The Origin of Species?



If Luther was so darned influential, why no massacre of similar scale in the intervening (almost) four hundred years?

Are you so sure? Seems like anti-semetism was rampant for centuries.

If the best you can say for christianity is it is no better than a theory which offers no discussion of morality, that's rather pathetic.

The Roman Catholic Church does stuff, and they may claim some of that is in the Name of Jesus. So what?

It means this:
"Nice try, but the number of crimes committed while being justified in Darwinist thinking outweighed, in a few decades, the number of crimes commited seeking justification in Jesus, over 2 millenia, by some orders of magnitude."
is a load of bollocks as Jesus' words have brought as much (if not more grief).
And isn't that rather pathetic, when religion is supposed to be a SOURCE of better morality?

If you die on Monday, and on Tuesday I eat a cake in your name, what does that mean?

That you make illogical arguments?

 

[plumjam]

Right. I'd love it if you could provide some coherent explanation as to how the ToE is in the slightest way prescriptive rather than descriptive.

The reason it was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.
That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone. It was only this that managed to shake this kind of thinking out of some of the most prestigious bodies of academia.
Sometimes it still rears its ugly head e.g. James Watson, discoverer with Crick of the structure of DNA still likes to think this way.. before he is hushed up.

So far you've impressed me as having no clue at all as to how evolution works

the news is that no one has a clue how 'evolution' works, they just like to pretend they do, based on imaginative extrapolation of theory.

Animal breeding has been around for millennia, and has no bearing on the ToE.

Really? It inspired Darwin, and others before him.

The racial purity crap of the Nazis was all about the principles of animal breeding.

Did you know that Darwin and his family believed in this?
His family interbred among themselves in order to attain 'better stock'. It ended up, unsurprisingly, with them being inbred.

Hitler actually banned the writings of Darwin.

I've seen this said before. From what I can gather there is one document, from one public body in Germany, that proscribed Darwinist books, between 1933 and 1935.
Do you have any more information on this?
Was it Hitler himself who banned Darwin's writings?

Fundie Christians hate the ToE because they feel that it attacks Genesis, and they're willing to put forth any baloney to try to discredit established science, even to the point of Godwin. Very foolish and idiotic.

Have you thought of releasing your own Table Talk?

 

[NanobotOverlord]

What has Jesus ever done for you?

Has he brought you candy?

Helped you win the lottery?

Assisted you in a math quiz?

Did Jesus ever help you last longer than 4 minutes?

I want to know...what the ol' JC has done for you.

Enquiring minds...want to know.

The creep knows how to roll, man.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Did you know that Darwin and his family believed in this?
His family interbred among themselves in order to attain 'better stock'. It ended up, unsurprisingly, with them being inbred.

Source, please - and, if true, it's unsurprising since the practice of nobility marrying only nobility and royalty marrying only royalty had been the cause of inbreeding for centuries. So what? If anything, it's an argument that supports the theory of evolution.

Oh, and your "moral" argument about the theories of magnetism, gravity, electricity, etc., is pretty silly. Whether a scientific theory has "moral" content or not has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory.

 

[joobz]

The reason it was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.
That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone. It was only this that managed to shake this kind of thinking out of some of the most prestigious bodies of academia.
Sometimes it still rears its ugly head e.g. James Watson, discoverer with Crick of the structure of DNA still likes to think this way.. before he is hushed up.

So, you hold ToE guilty for the things people do wrong, but excuse Christianity? And you wonder why I labeled your reasoning as Confirmation bias?

the news is that no one has a clue how 'evolution' works, they just like to pretend they do, based on imaginative extrapolation of theory.

Patently false. We still learn more, but we know a lot already. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use evolution as a tool to develop new microbes for bioengineering.

 

[Resume]

Not to be too nitpicky but ToE generally refers to the Theory of Everything, not the Theory of Evolution.

 

[SezMe]

The reason it was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.

That is correct. We had a better picture of how our species fit in with "nature".

That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone.

Ah, but this "clarity" is not inherent to the ToE. It is an overlay by those who had immoral views of various races of humanity in the first place. If the ToE taught anything it was that we're far more alike than different.

What? You're taking writing lessons from BAC?

 

[noreligion]

the news is that no one has a clue how 'evolution' works, they just like to pretend they do, based on imaginative extrapolation of theory.

Really. Just because you can't understand what the TOE is, it is the utmost in arrogance to assume nobody else is capable of understanding it. Anyway, which of the six aspects of the TOE is not understandable?

 

[SezMe]

Not to be too nitpicky but ToE generally refers to the Theory of Everything, not the Theory of Evolution.

You are being too nitpicky. Everyone knows what it means in this thread.

 

[Resume]

You are being too nitpicky. Everyone knows what it means in this thread.

Check.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It's the beard, man. The beard drives me crazy like YEAAAAAH, plus the whole "nailed to cross" thing is a bit of a fetish of mine.

 

[eerok]

The reason [the ToE] was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.

The ToE simply explains the fact of biodiversity that we see all around us. How does that encourage any specific kind of action toward our fellow human beings? You do realize that survivability has no connection at all with any concept of superiority, right? One breeds plants and animals for specific traits: yield and quality, etc. There is no science that suggests what a better human would be like, or how one would go about breeding one. This is all pure baloney. Nothing along these lines is even remotely hinted at by the ToE.

That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone. It was only this that managed to shake this kind of thinking out of some of the most prestigious bodies of academia. Sometimes it still rears its ugly head e.g. James Watson, discoverer with Crick of the structure of DNA still likes to think this way.. before he is hushed up.

The ToE does not claim anything about "the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone." It shows mechanisms for genetic change in populations over time, and I suppose it does contradict interpretations of Genesis that insist that man was pulled out of thin air or cobbled from a handful of dust or whatever. This is your real beef, but you'll cast about wildly in any direction to condemn the ToE.

The racial purity crap of the Nazis was all about the principles of animal breeding.

Did you know that Darwin and his family believed in this? His family interbred among themselves in order to attain 'better stock'. It ended up, unsurprisingly, with them being inbred.

When will you science cluenots realize that no one cares how weird any scientists might have been in their lives. Their accomplishments rest on the viability, objectivity, and consequential durability of their science. Darwin doesn't even matter. His theory does, and it has been adjusted over the past 150 years to accomodate new data. That's how it all works.

Attacking Darwin is just more ineffectual flailing about on the part of creationists who have nothing better to offer in a fight they have lost long ago.

 

[Soapy Sam]

JC has done nothing for me. Nor would I expect him to. A Jewish religio-political figure, executed 2000 years ago by a Roman judge who probably forgot all about it by next day is scarcely likely to do much for me.

The organisation that followed his execution on the other hand, largely the creation of Paul of Tarsus, has impacted many lives since.
In my case the effects were minor, as I never really took the stories seriously and had pretty much rejected all of it before I was seven.
I did get some Sunday School and Bible class attendance "prizes"- but as one of them was an "ABC" book, presented when I had been reading competently for a couple of years, I was quite seriously insulted. I don't know if JC is to be blamed retroactively for this, but it's hard to see what would be the point.

As for Darwin, OT though he is, like many others here , my world view is greatly influenced by neo-Darwinism. The argument that any organising system , scientific or not , can be used for good or evil ends seems so obvious as to be scarcely worth arguing over.

 

[Maia]

The reason it was taken as prescriptive is that, unlike other scientific theories that are often raised as comparisons e.g. gravity, magnetism..etc.. the ToE has a very considerable impact on our 'understanding' of the nature of the human being.
That is why it had moral implications.... for decades, and it took the biggest ever war and systematic massacre of humans to clarify to humanity the egregious effects of viewing the human being simply as a purely physical evolutionary stepping stone. It was only this that managed to shake this kind of thinking out of some of the most prestigious bodies of academia.
Sometimes it still rears its ugly head e.g. James Watson, discoverer with Crick of the structure of DNA still likes to think this way.. before he is hushed up.

Again, prejudice is not Darwinian theory, and it is not and never has been science or based on the results of actual empirical method in any way. If you want to actually learn something about "Social Darwinism" (which was certainly around before Darwin, and was completely misnamed-- it should have been called "Social Spenserism", if anything) and its highly unfortunate descendants, read Stephen Jay Gould's Pervasive Influence, Spandrels of San Marco co-written with Niles Eldridge (see? I even provided a link to the full paper), More Things in Heaven and Earth, and, of course, The Mismeasure of Man. Alas, Poor Darwin is also a wonderful collection of scholarly essays on this subject.

I hope that everyone is paying attention to what Plumjam is doing here, because I'm seeing this particular tactic more and more often now from people who are trying to push intelligent design.