February 15, 2012

How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide

When people make statements about truth, religion and morality, it's fairly easy to understand the foundational basis of their worldview and what it implies. At my Templestream Blogger blog there has been a longstanding question and debate as to whether or not the theory of evolution may be used to rationalize and justify racism and Nazism. Our debate began when I had pointed out that Richard Dawkins had apparently flip flopped on his opinion regarding the influences of the theory of evolution regarding these themes.[1] I do not offer that the theory of evolution in and of itself justifies anything. However, when this theory is combined with moral relativism, and the kind of anti-religious atheism that Richard Dawkins embraces, then not only may racism be rationalized, but racist genocide may be rationalized as well. The purpose of this article is not to imply that Richard Dawkins is personally a racist who believes in racial genocide, but, rather, to outline how anti-religious atheism and the theory of evolution may be used together to rationalize and justify these types of opinions and acts. The rationalization of extreme genocide has been demonstrated in the past and, unfortunately, there are many signs that softkill eugenics techniques are on the rise and genocides of unprecedented proportions will occur in the future.

On October 20, 2011, Richard Dawkins claimed that he refused to debate William Lane Craig because Craig believes the Bible, and in Dawkins' opinion the attacks on Canaan described in the Bible were immoral.[2]  The attacks on Canaan were not motivated by biological racial superiority, but were directly related to the possession of territory and specific conditions outlined in scripture.[3] Dawkins' brand of anti-religious atheism, however, does logically allow for the rationalization of racial genocide. Dawkins had expressed outrage when the film Expelled No Intelligence Allowed implied that Darwinist evolution was used to rationalize the acts of genocide conducted by Nazi Germany.[4] By comparing the underlying tenets of evolution, atheism and Christianity in syllogistic form, it is possible to see how non-religious atheism does allow for the rationalization of genocide for biological and racial and ethnic reasons alone, while Christianity does not.

I clarify that I am using the word Christianity rather than Theism because the Koran may be theoretically used to justify violence against innocent people in my opinion. Also, I am referring specifically to non-religious atheism because some atheist worldviews, such as the Buddhist worldview, could not be used to logically rationalize racial genocide because, according to Buddhism, there is no logical basis for abusive elitism, as all people are considered to be ultimately one with each other and the universe. Also, the concept of karma would not justify the killing of innocent people.

A key point in addressing this subject is to realize that racism is not mainly defined as hatred, but as a sense of superiority and elitism. Secondly, a person's epistemological starting point is critical, that is, a person's belief in the nature of knowledge and truth. Thirdly, a person's choice for moral grounding is critical. Though a person may have a logical path for rationalizing moral decisions, this does not mean that the logic is sound or based on truth. For these reasons the word "justification" has a different weight and different meaning for different people.

Atheists have attempted to show there is an objective basis for morality without God's existence. To my knowledge, no firm moral anchor has been offered as a  foundational basis for objective atheistic morality. I addressed Eric Wielenberg's objective morality in an article entitled, "A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence"[5] William Lane Craig has dismantled Sam Harris' supposed objective morality based on human flourishing. Craig pointed out that evil societies can flourish as well as good ones, so human flourishing is not a firm and objective basis of morality.[6] With these points in mind, let's move onto some definitions, examples and proofs.

Outline

I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries
II. Scientific racism in contemporary society
III. The uniqueness of human evolution
IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide
V. Hitler's justification of genocide
VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics
VII. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism
VIII. Conclusion

I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries

Racism in Webster's Online Dictionary

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination[7]

Racism in The Oxford Dictionary

1: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism.[8]

Ota Benga in 1904
An historic example of racism based on evolution was the display of Congolese Mbuti pygmy named Ota Benga in a St. Louis anthropology exhibit 1904 and in a New York Bronx Zoo exhibit in 1906. Benga was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House. The purpose of the display was to promote concepts of human evolution and scientific racism. The exhibit did not close due to public outrage, the public seemed to actually enjoy it. There was no hatred involved, but, rather, people found it entertaining. The exhibit was eventually discontinued for the following reason: Benga had, "fashioned a little bow and a set of arrows and began shooting at zoo visitors he found particularly obnoxious! After he wounded a few gawkers, he had to leave the Zoological Park for good"[9] After finding it difficult to cope with his new environment in industrialized Western Civilization, Benga committed suicide in 1916 at the age of 32.

II. Scientific racism in contemporary society

Scientific racism is basically the use of racism in science. Scientific racism has been connected with eugenics, which is an example of guided evolution. Because of it's racist overtones, the word eugenics has fallen out of favor and scientists will tend to use the word genetics to describe this phenomenon today. Scientific racism may also refer to scientific experimentation on unsuspecting people of a specific race.

Beginning in 1932, a US Federal Government study known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment lasted for 40 years ending in 1972. African American males infected with syphilis were left untreated and allowed to die. By the end of the 40 years, 100 had died of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children had been born with syphilis.[10]

The movie "A Constant Gardner" outlines how Big Pharma companies have used unsuspecting Africans for testing purposes. Though the story is not based on a specific historical situation, in a general sense the truth of the scenario has been shown to be the case. For example, in 1996, Pfizer tested a new drug Trovan on young African children which caused chronic joint pain, as pointed out by website Common Dreams.[11]



People today use the term racial realism as a politically correct substitute for the word racism when they desire to imply that certain races are superior, even as people use the term genetics as a substitute for eugenics for the same reason when proposing eugenics-based concepts. But changing names does not really change the meaning and implications of these practices and beliefs.

A 2006 book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, by Richard Lynn, lists races by intelligence and brain size. Nicholas Mackintosh of the University of Cambridge has pointed out faults in  the research testing methods and therefore finds the results unreliable. Nevertheless, if people do believe the results, and many do, then the rationale of equating racial superiority with higher intelligence is not difficult to follow. If you asked people, "Would you prefer to be less intelligent?" - I don't believe you would find any takers. The theory of evolution offers that complex life developed from simple life, complex life being considered more developed and, thus, more suitable to adaptation and more "favored" as Darwin put it, in the struggle for survival. Lynn's book offers various graphs and tables.

Race Mean I.Q Mean brain size (cc)
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105 1416
Europeans 100 1369
South-East Asians 90 1332
Pacific Islanders 85 1317
South Asians and North Africans 84 1293
Africans 67 1282
Australian aborigines 62 1225

IQ tests are used to indicate relative intelligence levels and problem solving abilities while SAT tests in the United States have also been used to show comparative results between races. The results of US SAT tests show the same racial distribution results as Lynn's IQ results.[12] Many believe the IQ results would be more equal if the upbringing and educational conditioning of the children were equally supportive. Also, the differences between races are miniscule in comparison to the differences between humans and primates. In any event, these types of tests may be used by elitists to help rationalize eugenics policies against specific people groups. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe has noted the widespread acceptance of scientific racism today and financial elitism, "The social sciences in our time are thoroughly imbued with eugenic theory. It would be a noble work to rescue them, to work through the basic texts and theories of each field identifying the eugenic taint and replacing it with an unswerving devotion to the dignity of the individual, including the poor."[13]

III. The uniqueness of human evolution

In keeping with the theory of evolution, homo sapiens evolved in a unique manner because we have the ability to move about and rationalize where and how we will live. Unlike other creatures, humans may live basically anywhere on earth and are not subject to such instincts as fixed migrating patterns. One question scientists have asked is, "Why are races in tropical climates considered less intelligent according to studies?" In his book review of Race differences in intelligence Nicholas Mackintosh questioned Lynn's apparent manipulation of data and also his hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback."[14]

A second opinion offers that intelligence develops progressively regardless of the environment. In other words, the migration to Europe required reasoning skills that had already been developed on numerous fronts: "This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire."[15] There are at least three explanatory models of how and why human intelligence supposedly evolved.

No matter what theory is considered, it may be pointed out that human reasoning and ideology have influenced human evolution to various degrees since the time human reasoning supposedly began to develop. The practice of child sacrifice to idols, warring between rival tribes, and more recent secretive sterilization techniques in third world countries have all played a role in human evolution. In the big picture, from Neanderthal man to now, it cannot be disputed that human evolution has generally selected for greater intelligence. Higher intelligence can be seen as a survival advantage in either a tropical or cold climate.

The basic understanding in evolutionary theory is that a shift has occurred in human evolution in which the need for brute strength has been replaced with an increased need for problem solving skills, social skills and organizational skills. Studies at the Rochester Institute of Technology outline theories of how human intelligence has continued to evolve into domain-specific fields.[16] The industrial mechanization of human acts and human processes is known as postbiological evolution. This factor especially comes into play with the overwhelming use of computerized intelligence in our time. For these reasons, from a completely materialistic perspective, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race. As population control becomes an increasingly serious concern, who will be the ones to make the decisions as to who will survive? How will evolution 'select' for human survival? William Lane Craig pointed out in his book On Guard that morals based on atheistic, non-religious evolutionary thought are basically subjective and uncertain.[17]

In light of the above documented facts, the following syllogisms outline how an anti-religious atheist elite could use the theory of evolution in order to rationalize and justify racism and genocide.

IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide

1. In accordance with non-religious atheism, morality is merely the result of human evolution.
2. Evolution is a-moral and offers no objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior.
3. Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.

1. According to evolution theory, the intelligence of homo sapiens has increased due to natural selection.
2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution could allow for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.

1. The primary definition of racism offers that certain human races are superior to other races.
2. The theory of evolution allows for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution allows for racism to be theoretically justified.

1. In accordance with non-religious atheism and evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
2. If there is no objective basis for morality, then genocide by an elite group could be rationalized.
3. Therefore, genocide by an elite group could be rationalized based on non-religious atheism and evolution.

1. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value.
2. If all people are created with God-given value, then racism is not logical.
3. Therefore, racism is not logical in accordance with biblical Christianity.

V. Hitler's justification of genocide

bodies of prisoners
Jerry Bergman has outlined the alleged moral justifications for the Holocaust is an enlightening article entitled, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust". Bergman outline's Hitler's Darwinian rationale in quotes as follows:

Hitler’s eugenic-based goals

"Nazi policies resulted less from a ‘hatred’ toward Jewish or other peoples than from the idealistic goal of preventing ‘pollution’ of the superior race.[18] Mein Kamf outlines, 

‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).'[19]

Hitler elaborated on his Darwinian views by comparing the strong killing the weak to a cat devouring a mouse, concluding that ultimately the Jews must be eliminated because they cause.

"...peoples to decay …. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey them.’[20]

The opposition to religion

"The opposition to religion was a prominent feature of German science, and thus later German political theory, from its very beginning. As Stein summarized Haeckel in a lecture titled On evolution: Darwin’s Theory: 

'… [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was correct … humankind had unquestionably evolved from the animal kingdom. Thus, and here the fatal step was taken in Haeckel’s first major exposition of Darwinism in Germany, humankind’s social and political existence is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise was backward superstition. And, of course, it was organized religion which did this and thus stood in the way of scientific and social progress.’[21]

VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics

On February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard, Richard Dawkins stated,

"So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[22]

In a 1997 debate between two evolutionists, Jaron Lanier and Richard Dawkins, the following question was asked and addressed:
 
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’ 


Dawkins went on to say, "Even a cheetah as a killing machine is beautiful. But the process that gave rise to it is, indeed, nature red in tooth and claw. However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."[23]

In an article entitled, "Dawkins sides with the race realists", Dawkins is quoted as saying,

"Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters.”[24]

In his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins clarifies that he is not "confident" about the moral rightness or wrongness of eugenics, but he is confident that eugenics and selective breeding scientifically work to bring about improvements in physiological characteristics,


"The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising.
"[25]

Any brief review of the subject of human selective breeding, also known as eugenics, would reveal that the subject is tainted with scientific racism, civil rights abuses and horrific genocide. Richard Dawkins, as a professional "evolutionary biologist", should be aware of this history and context. As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply that he retains a cautiously open-minded moral opinion. Dawkins' moral opinion on eugenics is subtly implied in his parenthetical phrase, (though not the moral or political desirability). There are a few aspects that help to inform the meaning.

First, let's be clear that "selective breeding for ...human traits" is eugenics. Now, let's see what his parenthetical phrase implies. The definition of the word "though" has variants. For one, it can be used to show a decrease in value: "Another use of though as a conjunction is to introduce a statement that makes what you have just said less true or less likely..."[26] Dawkins' "pretty confident" may be reduced to "less confident" or "not confident." In this case, the construct could be, (though I am not confident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). The meaning implies an open-ended uncertainty, not opposition towards the idea. 

Another case of the word "though" may possibly involve a substitute "in spite of the fact" in the phrase. For example, (in spite of the fact that I am unconfident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). Again, this does not imply moral opposition, but moral uncertainty and an open-ended conclusion. This can be fleshed out by adding some alternative synonyms for the word unconfident. In a typical thesaurus, unconfident is synonymous with unsure and unconvinced. Consider the results: (in spite of the fact that I am unsure about the moral or political desirability of eugenics) and (in spite of the fact that I am unconvinced about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). In both cases there is a sense of open-ended moral uncertainty. When we fill in the necessary parts to form a complete thought, we have this, (though [I'm] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]). As these points imply, it is logical to assume that Dawkins is not explicitly opposed to eugenics, but is apparently morally undecided.

V II. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism

According to biblical Christianity, people are created with both a physical body and transcendent spiritual nature. The most valuable aspect of human life is shown  to be the eternal spiritual aspect. Because we cannot know as humans a person's ultimate choice between good and evil, between seeking truth and rejecting truth, it's not logical to assume supremacy over any other person.

Some people point to reformer Martin Luther as an example of anti-Semitic racism. But it's a fallacy to assume the beliefs of one person reflect the true foundation of any religion or belief system. From one perspective it was a serious mistake for the Jews to reject Jesus and crucify an innocent person. But from another perspective this was necessary in order for salvation to come to all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Luther's views on the Jews were quite shortsighted. The Apostle Paul described in Romans 11 why it was necessary for the Jews to reject Christ but Paul emphasizes that the blindness of the Jews would be temporary and eventually there would be a spiritual revival among Jews "and in this way, all Israel will be saved." as noted in Romans 11.26. For Gentiles to be vengeful at Jews for killing the Messiah is shortsighted and Romans 12.9 clearly states, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."(KJV)

At times the Jews are called racists. But this attitude does not follow logically from a biblical understanding of true Judaic spirituality. When God chose Abraham from amongst his pagan tribe to begin a new nation, the idea was not that Jews would be biologically superior or culturally superior but that they would be holy unto God. The concept of holiness relates to being wholly dedicated to God. God's intention was that that the Jews would be "lights unto the Gentiles" showing the reality of God's existence and holiness and the need for a Messiah who would offer complete spiritual redemption for both Jews and Gentiles, as noted,

"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles..." (Isaiah 42.6)

The Messiah was to make a way for all people to understand and enjoy the blessings of living a holy life in close fellowship with God. Jeremiah 3.31-34 outlines this truth:


“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them", declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD.“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”(NIV)

In short, biblical holiness does not imply justification for racism because it is available to all people. Though Jews were used as examples, all people can enjoy the same type of close relationship with God. To illustrate why holiness has nothing to do with racism, let me offer an example. If a person said, "You don't swear or look at porno, therefor you are a racist!" this would not make very much sense, would it? Likewise, if a nation had specific moral rules and beliefs, would that mean the nation was racist? That's not a logical deduction.


VIII. Conclusion

Hitler considered the subject of human advancement from a purely biological, materialist perspective. His ethnic genocides were rationalized based on a goal to improve the human race, or what he considered an advanced version of it. Despite any gratuitous religious words to the contrary, Hitler operated as a relativist atheist with no reverence for a biblical understanding of human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism for true Bible believing Christians is basically the understanding that humans are created in God's image and the life of a human being has a unique spiritual value in comparison to the life of a slug, a chicken or a cow.

As noted, Richard Dawkins has outlined his position as a moral relativist. Dawkins has also acknowledged he is a militant atheist opposed to religion, as noted in quotes such as this one, "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."[27] While it's true that some religions may teach violence against innocent people, it's unfair to lump all religions together as "dangerous" for this reason. Christianity may support the concept of just war, but it generally places a higher value on human life than atheism does. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value and significance which exceed the value of combined physiological characteristics.

Upon close examination, the types of racial genocides that occurred in Nazi Germany could easily be justified by Richard Dawkins' documented foundational beliefs. This is simply a matter of logic and reason. Many signs show the world is likely to experience a massive genocide in the future, a "culling of the heard," based on the plans of elitist globalists using the same type of underlying logic. The book cover image featured in this article covers Jane Springer's book Genocide, which asks a key question,  "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian who understands the scriptures and the true value of human life.

References

[1] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html
[2] The Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
[3] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
[4] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False , http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html
[5] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
[6] Thinking Matters, How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy, http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/how-william-lane-craig-thrashed-sam-harris-like-a-naughty-puppy/
[7] Merriam Webster Dictionary, racism definition, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
[8] The Oxford Dictionary, racism definition, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism
[9]
Revolution Against Evolution, Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo, http://www.rae.org/otabenga.html
[10] Info Please, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
[11] Common Dreams, The True Story of How Multinational Drug Companies Took Liberties with African Lives, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0926-01.htm
[12] Asian Week, Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT, http://www.asianweek.com/2010/10/06/asian-americans-are-1-on-the-2010-sat/
[13] Eugenics Watch, Introduction to Eugenics by John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html
[14] Enotes,  Race Differences in Intelligence (book), http://www.enotes.com/topic/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_%28book%29, Mackintosh, N.J. (January-February 2007). "Book review - Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis". Intelligence 35 (1): 94–96. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.001.
[15] Palomar college, Homo erectus, http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm
[16] Rochester Institute of Technology, The Evolution of Human Intelligence: Increasing Importance of Domain-Specific Intelligence in the Modern Environment, http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/skottke.html
[17] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p. 143
[18]  True Origin, Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust, http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp, original source: Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.
[19] Ibid. (Mein Kamf reference: Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958., P. 115)
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard., Dr. Richard Dawkins interviewed by Nick Pollard at New College, published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition (vol 18 no. 3) February 28th, 1995, http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=102 
[23] ‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62., http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-5477.html
[24] Majority Rights, "Dawkins sides with the race realists" http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dawkins_sides_with_the_race_realists
[25]  Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009. p20, http://www.tocorre.com/dat/16/u2/21/f378192.7509.lg.pdf 
[26]  One Stop English, Your English: Word grammar: though
http://www.onestopenglish.com/community/your-english/word-grammar/your-english-word-grammar-though/156597.article

[27] Positive Atheism, Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001), http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

(Article revised 04/23/12) 

Search terms: define genocide, the genocide debate, What is the basis of objective morality? moral relativism is false, Dawkins and Nazi Germany, Darwinism, evolution and the Holocaust, racism and evolution, evolution is racist, Buddhism and racism, atheism and racism,  race, intelligence and evolution, race, intelligence and eugenics, genocide photos, racism and genocide, evolution and genocide, is Dawkins a racist? Dawkins on race, evolution and African genocide, is Dawkins elitist? Dawkins' elitism, How did the Nazis rationalize genocide? the culling of the heard


Related

Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False

Atheism and Chinese Dead Baby Pills: Any Connection?

Bill Gates: Dystopian Philanthropy and Neo-eugenics

Recommended:

 

 

194 comments:

  1. Rick, before crowing about your philosophical prowess (ie. " I addressed Eric Wielenberg's objective morality in an article entitled, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence") you might want to, you know, actually have done what you said.

    As my last comment on that thread serves to remind you, you made a lot of assertions, but you didn't actually demonstrate that you're correct.

    Of course, since you don't care about anything other than assuring yourself that your beliefs are correct (facts and truth be damned), it is not surprising you find your assertions to be convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rick: William Lane Craig has dismantled Sam Harris' supposed objective morality based on human flourishing.
    And Harris dismantled Craigs claims (and Craig went off on irrelevant tangents).
    Not to mention that in the Q&A Craig seemed to admit that his position was one based upon ignorance, rather than being a soundly argued position.
    “Well, that would be my second contention that in the absence of God, I can’t see any foundation that would be left for affirming the objectivity of moral values and particularly the value of human beings and conscious life on this planet.” (at ~ 1:43:58 in the debate)

    The debate Craig had with Kagan recently, where Kagan takes Craig to school regarding moral philosophy is rather interesting (http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/91)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rick: The attacks on Canaan were not motivated by biological racial superiority, but were directly related to the possession of territory and specific conditions outlined in scripture.
    Yet it is still Genocide, and the language used in the Bible is racist in that the Israelites are "chosen", and deemed to be superior to the Canaanites.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rick: secondly, a person's epistemological starting point is critical, that is, a person's belief in the nature of truth
    Actually, the nature of truth would be a topic for ontology/metaphysics. Epistemology is concerned not with truth, but with knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >you made a lot of assertions, but you didn't actually demonstrate that you're correct.

    - No logic or evidence will apparently convince you of anything, Havok. I showed clear reasons why Wielenberg's "pain" and "giving people what they deserve" are not firm moral anchors.

    >And Harris dismantled Craigs claims...

    - That's your personal opinion, Havok.

    You noted Craig's statement, “Well, that would be my second contention that in the absence of God, I can’t see any foundation that would be left for affirming the objectivity of moral values..."

    There are many arguments that do logically prove God's existence and serve as a foundational basis for believing in God's existence.

    >The debate Craig had with Kagan recently, where Kagan takes Craig to school regarding moral philosophy is rather interesting (http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/91)

    - I will look into this when I have time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: I showed clear reasons why Wielenberg's "pain" and "giving people what they deserve" are not firm moral anchors.
      No you didn't. You simply asserted your case, as you seem to do with most everything.
      Perhaps you could go back to that thread and indicate exactly which comments you think do this, why you think they do, and why you don't think my responses to those comments of yours adequately respond to your comments.

      Rick: That's your personal opinion, Havok.
      Craig's moral argument is a couple of assertions backed up with an argument from ignorance. Harris showed that Craigs claimed basis for morality is nothing of the sort - the bible is full of immorality on the part of Yahweh. Hence Craigs claims are bogus.
      Of cousre, Craig tried to steer the debate away from the actual question, but that doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary :-)

      Rick: There are many arguments that do logically prove God's existence and serve as a foundational basis for believing in God's existence.
      Hahahaha!
      That's both false and irrelevant.
      False, because those arguments are anything but obviously correct, tend to contain flaws, rely upon dubious premises, or are just simply fallacious.
      Irrelevant because the statement was in relation to Craigs moral argument, specifically premise 2:
      "and second, if God does not exist then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties."
      So, Craig needs to actually demonstrate this to be the case in order for his argument to succeed.
      In the Q&A however, as I pointed out, he admits that he has no actual argument for it, and rather relies on his own inability to imagine such a thing.
      Now, I'm sure the argument is convincing if you already believe God is required for morality. But philosophically speaking, the argument is a failure.

      Rick: I will look into this when I have time.
      Kagan is a moral philosopher, and often it seems has to educate Craig concerning the in's and out's of his speciality (not Craig's).
      It's also interesting to note that moral philosophy has been done without need for God for thousands of years. To simply assert that God is required, as you do, sounds rather ignorant in that light :-)

      Delete
    2. Rick: I showed clear reasons why Wielenberg's "pain" and "giving people what they deserve" are not firm moral anchors.
      No you didn't. You simply asserted your case, as you seem to do with most everything.
      Perhaps you could go back to that thread and indicate exactly which comments you think do this, why you think they do, and why you don't think my responses to those comments of yours adequately respond to your comments.

      Rick: That's your personal opinion, Havok.
      Craig's moral argument is a couple of assertions backed up with an argument from ignorance. Harris showed that Craigs claimed basis for morality is nothing of the sort - the bible is full of immorality on the part of Yahweh. Hence Craigs claims are bogus.
      Of cousre, Craig tried to steer the debate away from the actual question, but that doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary :-)

      Rick: There are many arguments that do logically prove God's existence and serve as a foundational basis for believing in God's existence.
      Hahahaha!
      That's both false and irrelevant.
      False, because those arguments are anything but obviously correct, tend to contain flaws, rely upon dubious premises, or are just simply fallacious.
      Irrelevant because the statement was in relation to Craigs moral argument, specifically premise 2:
      "and second, if God does not exist then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties."
      So, Craig needs to actually demonstrate this to be the case in order for his argument to succeed.
      In the Q&A however, as I pointed out, he admits that he has no actual argument for it, and rather relies on his own inability to imagine such a thing.
      Now, I'm sure the argument is convincing if you already believe God is required for morality. But philosophically speaking, the argument is a failure.

      Rick: I will look into this when I have time.
      Kagan is a moral philosopher, and often it seems has to educate Craig concerning the in's and out's of his speciality (not Craig's).
      It's also interesting to note that moral philosophy has been done without need for God for thousands of years. To simply assert that God is required, as you do, sounds rather ignorant in that light :-)

      Delete
    3. Rick: There are many arguments that do logically prove God's existence and serve as a foundational basis for believing in God's existence.
      Further to this, there doesn't even seem to be a coherent definition of the thing you term "God", and so there is no clear way in which it even could be demonstrated by argument.

      Delete
  6. >the language used in the Bible is racist in that the Israelites are "chosen", and deemed to be superior to the Canaanites.

    - You seem to be mixing apples and oranges, Havok. Because a nation was chosen by God as a spiritual example does not imply that they are biologically superior to other races. The primary definition of race relates to genetically transmitted physical characteristics. The Canaanites were not attacked because of their racial characteristics but for the many reasons I outlined in the referenced article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The primary definition of race relates to genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

      You're using a definition of race and racism that are only understood now, not in the time your text is referring to -- funny how that makes it less likely you'll find reference to it.

      I also find it interesting that genocide for racial reasons, to you, brings out tremendous opprobrium, but for religious reasons, brings out apparent approval and indication of God's greatness.

      If genocide is permissible for religious reasons, then why are you quibbling about other reasons? Or is it that you wish to retain a monopoly on justification?

      Delete
    2. As iamnotandrei pointed out, you're reading present knowledge into the ancients.
      They had no strict separation of physical and spiritual, as we do today (arguably due to the encroachment of scientific knowledge).

      Various genocides in the bible were justified because the other race was "wicked", etc. This is basic "dehumanising" language, which seems to me to be a basic part of racism - making the "other" out to be lesser.

      Delete
  7. Here we go again...

    First syllogism:

    1. The theory of evolution offers that races become improved through natural selection.

    Actually, it suggests that species change through natural selection, and become better suited to a specific environment.

    Also, you're making one huge error here, that runs through your entire discussion: "race" is not a well-founded scientific distinction. As a result, applying evolutionary principles to races is at very best a highly dubious effort -- which people have done, with predictably poor results, just as applying religion to race (the children of Ham, was it, who were destined to serve?) has produced poor results.

    As I said in a previous post (and to which you have not, as far as I know, replied) racists use theories like drunks use lampposts - for support, not illumination.

    2. In theory, a more improved race is considered superior to a less improved race due to survival benefits.

    Where you keep dragging in these notions of "improved" is beyond me; it displays a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.

    Individuals and species adapt to environments. There is no gold standard of "improvement" across all environments.

    Since your first and second premises are both illegitimate, there is no reason to accept your conclusion.

    Now, onto your second syllogism.

    1. is a definition, and I'll not argue with it here.

    2. As addressed above, evolution does not speak in terms of "superior races". Furthermore, intelligent design (to pick an example) also allows for the existence of "superior races" -- indeed, a division of races as created by God was a common assertion once upon a time.

    Therefore, by your argument, ID and creationism are also racist theories, as they permit the existence of superior and inferior races.

    Next:

    1. Agreed -- though I'll ask for citations as to where said value is considered always equal, which is essential to your point.
    2. This is certainly not the viewpoint that has been demonstrated by many Christians in the past. Furtheermore, it does not address the question of equal value laid out above, nor does it address issues of perceived threat.

    Again, your conclusion does not follow from your premises as laid out.

    Finally:

    1. Several bases have been offered -- that you do not find them satisfactory does not mean they do not exist. I refer you, to pick an example at non-random, to Kant, who can be used as an objective basis.

    2. You underestimate the human ability to rationalize. "Kill them all, let God sort them out."

    3. Since #1 does not hold, your conclusion cannot be drawn.


    I also find it interesting that you are willing to give credence to Nazi ideology on some of what it says, while dismissing other parts as "gratuitous words" -- not unsurprisingly, in accordance with your pre-existing conclusion.

    "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian.

    I do not think the people of Rwanda find the simple answer a comforting one.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >First syllogism: Actually, it suggests that species change through natural selection, and become better suited to a specific environment.

      - So, in your opinion "better suited" does not mean "improved"?

      A premise in a logical syllogism is not meant to be doctoral thesis but a summary of a key point. I find your criticism invalid.

      >"race" is not a well-founded scientific distinction.

      - Firstly, science and positivism are not the basis of my understanding of truth, nor are they required to be.

      Secondly, the main characteristic of a racial group is the essence of genetic similarities, as opposed to merely a geographic location or sociological values.

      >I also find it interesting that you are willing to give credence to Nazi ideology on some of what it says, while dismissing other parts as "gratuitous words"

      - I don't give credence to Nazism. I have pointed out underlying presuppositions and their logical implications. I have simply headed off "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense before it begins with regard to this article's main premise.

      Delete
    2. - So, in your opinion "better suited" does not mean "improved"?

      Precisely. Would you consider losing your eyesight an improvement? Yet for blind cave fishes, it can make them better suited to their environment.

      A premise in a logical syllogism is not meant to be doctoral thesis but a summary of a key point. I find your criticism invalid.

      If you want to be convincing, then your premises had best be so as well; I have seen the extent to which you are willing to argue minor points in someone else's position -- not expecting the same level of scrutiny in your own argumentation is folly.

      And if you are trying to prove something as significant as you often are, then you had best get your premises right -- since errors in them that are brushed over in "summary" may well undercut your reasoning, as is the case here.

      - Firstly, science and positivism are not the basis of my understanding of truth, nor are they required to be.

      If you're going to be making claims about scientific arguments, then they had better be -- or at least had best not be idly dismissed. If I were to treat the Bible as cavalierly as you treat evolutionary theory, you would dismiss my reasoning out of hand.

      - I don't give credence to Nazism. I have pointed out underlying presuppositions and their logical implications. I have simply headed off "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense before it begins with regard to this article's main premise.

      My point, which you are again ignoring, is that you assert the "underlying presuppositions" and ignore the evidence that might contradict them (indeed, dismissing it as "nonsense") thus rendering your outcome at best biased, at worst nonsensical.

      I also await your observations regarding the opinions of the Rwandans regarding genocide, and the other points to which you elected not to respond -- or shall I presume that you accept the critiques as given?

      Delete
    3. >Yet for blind cave fishes, it can make them better suited to their environment (losing their sight)

      - A couple of points:

      1) My premise specifically refers to the context evolution of the human race, not fish or other creatures:

      "The theory of evolution offers that races become improved through natural selection."

      If it helps top clarify this for you, I can add the word human.

      2) What makes you assume blind cave fish devolved from seeing fish? Is it not possible they simply developed gradually from amoebas or primitive life in a dark cave and eventually became blind cave fish?

      In general, in the big picture, amoeba's were most suited for living the life of simply being amoebas. But, apparently, life continued to diversify and expand.

      >My point, which you are again ignoring, is that you assert the "underlying presuppositions" and ignore the evidence that might contradict them...

      - This seems to be what you are doing. Blind cave fish case in point.

      >If you're going to be making claims about scientific arguments, then they had better be

      - I don't have to assume philosophical positivism in order to critique it or people who presuppose it. Positivism is a dead end philosophically. You might be interested in reading about this in the following article under the subheading "Positivism is Dead"

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-debate-is-valid-and-necessary.html

      Delete
    4. >I also await your observations regarding the opinions of the Rwandans regarding genocide

      - Your Rwandan comment seems Rhetorical to me. Choosing Christ and Christianity is a real and valid choice people can make. Whether you agree with it or not, that's what I recommend. People who live by the teachings of Christ would not commit racial genocide.

      Delete

    5. 1) My premise specifically refers to the context evolution of the human race, not fish or other creatures:

      "The theory of evolution offers that races become improved through natural selection."


      Then your statement is simply false.

      My example of the cave fish was to demonstrated that "adapted to an environment" and "improved" were not the same thing, in answer to your earlier query.

      To pick a human example: In areas where malaria is a major killer, sickle-cell traits can be selected for -- where it is not, it's selected against. So, there's no "improvement" there on a purely linear scale -- there's adaptation to environment.

      So, your premise is wrong.

      What makes you assume blind cave fish devolved from seeing fish?

      The fact that one species can interbreed with a species of sighted cave fish, and another is nearly isomorphic (i.e. it has only drifted slightly beyond the interbreeding point.)

      In general, in the big picture, amoeba's were most suited for living the life of simply being amoebas.

      You are again displaying tremendous ignorance of how evolution works. There were empty ecological niches for amoebas to move into -- advantages to becoming multicellular, for example.

      - I don't have to assume philosophical positivism in order to critique it or people who presuppose it.

      I'm not talking about *assuming* it. I'm talking about *understanding* it.

      (upon looking back at your previous quote, I see you combined "science" and "positivism" -- I was responding to the sentence "Science is not the basis for my understanding of truth".)

      Right now, your arguments about evolution have not reached the level of sophistication in understanding displayed by the following "proof" of the non-existence of God:

      God is all-powerful and all-good.
      Evil happens.
      Therefore, not God.

      If I showed up with that argument here, you'd tell me I was being ridiculous -- yet that' the kind of fallacy you're invoking in your discussions of "evolution." I'm not saying you have to agree. But you do have to understand, and realize that people are going to be using its truth-standard to evaluate your claims within its ambit.

      People who live by the teachings of Christ would not commit racial genocide.

      My point is that your "simple answer" is contradicted by the Rwandan example. Those were self-identified Christians engaged in genocide.

      Now, you can argue that they were not True Christians -- but then your answer ceases to be as simple as it was before, and opens up the field to many possible other answers.

      Delete
  8. Indeed - repeatedly asserting that evolution is inherently racist doesn't make it so - not when underlying reasoning behind this assertion is so flawed.

    And even if it was, evolution is not a moral system - it would make as much sense to discriminate against overweight people based on the theory of gravity.

    What needs to be pointed out, again, is that (unlike evolution) Christianity is considerably more likely candidate to base own racial prejudices on - indeed, it has been used for precisely such purpose multiple times in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >not when underlying reasoning behind this assertion is so flawed.

      - It's always helpful to be specific. Point out what you presume to be flaws in the premises.

      >Christianity is considerably more likely candidate to base own racial prejudices on - indeed

      - Do you mean hypocritical Christianity or the teachings of Christ? Christ taught that we should help people of other ethnic groups, even complete strangers and those considered enemies, such as noted in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

      I would like for you to back up your comment. Point out one example in the New Testament where racial prejudice is promoted or defended.

      By the way, the slavery during the time of Rome was not racially based. Slaves became slaves because of the conquests of the Roman Empire. It was a cultural reality before Christ was born. Christ did not endorse it, but he did not make it an issue to start a revolution over.

      Delete
    2. Rick: Do you mean hypocritical Christianity or the teachings of Christ?
      Both.
      Luther refered to the teachings of Christ and the NT repeatedly to justify his anti-semitisim.
      Such anti-semitic sentiment was commonplace in Christian Europe, and actually formed the basis for the Nazi's dislike of the Jews, rather than "evolution". Hitler denounced evolutionary biology, and believed he was doing God's work.
      He may not have been your sort of Christian, but he seemed to consider himself a follower of Christ

      And we have Matthew 15:22-28
      "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
      But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
      But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
      Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
      But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
      And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
      Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

      Mark 7:25-29
      "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
      The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
      But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
      And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
      And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter."


      Israelites are the children and others are dogs, straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

      Delete
    3. More racism from the Christian Bible, this time From the OT, from Yahweh's "lips":

      Exodus 2:22-23
      "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

      And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.


      The Israelites are "separate" from other peoples, better due to their being "Son of Yahweh".

      Since you claim to have shown that Racism is incompatible with Christianity above (I'm assuming this for the sake of argument), and since it seems obvious that Christianity also endorses racism (as I've shown above), I think we can all agree that Christianity is simply incoherent and self-contradictory :-)

      Delete
    4. >The Israelites are "separate" from other peoples

      - Israel is not a race. A nation, yes. To be Jewish may also be considered a religion, but not a race. Middle Eastern people are classified as Caucasians. Though a general term, Caucasian is used in medical terminology: Nevertheless, there are journals (e.g. the Journal of Gastroentorology and Hepatology and Kidney International) that continue to use racial categories such as Caucasian.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

      Delete
    5. Once again you're putting modern notions into the heads of biblical authors.

      Israel was seen to be "separate", a tribe or race apart from others, made sacred by Yahweh.

      This is what the biblical authors believed, as is obvious in the texts. The texts, as has been shown, demonstrate a racist attitude, in that the Israelites were deemed superior to the surrounding peoples.

      That you refuse to acknowledge this shows that you are committed to defending your beliefs rather than attempting to understand and approach the truth.

      Delete
    6. >Once again you're putting modern notions into the heads of biblical authors.

      - Israel was seen to be "separate", a tribe or race apart from others, made sacred by Yahweh.

      This is what the biblical authors believed, as is obvious in the texts. The texts, as has been shown, demonstrate a racist attitude, in that the Israelites were deemed superior to the surrounding peoples.

      - When God chose Abraham from amongst his pagan tribe to begin a new nation, the idea was not that Jews would be biologically superior or culturally superior but that they would be holy unto God. The concept of holiness relates to being wholly dedicated to God. God's intention was that that the Jews would be "lights unto the Gentiles" showing the reality of God's existence and God's holiness.

      "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles..." (Isaiah 42.6)

      The Messiah was to make a way for all people to understand and enjoy the blessings of living a holy life in close fellowship with God. Jeremiah 3 outlines this truth:

      31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
      “when I will make a new covenant
      with the people of Israel
      and with the people of Judah.
      32 It will not be like the covenant
      I made with their ancestors
      when I took them by the hand
      to lead them out of Egypt,
      because they broke my covenant,
      though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
      declares the LORD.
      33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
      after that time,” declares the LORD.
      “I will put my law in their minds
      and write it on their hearts.
      I will be their God,
      and they will be my people.
      34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
      or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
      because they will all know me,
      from the least of them to the greatest,”
      declares the LORD.
      “For I will forgive their wickedness
      and will remember their sins no more.”

      In short, biblical holiness does not imply racism because it is available to all people. Though Jews were used as examples, all people can enjoy the same type of close relationship with God.

      To illustrate why holiness has nothing to do with racism, let me offer an example. If a person said, "You don't swear or look at porno, therefor you are a racist!" this would not make very much sense, would it? Likewise, if a nation had specific moral rules and beliefs, would that mean the nation was racist? That's not a logical deduction.

      Delete
    7. Rick: When God chose Abraham from amongst his pagan tribe to begin a new nation, the idea was not that Jews would be biologically superior or culturally superior but that they would be holy unto God.
      They considered themselves to be special Rick. Biological or cultural superiority is irrelevant - they, as I think you've mentioned earlier, considered themselves spiritually superior.
      Hence, they felt they were better than others, hence they were racist.

      Rick: The concept of holiness relates to being wholly dedicated to God. God's intention was that that the Jews would be "lights unto the Gentiles" showing the reality of God's existence and God's holiness.
      Rick, God is a fiction, so they were not actually holy or dedicated to anything. They could not be a light, because Yahweh doesn't exist.

      Rick: In short, biblical holiness does not imply racism because it is available to all people.
      Not in the OT it isn't Rick. It was tribal superiority which was, if the bible is to be believed, was used to justify genocide, and to denigrate other peoples.

      Rick: Though Jews were used as examples, all people can enjoy the same type of close relationship with God.
      This again is false Rick, since I apparently cannot and will not enjoy this close relationship.
      Unless you've suddenly become a universalist, you're making no sense here.

      Rick: Likewise, if a nation had specific moral rules and beliefs, would that mean the nation was racist? That's not a logical deduction.
      If a nation or people had specific beliefs and rules which they thought made them superior to others (and the the bible indicates the Israelites did) then this is bigoted unless they can actually demonstrate this superiority in some fashion.
      IN the same way, Christians like yourself who believe that they're somehow better than others because of their beliefs, and want to force others to live according to their beliefs, are also bigoted (look at the bigotry in the USA concerning same sex marriage, for instance). In the case of Christians like yourself it may not be classified as racism, but that is mostly because we separate the notions of ethnicity and relgion to a far greater extent than the ancients did.

      Delete
    8. Havok,

      >They considered themselves to be special Rick. Biological or cultural superiority is irrelevant

      - You are not logically countering my points, Havok. Because people are special does not mean they are racists or superior and I've shown why.

      >God is a fiction, so they were not actually holy or dedicated to anything.

      -This is an unsupported claim. You cannot prove God does not exist.

      >If a nation or people had specific beliefs and rules which they thought made them superior to others.

      - So you know what "they thought" Havok? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Alex Botten also believes that Sye is Christian apologist because he is greedy for money, but these types of claims are unfounded and ridiculous.

      Delete
    9. Rick: You are not logically countering my points, Havok. Because people are special does not mean they are racists or superior and I've shown why.
      You continue to inject modern ideas into the ancient texts. Your dismissal of this point is based upon such reasoning on your part.
      I think I accepted above that the bigotry of the Israelites as presented in the bible is not quite the same as modern racism, but is is certainly racism, since the ideas of religion and ethnicity were intertwined then in ways they currently are not.

      Rick: This is an unsupported claim. You cannot prove God does not exist.
      I cannot prove that any and all Gods don't exist, but lacking any coherent definition of such a being, and given the amount of evidence which actively refutes the claims of Christianity, I can say with quite a good deal of certainty that YOUR God doesn't exist.

      Rick: So you know what "they thought" Havok? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
      I'm going by what they wrote Rick. The Israelites wrote that they were superior to others, therefore it seems only logical to assume they thought this as well (at least, the authors thought this).

      Rick: Alex Botten also believes that Sye is Christian apologist because he is greedy for money, but these types of claims are unfounded and ridiculous.
      And you believe that Christianity is true - another claim which is unfounded and ridiculous :-)

      I've posted a further comment on the Open Reply to Alex thread, as it seemed more appropriate.

      Delete
  9. This looks more and more like the movie "Hard to be a God". That medieval fear of science and rationality would have been so much funny if it was not so said...

    Rick, why can t you understand that the principles of evolution apply to everyone, be it fish or humans? You are making a false dilemma. Are Africans superior to an Eskimo because they are better suited to a life in tropics? If you can rationalize it, using your false understanding of evolution, go ahead.

    And the "true scotsman fallacy" is getting old. You claim that it is only logical for a Christian to reject racism and slavery. You use some nitpicked verses from the Bible to assert that ridiculous claim. And you ignore that Christians used the same Bible to rationalize mass murder, slavery and racism. What is the point of the Bible that can be interpreted any way one fancies? Let us not mention that the Bible is 1) A distorted translation 2)Was heavily edited 3) It is impossible to understand in most cases what was meant as a metaphor in it and what was meant as a clear instruction.

    P.S. Rick, are you able to make a distinction between an amoeba and a fish? Are you also aware of the biological difference in their structure? Are you aware of the countless transitional fossils we know of? Are you aware what DNA is and how we can trace back our ancestry with it? Do you really need some links about evolution to educate yourself or you can google the word on your own and not use creationist sites as reference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Rick, why can t you understand that the principles of evolution apply to everyone, be it fish or humans?

      - The principles don't apply in the same way because fish are not considered the most highly evolved creature with a capacity for advanced logic and reason. Humans are not stuck in any environment, such as a dark cave. Fish don't practice eugenics and genocide in order to try and direct their own evolution.

      >Are Africans superior to an Eskimo because they are better suited to a life in tropics?

      - Most racists believe Africans are more primitive. Thus, they have been fair game for abuse. For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted a sick experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis, which was unbeknown to the black men.

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

      >You claim that it is only logical for a Christian to reject racism and slavery.

      - No the article clearly states that it is illogical for Buddhists to be racists.

      Delete
    2. R:The principles don't apply in the same way because fish are not considered the most highly evolved creature with a capacity for advanced logic and reason. Humans are not stuck in any environment, such as a dark cave.Fish don't practice eugenics and genocide in order to try and direct their own evolution.

      No, the principle is the same for every single specie. The initial mechanism is the same, the difference would be which path our ancestors took. It is well known that organs not in use atrophy themselves, that is what happened to those blind fishes.

      Besides, fishes are not "stuck" in caves in most cases. They can swim out of those dark caves, however, they adapt themselves to the environment because it provides them some advantage.

      And eugenics and genocide is incredibly harmful according to evolution. I have already explained to you why. Only an idiot, who has no understanding of evolution, would perform such things

      R:Most racists believe Africans are more primitive.

      That is not what I am asking. The racist belief that Africans are more "primitive" is a bold assertion. I will elaborate my question again. How racist rationalize the superiority of their race using evolution? Claiming they are "stronger" or "smarter" is just a bold assertion. What concrete scientific basis racist have to claim their superiority?

      R:No the article clearly states that it is illogical for Buddhists to be racists.

      That is not what I am asking. I am talking precisely about Christianity and your use of "no true scotsman" fallacy. Are you going to deny that some used the Bible to excuse mass murder, racism and slavery? The Bible can be used to justify these things. If the Bible is so unreliable (1. Being a translation 2. Being heavily edited 3. Being incredibly opaque), and can be interpreted however one wishes, how can it serve as an absolute basis for morality?

      Delete
    3. Rick: The principles don't apply in the same way because fish are not considered the most highly evolved creature with a capacity for advanced logic and reason.
      This is specisim, pure and simple Rick.
      Fish present today are just as "highly evolved" as are humans, as are amoeba, as are bacteria. All species have been evolving for the same time period.

      Rick: Humans are not stuck in any environment, such as a dark cave.
      Not true. We're stuck on earth, for a start, and even with our technology, which allows us to go to different environments, we're only able to do so because we can make those environments more like our "native" one (air, mostly dry, etc).

      Rick: Fish don't practice eugenics and genocide in order to try and direct their own evolution
      Lions kill cubs of other fathers. That's eugenics if not small scale genocide.

      Rick: Most racists believe Africans are more primitive.
      And they're mistaken. Africans are just as "advanced" as europeans.
      So, Racists are simply wrong, aren't they?
      As imnotandrei keeps telling you, but you completely ignore, racists use science like drunks use lamposts.

      Delete
  10. It's always helpful to be specific. Point out what you presume to be flaws in the premises.

    Certainly:
    1. The theory of evolution offers that human races have become improved through natural selection.
    This definition is not quite right, as it's been pointed out to you multiple times, Mr. Warden. Even if it is, it merely means that human races have become improved compared to its own ancestors.

    Therefore, I have no reason to feel superior to other humans, since they are too superior to their own descendants.

    Another objections I've tried to bring up is this: How exactly do you measure or define such superiority?

    - Do you mean hypocritical Christianity or the teachings of Christ?
    I meant teachings of the Bible. Moving on, it is unclear to me why would you want to limit yourself to New Testament only. Is the Old Testament no longer valid in your opinion, then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >This definition is not quite right, as it's been pointed out to you multiple times, Mr. Warden.

      - Thanks again for the general comment. You seem to have a very difficult time making a specific point. I've addressed the previous comments. Is there a particular answer you are not satisfied with?

      People sometimes ask why I ignore some people's comments. I'm not going to play this kind of game with you much longer regarding this point, just to let you know.

      >I meant teachings of the Bible. Moving on, it is unclear to me why would you want to limit yourself to New Testament only. Is the Old Testament no longer valid in your opinion, then?

      - The New Testament is uniquely Christian, so that's why I tend to focus on it. The Old Testament reflects beliefs of Judaism and some of Islam as well. Atheists in general do not understand how to interpret the Old Testament symbolism and metaphors while the New Testament is written in a more straightforward style. Both are valid but in order to understand the context it helps to understand the concept of progressive revelation and Dispensationalism.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

      Delete
    2. Rick: The New Testament is uniquely Christian, so that's why I tend to focus on it.
      It may be uniquely "Christian", but it certainly isn't uniquely "Orthodox", nor does it paint a single "Christian" message, though people like yourself do try to harmonise things (as even some of the authors did - Luke taming Paul for orthodoxy in Acts, for example).

      Rick: The Old Testament reflects beliefs of Judaism and some of Islam as well.
      Since Judaism and Islam are false, does that mean that the OT contains some false teachings?

      Rick: Atheists in general do not understand how to interpret the Old Testament symbolism and metaphors while the New Testament is written in a more straightforward style.
      Christians in general don't understand the social and cultural settings in which both the OT and NT were written, nor the literary techniques used, and therefore lack an understanding of what the authors, redactors and editors might have meant. The New Testament is not written in a more "straightforward style". GMark seems to almost entirely be a midrash of existing scripture, coupled with Greek literary stylings (references to or usage of Homer, and the Orphic mysteries appear to be present, for example), rather than being an attempt to record history.

      Rick: Both are valid but in order to understand the context it helps to understand the concept of progressive revelation and Dispensationalism.
      Dispensationalism looks to be nothing more than an ad-hoc assumption whose purpose is to save various core evangelical beliefs from being demonstrated false.

      Delete
    3. There's another thing that just occured to me - consider what you've done in previous post, Mr. Warden. You have declared Old Testament and Roman slaves off-limits, which means that you know perfectly well how and where Bible promotes racism - you're just choosing to ignore it.

      What does it say about your faith when you can't even honestly evaluate it?

      Delete
    4. To be fair, slavery and racism did not have a clear connection in Ancient Rome. Slavery was a common practice and people were enslaved for debts, were born slaves or were just turned into slaves as prisoners of war. The race was a secondary thing. A slave could also be turned into a free citizen with full rights de jure and they were not discriminated against de facto by others. Even if the Greek slaves had a higher value, it was based on the concept of civilized/barbarian nations, which is not exactly the same thing as race.

      Still, slavery is clearly immoral and the Bible did endorse slavery and it was never refuted in the NT. The Bible can also be considered racist, but on different grounds.

      Delete
  11. - Thanks again for the general comment. You seem to have a very difficult time making a specific point.
    But I have made specific points regarding this issue:
    1. "human races improving through natural selection" merely means that human races have become improved compared to its own ancestors.

    2. How exactly do you measure or define such superiority?

    I am unsure how much more specific I can get here.

    People sometimes ask why I ignore some people's comments. I'm not going to play this kind of game with you much longer regarding this point, just to let you know.

    Mr. Warden, if you are unable to respond to this point, just say so. While I can't claim to be a mind-reader, I've been in similiar situation before - ignoring some of your opponents points will do you no good.


    - The New Testament is uniquely Christian, so that's why I tend to focus on it. The Old Testament reflects beliefs of Judaism and some of Islam as well.
    But the Bible still insists in multiple places that the laws of the Old Testament are still binding. And how exactly one decides what exactly is a metaphor and symbolism in the Bible? Other Christian sects seems to have different ideas about how to interpret the Bible - the atheists are not unique in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >1. "human races improving through natural selection" merely means that human races have become improved compared to its own ancestors.

      - Yes, and racists consider some people less evolved.

      >2. How exactly do you measure or define such superiority?

      - Racial intelligence studies may be used by a racist for this purpose, or other racists may simply prefer physical characteristics.

      Delete
    2. I'm going to keep coming back to this until you answer it, since you keep bringing it up:

      Racial intelligence studies may be used by a racist for this purpose

      Indeed, most studies of intelligence on such basis were done by people with results in mind before they started -- bad science.

      Bad science, like misinterpreted religion, can support racism. Racists look for support, not illumination.

      You repeatedly deny Christians who misuse (in your opinion) the religion as being real Christians, yet should a scientist (or a politician) misuse evolutionary theory, you blame evolution. Do you see the disconnect here?

      Delete
    3. >I'm going to keep coming back to this until you answer it,

      - Answer what? Let's see...

      >Indeed, most studies of intelligence on such basis were done by people with results in mind before they started -- bad science.

      - 1) How do you know they had results in mind? Are you a mind reader?

      2) If you believe the IQ tests and results are false, please show specifically why. Saying "they had results in mind" could apply to any theory. It doesn't disprove anything.

      >yet should a scientist (or a politician) misuse evolutionary theory..

      - You have not pointed out any specific "misuse" of evolutionary theory or erroneous scientific methods in my adjusted article. It seems that either A) You are simply assuming that various races must have the same IQ, or B) Science is not allowed to point out such differences because of the racist implications. Which is it?

      Delete
    4. - 1) How do you know they had results in mind? Are you a mind reader?

      I refer you to Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man." Many of them had previously stated positions on the subject, which, fancy that, their research confirmed.

      2) If you believe the IQ tests and results are false, please show specifically why. Saying "they had results in mind" could apply to any theory. It doesn't disprove anything.

      I point you to the above book again, which lays out the case in some detail, including a critique of the notion of IQ in general.

      - You have not pointed out any specific "misuse" of evolutionary theory or erroneous scientific methods in my adjusted article.

      Well, since you appear to have adjusted it since the last time I commented, I will go back and look again.

      As far as I can tell, all you've done is replaced the notion of "improvement" with the very specific notion of "increased intelligence".

      And you remain, in your syllogism, full of the original point you keep deleting: Bad science can be used to support racism. So can bad religion. Neither one can claim the moral high ground in that case. And yet you persist in excluding religious racists on the grounds that "They're doing it wrong" while insisting that evolution is to blame for those who misuse its principles.

      It seems that either A) You are simply assuming that various races must have the same IQ, or B) Science is not allowed to point out such differences because of the racist implications. Which is it?

      I dispute the notion of IQ as a proper measure (If you look at its history, it was never designed to be a general comparative.)

      As was pointed out above, the notion of "race" is scientifically dubious at best, as well. I also believe that science is allowed to point out what it finds -- but individual scientists can be wrong, and can be biased. "Science" is not a monobloc, as I'm sure you know.

      Delete
    5. >Many of them had previously stated positions on the subject, which, fancy that, their research confirmed.

      - Even if that's true, that doesn't mean the findings are false. Lynn presented data which can be falsified through further experiments.

      "Lynn's 2006 Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis[16] is the largest review of the global cognitive ability data."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

      >I point you to the above book again, which lays out the case in some detail, including a critique of the notion of IQ in general.

      - Does it show any actual experimental data that disproves Lynn's findings? Or does it just posit reasons why IQ data is considered unimportant in Gould's opinion?

      >Bad science can be used to support racism. So can bad religion.

      - 1) Despite the difficulties of testing for intelligence, IQ tests are considered helpful tests around the world. It would be helpful for your case if you could show a contradiction by someone else performing the same tests or specific reasons why the experimental data should be considered bad science.

      2) Jesus' teachings and the specific text of the New Testament does not support the act of genocide.

      You can repeat this same type of criticism as much as you want to, but it's an invalid criticism for the reasons I've shown.

      >I dispute the notion of IQ as a proper measure

      - What other means do you know of that offer a better means of testing intelligence?

      Flynn himself has outlined "the Flynn Effect" that shows improvements in IQ tests over time, apparently because "problem solving" is tested as much as "intelligence" is. In either case, these could be considered evolutionary improvements towards adaptation abilities.

      http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

      >As was pointed out above, the notion of "race" is scientifically dubious at best,

      - This article is philosophical critique, not a science report. The word race in used in conjunction with the word racism signifies mainly biological differences, as opposed to cultural differences. Racism is frequently aimed at poorer third world countries and so there is often a mixture of financial elitism along with racism. Note the inclusion of race in the 1948 humanitarian convention:

      The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, defines genocide to include measures "intended to prevent births within" a specific "national, ethnic, racial or religious group."

      http://eugenicstoday.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    6. I thought you might find this interesting also:

      Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT

      http://www.asianweek.com/2010/10/06/asian-americans-are-1-on-the-2010-sat/

      Delete
    7. Rick, could you stop running away for a minute and answer my question?

      1. How can the Bible serve as a absolute standard for morality if 1) It was heavily edited 2) Is distorted because it is a translation 3) Is incredibly opaque.

      2. It has been proven to you that a higher intelligence is not always an advantage.

      You were also told that the IQ principle is notoriously unreliable. Is it that hard to read about IQ on the wikipedia?

      We do not have a precise and effective way to evaluate intelligence. What is the point of falsifying something if the methodology itself is flawed?

      Delete
    8. Or does it just posit reasons why IQ data is considered unimportant in Gould's opinion?

      It provides an argument from history as to why IQ data is fundamentally flawed. Science is not just collecting numbers -- it is interpreting them.

      . It would be helpful for your case if you could show a contradiction by someone else performing the same tests or specific reasons why the experimental data should be considered bad science.

      If you want me to recount Gould's argument here, I can; the short form is:

      1) modern IQ tests were developed out of tests to identify specific cognitive *deficiencies*, that were never meant to be part of a linear ranking scale

      2) IQ is an example of a reification fallacy, something science suffers from: "If you can measure it, it must be *something* real." Depending on how you crunch your numbers from a Stanford-Binet IQ test, you can get an "IQ" or a set of different factors based on parts of the test -- there is no fundamental reason why one should be any more correct than the other.

      2) Jesus' teachings and the specific text of the New Testament does not support the act of genocide.

      They have been used to do so. You can argue that's bad religion, but that doesn't make your point for you.

      You can repeat this same type of criticism as much as you want to, but it's an invalid criticism for the reasons I've shown.

      I've failed to see any reasons -- you've gone further and further out on a limb defending the science (which makes me wonder what investment you have in it -- it's as if you *want* the facts to be true; which makes me wonder what you think of a God who would set up the world that way) without any coping with the fundamental question. Repeating "The New Testament doesn't support it" doesn't help.

      The word race in used in conjunction with the word racism signifies mainly biological differences, as opposed to cultural differences.

      Actually, given the miniscule biological differences, it's referring usually to a very small number of traits. And let me assure you, as a person who looks Mediterranean enough to be considered anything from Spanish to Arab, it's also cultural; anti-Hispanic racism (which does exist in the United States, to put it mildly) is almost entirely a matter of cultural markers.

      I'll also point out to you that last definition of genocide in your list -- and ask you who's been doing the most of that over the last 2,000 years?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,

      >1. How can the Bible serve as a absolute standard for morality if 1) It was heavily edited 2) Is distorted because it is a translation 3) Is incredibly opaque.

      - A) The Bible was translated. It is the opinion of some the Bible was heavily edited but the discovered Dead Sea scrolls showed pretty much the exact text as we have today.

      B) The Bible itself is not the absolute standard, it points to the person of God as the absolute reference for morality.

      Delete
    10. Andre,

      >It provides an argument from history as to why IQ data is fundamentally flawed.

      - I posted a link to SAT test results showing the same racial results as the IQ tests. Do you consider SAT tests invalid as well?

      http://www.asianweek.com/2010/10/06/asian-americans-are-1-on-the-2010-sat/

      I asked you for what you considered to be an accurrate test for evaluating relative intelligence and you didn't answer:
      "What other means do you know of that offer a better means of testing intelligence?" (Feb 18, 2012 04:55 AM)

      >They have been used to do so. (New Testament used to justify genocide) You can argue that's bad religion, but that doesn't make your point for you.

      - This is completely false. No acts can theoretically be justified by text if they flatly contradict the text.

      >Repeating "The New Testament doesn't support it" doesn't help.

      - This indicates that you are in a state of denial. I've asked for one reference in the New Testament that could be used to justify racism and/or genocide and none of you has provided one.

      >Actually, given the miniscule biological differences, it's referring usually to a very small number of traits.

      - In your opinion racial differences are negligible. For other scientists they are noteworthy. Either way, opinions don't change the evidence that differences are shown to exist.

      Delete
    11. R:A) The Bible was translated. It is the opinion of some the Bible was heavily edited but the discovered Dead Sea scrolls showed pretty much the exact text as we have today.

      That covers only the OT bit, though still some variations are present. As for the NT, we only have a tiny fragment from it, which tells us practically nothing about it.

      Are you also aware of the existence of the Gospel of Judas and many others that were judged heretical by the early Church and were burned down? They were not included in the Bible and that I would call - heavy editing.

      B) The Bible itself is not the absolute standard, it points to the person of God as the absolute reference for morality.

      Well, it is a nice thing you admit that the Bible cannot serve as such.

      So you base your moral choices on personal feelings and which you attribute to God? Since not everyone feel the same way about morality, does that mean that "God" is subjective?

      R:I posted a link to SAT test results showing the same racial results as the IQ tests. Do you consider SAT tests invalid as well?

      The IQ principle is invalid. As for the SAT tests, it is NOT a proof of supremacy of one race of another. You do not take into account cultural factors. Better results from Asian students are explained by the fact that they are more hard working, compared to the others. They are more hard working since they have much more to loose in case of failure.

      And again, intelligence is much more complicated than that. One can be a complete retard and still be a genius at the same time. We do not have an objective way to assess intelligence.

      R:This indicates that you are in a state of denial. I've asked for one reference in the New Testament that could be used to justify racism and/or genocide and none of you has provided one.

      The text of the Bible is incredibly opaque and can be interpreted however one fancies. Luther used it to justify antisemitism. It was pointed out before, do we need to copy-paste?

      R:In your opinion racial differences are negligible. For other scientists they are noteworthy. Either way, opinions don't change the evidence that differences are shown to exist.

      The mainstream understanding for now among the scientific community would be that racial differences are negligible, according to the evidence. It is not only about the data, it is also about a good interpretation of the data, as it was pointed out to you before.

      Though, your objections are mostly out of place, since a higher intelligence is not always an advantage in the survival game.

      Delete
    12. P.S. And in accordance to Luther s teachings, Hitler could honestly say that he was doing what Jesus would have wanted him to do, by exterminating "lesser people"

      Delete
  12. Warden
    While it's true that some religions may teach violence against innocent people, it's unfair to lump all religions together as "dangerous" for this reason. Christianity may support the concept of just war, but it generally places a higher value on human life than atheism does.
    Bull. Want proof? Remember your hero William "Genocide" Craig? PZ Myers does.

    Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing. ===Craig's statement in bold.

    No. No, I can't imagine that. I can imagine parts of it: I can imagine a long, heavy piece of sharp metal in my hands. I can imagine a frightened, unarmed woman in front of me, trying to shelter her children. The part I can't imagine, the stuff I'm having real trouble with, is imagining voluntarily raising my hand and hacking them to death.
    Compare what Myers said above with what Craig says in the article Myers links.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And we shouldn't forget that if we take these passages as being historical*, all of this was done due to voices in some ones head.
      Today we put people like that in institutions where they can't harm themselves or others. Thousands of years ago the Israelites hung on their every word.

      * The evidence indicates that large parts of the Israelite history in the OT are not historical in nature.

      Delete
  13. I've dealt with a fellow xian of yours, Rick. A guy by the name of Dustin Seagers. I've posted it here. Of course, he's taken the comments off his site now, and you can't see what he said anymore...

    It is ironic that he's pretending to be "pro-life".

    Again, you claim that xianity hold a higher value of human life than atheism?

    For the record, here's a Calvinist (See his article: The Problem of Evil who refutes you with his words:

    Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.

    And xianity has no basis for genocide? So what if it's for so-called "spiritual" reasons? It's still the same action for which you're trying to scapegoat evolution and atheism for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Again, you claim that xianity hold a higher value of human life than atheism?

      - Reynold, how many babies are aborted each minute, mainly by atheists?

      - How many people have been killed because of their race or ethnicity alone?

      In a previous article I outlined some facts:

      Stalin founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion. In 1929, Joseph Stalin began a campaign of racist oppression against ethnic Ukrainians. Over 5,000 Ukrainian scholars, scientists, cultural and religious leaders were falsely accused of plotting an armed revolt. Those arrested were either shot without a trial or deported to prison camps in remote areas of Russia. Between 1932 and 1933 Stalin was believed to have slaughtered 7,000,000 Ukrainians through forced starvation.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html

      >So what if it's for so-called "spiritual" reasons? It's still the same action for which you're trying to scapegoat evolution and atheism for.

      - I outlined many specific reasons why the attacks on Canaan were justified in that article, including spiritual ones. This article here focuses on atheist justifications for the mass murder of innocent people and nations. If you want to debate the Canaan attacks, the other article is more appropriate for that subject. You are welcome to post your criticisms where the actual text on that subject is located.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html

      Delete
    2. Rick: Reynold, how many babies are aborted each minute, mainly by atheists?
      Rubbish. You'll need to back that up with evidence Rick.

      Rick: - How many people have been killed because of their race or ethnicity alone?
      Religious beliefs was (and still is) mixed up with ideas of race and ethnicity. Look at the way Muslims cry "racism" whenever someone criticises their religious beliefs.

      Rick: Stalin founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion.
      Stalin was a communist, and the Soviet communists sought to eradicate opposing authority structures. As I think has been pointed out to you, the Russian Orthodox church seems to have flourished in Soviet Russia.
      The "League" sought to impose Soviet Communism, not "atheism".

      Rick: - I outlined many specific reasons why the attacks on Canaan were justified in that article, including spiritual ones.
      Genocide is justified if God says it's ok, got it!
      What a horrible moral code you and WLC live under.

      Delete
    3. Rick, as always you pull your statistics out of nowhere, like a true magician. In the US, the number of abortions done by Christians exceeds that of atheists.

      Delete
  14. Now, for the claim that evolution leads to things like Nazism and "genocide"?

    Read this especially this part about "races":

    Today, the word “Race” is applied to humans only, but this was clearly not always the case, Darwin, or for that matter, any other naturalist or biologist from that time, was using it in the way we now apply the word “species”.

    To illustrate that, here are several random quotes to illustrate the use of the word Race from, “Origin of Species”


    ...it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil...

    There's a lot more information there, about Hitler and all, but I'll let you read it.


    As to Warden's strawman Syllogism of evolution:

    1. The theory of evolution offers that human races have become improved through natural selection.

    2. In theory, a more improved race is considered superior to a less improved race.

    3. Therefore, in theory, evolution supposedly allows for the emergence of superior human races.

    "Superior"? No. Just better adapted to the environment at the time! If the environment changes, so will the organisms within it. What was better adapted to one environment may not fare so well under a different one.

    Besides, even if one pretends that Warden isn't b.s. ing here, guess what? There is a difference between letting nature do the selecting and humans deciding who should live or die.

    What Hitler did wasn't even artificial selection is was just plain mass-murder, plain and simple.

    As I said, strawman. The rest of this little rant of Warden seems to come from that.

    Well, and from Hitler and eugenics.

    So, time for some more information:
    Hitler and evolution: a supplement and a creationist eugenicist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More info about Hitler and the Nazi's not being atheistic or accepting evolution, but rather being theistic creationists (Christians, if even of a strange sort):
      Nazi Racial Ideology was Religious, Creationst and opposed to Dawrinism

      Delete
    2. >Today, the word “Race” is applied to humans only, but this was clearly not always the case,

      - I'm using the word in its contemporary meaning. I'm not appealing to Darwin's use of the word at all.

      >"Superior"? No. Just better adapted to the environment at the time! If the environment changes...

      - Your point is quite weak with respect to humans. Homo sapiens have been nomadic. Studies show races have specific IQ differences. Most would consider a higher IQ an advantage in any environment.

      Let me ask you, "Would you consider a higher IQ an advantage in any environment?

      The premise of one study on the subject has been shown to be illogical:

      "Mackintosh questions Lynn's hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback."

      I.e., It's not logical to assume that warm climates select against intelligence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_%28book%29

      Without the God-given value ascribed by Theism, it's not difficult to see why atheists would assume that more intelligent humans are superior to less intelligent ones. This is what we see played out in society.

      I recommend all of you watch the film "The Constant Gardner" (no relation to Jim Gardner, I believe). It's an excellent film based on a true story of a woman who uncovered abusive testing of new pharma products on unsuspecting African women. Yes, this kind of stuff still goes on in the 21 Century. Ask yourself why.

      Delete
    3. Rick: Let me ask you, "Would you consider a higher IQ an advantage in any environment?
      Not to answer for Reynold, but this is an "no".
      Brains burn a lot of calories and generate a lot of heat. I remember something about our heads being likely to overheat if we were still quadrupedal (or even knuckle walkers) while out on the African Savana. In such an environment, a smaller brain is of obvious benefit.

      Rick: Without the God-given value ascribed by Theism, it's not difficult to see why atheists would assume that more intelligent humans are superior to less intelligent ones.
      Actually, I find it quite difficult to see that this "observation" of yours is correct, and not simply your own bigotted view.

      Rick: This is what we see played out in society.
      Since society is mostly religious (and mostly Christian for those of us commenting here, I believe), this statement is ridiculous as regarding your claim that atheism causes this sort of valuation.
      In fact, it supports the opposite claim, that theism actually supports this sort of bigotry.

      Rick: Yes, this kind of stuff still goes on in the 21 Century. Ask yourself why.
      Because religious people seem to find no difficulty in justifying racism with reference to their beliefs and holy books?

      Delete
    4. Well, Havoc has pretty much answered for me so I'll just add the following:

      Rick
      Without the God-given value ascribed by Theism,...
      Hello??? Did you NOT read the statements I had posted by xians Dustin Seagers and Vincent Cheung??

      Rick
      ...it's not difficult to see why atheists would assume that more intelligent humans are superior to less intelligent ones. This is what we see played out in society.
      Guess what? Besides being an unsupported overgeneralized statement, it seems that "atheists" are not the only ones who allegedly believe that.

      Much more troubling, however, are Tinkle’s opinions of almost 30 years later, in his book “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible” published in 1967, while Tinkle was the Secretary of the Creation Research Society. In its chapter “The prospect for eugenics”, far from having abandoned his support for the practice, Tinkle sounds more radical about it. He writes positively about sterilization for the “feeble-minded” (carefully classified as “morons”, “imbeciles” and “idiots”) and people with other hereditary conditions. Sterilization in a male, he says “is a simple operation”, and “in a girl or woman, [it] is as serious as removal of the vermiform appendix” [11, p. 139]. While he admits that it is impractical to sterilize all “defectives”, he still thinks it’s worth a shot when possible:
      Read on.

      Delete
    5. Naturally, I forgot a few things:

      When Rick said that it's "god-given value ascribed by theism" that gives human lives value then all he's really done is admit that without his god belief he would place NO value on human life.

      Atheists don't NEED any "god" to tell us to value human life. We have our own reasons. (future generations, our children, our family, our friends, basic empathy, survival instinct, etc) The christian when they say that it's only god's say-so that gives human life value is admitting that they don't care about any of that.

      They are only doing as they are being TOLD to do. Like a child's version of "morality".

      Who has the REAL respect for human life in that situation, the one who has to be told to value it, or the ones who don't?


      And now, back to "race".

      Rick quoting me:
      Today, the word “Race” is applied to humans only, but this was clearly not always the case,

      I'm using the word in its contemporary meaning. I'm not appealing to Darwin's use of the word at all.

      So what if you're using "race" in the modern sense as opposed to when Darwin used the word?

      In the modern sense all of humanity is considered to be one race!

      Delete
    6. Havok and Reynold,

      Rick asked: Let me ask you, "Would you consider a higher IQ an advantage in any environment?

      - Havok: Not to answer for Reynold, but this is an "no". Brains burn a lot of calories and generate a lot of heat.

      - You both agree with Havok's answer but you seem to be conflating a higher IQ with thinking hard. Studies show the process of thinking hard does burn calories "Doing puzzles and quizzes burns an average of 90 calories every hour"

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1230721/Try-Sudoku-diet-How-burn-90-calories-hour-leaving-armchair.html#ixzz1meEIeXAV

      ...but with a higher IQ you would actually be thinking less hard because the answers would come easier and faster.

      Delete
    7. Reynold,

      >Without the God-given value ascribed by Theism,...Hello??? Did you NOT read the statements I had posted by xians Dustin Seagers and Vincent Cheung?? (regarding babies supposedly being sent to hell)

      - In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6)

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201

      David wrote most of the Psalms so it seems someone has been erroneously reading into their meaning a bit too much.

      Delete
    8. R:...but with a higher IQ you would actually be thinking less hard because the answers would come easier and faster.

      1. The IQ method is notoriously unreliable. We know of retards that are genius in music, that fact alone undermines the whole concept.

      2. Your basis to assert that people with a high IQ use their brain less than people with a low IQ is wrong. To maintain a high capacity of the brain one has to train it constantly or else it will atrophy itself.

      Imagine people coming to work after a long vacation. Their effectiveness has dropped considerably, because they did not train their brains during that time.

      3. The claim that some races have a higher IQ than others has to be investigated further. The studies that were done in the 1960s did not take into account the environment of the people. It is much more difficult for a person to develop their mental capacities while living in a ghetto, compared to a person who went to college and so on.

      So how else can racists use evolution to assert their ridiculous claims?

      And I wish you did answer my question about how the Bible can be considered a standard for morality when it was/is 1. heavily edited 2. is a translation 3. is incredibly opaque.

      Delete
    9. Uh, Rick...what does that verse have to do with your co-religionsists statements I put up? David was praying for his son and when he died, he realized that there was no more use for it.

      So what? One kid dying of a disease does not genocide make.

      That and there's the total lack of value placed on human life by that Cheung guy AND the fact that Dustin, who had no problem with your god sending even babies to hell also had bible verses to back him up (see link in previous post for that), just as your Apologetics Press source Kyle did.

      So, which one is right? You all have access to the same so-called "infallible" holy book and presumably you all can communicate with the author, so why can't you people get your dogmas straight?

      How much of a guide to anything (science or morality) can your holy book truly be if it's adherents can't even consistently understand what it's supposed to mean??

      Delete
    10. >Reynold, If you had read the entire verse carefully or the linked article commentary at all, the you would have noted that David assumed he would see his child again in heaven:

      "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

      >So, which one is right?

      - There is no necessary contradiction. Though it is true we are born with the sin nature, a young baby is not aware of and accountable for the sin nature in the sense that a baby could be accountable for accepting or rejecting the existence of God and Jesus Christ as an answer to the sin problem. You, Reynold, as an adult are aware of your sin nature by your conscience, as Romans 1.19 states,

      "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

      - You may deny that you have a sin nature, but, nevertheless, your conscience is a testimony against you if you do.

      Delete
    11. Rick, you have completely danced over the fact that there is a contradiction.

      Dustin Seagers outright said that babies can and do go to hell. I noted that he had bible verses to back him up.

      You have just said that they can't be held accountable for their "sin nature" and therefore, one would assume, don't go to hell.

      You then change the topic of that particular point by talking about how adults are held accountable.


      So the original problem stands: Why can't you people get your stories straight?

      Delete
    12. Reynold and Havok,

      Both of you have stated one of my comments was "unsupported" and/or "overgeneralized" (...it's not difficult to see why atheists would assume that more intelligent humans are superior to less intelligent ones.)

      It's interesting that a Chinese fan of Richard Dawkins comes away from his writings believing that Dawkins supports eugenics (the breeding of superior animals and humans):

      Richard Dawkins sides with the race realists

      I read his book in defense of evolution and his rebuttal of intelligent design: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, (Richard Dawkins, 2009) and was pleasantly surprised that he seems to accept eugenics and race realism.

      http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-732250-1-1.html

      “Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters.”

      Dawkins sides with the race realists.
      http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dawkins_sides_with_the_race_realists

      The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising. - The Greatest Show on Earth

      http://notabenoid.com/book/10903/34951/?page=5

      Delete
    13. Sorry, that still does not mean that they would be superior to other human beings. Being superior in one aspect comes at the price of mediocracy in another.

      Delete
    14. Rick: It's interesting that a Chinese fan of Richard Dawkins comes away from his writings believing that Dawkins supports eugenics (the breeding of superior animals and humans):
      I had a quick read of the link, and it seemed more like the author was reading his own beliefs into Dawkins work.

      The observation, which seems obviously true, that selective breeding of humans could be done, cannot be taken as a claim that it should be done. The claim that "races" differ, doesn't show that those differences are substantive, nor that any differences increase or decrease the worth of the individuals which comprise those various groups.

      You continue to make these sorts of accusations against Dawkins' position (and the position of others), when the arguments and links you cite do not actually support your claims.

      Delete
  15. Comments are vanishing AFTER they've been published and appear in the list.

    This, to me, makes it likely that Rick is deleting comments, rather than them being rejected automatically for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Havok, I just checked and you have 7 comments in a row in the spam folder from 3.13PM
      6.49 PM. It may be that you are posting too much too quickly.

      I have just marked them as "not spam" so they can be posted.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Rick.
      It didn't seem to be an automated thing because I wasn't posting them "together" (they were/are temporally separated), and they were appearing for minutes before vanishing again (I was also receiving notification that they were being posted via email).

      I apologise for mistakenly claiming that you were deleting them.

      Delete
    3. No problem.

      This seems to be a passionate subject and I cannot promise I will be able to address all the points in a timely manner. I usually blog early in the morning but once my wife and kids wake up I try to give some quality time :-)

      Delete
  16. It's not so much that I'm passionate about the subject, but rather than deleting and censorship of alternative viewpoints is very common amongst your co-religionists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe it's because co-religionists as you call them don't like idiots turning blogs into urinals. so junk gets deleted. Ever think of that?

      Delete
    2. I have thought of that Hazmat. That was not the sort of behaviour that I was referring to, and I made that clear in my comment.

      It is rather hypocritical of you to complain about bad behaviour of atheists, while having a picture which calls Richard Dawkins an asshole as your "website". Well done!

      Delete
  17. Here's a picture of the pope of atheism http://bit.ly/ObZbh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you're doing a good job of raising the level of discourse, as you seem to want to do.

      Point out to me, please, where anyone here has been as simplistic and vulgar as you just were?

      Delete
    2. Time to count the flaws:

      Dawkins doesn't give anyone any marching orders as the pope does.

      When Dawkins goes to visit a foreign country, he pays his own damn way instead of having the taxpayers of that country do it.

      Dawkins is, like most people, repelled by child abuse. The current pope it seems, helped cover up child abuse cases within the church.

      That enough differences for you?

      And oh yeah...ad-hom attacks aren't worth anything, despite what theistic evangelists seem to think.

      Delete
  18. Rick had said at the end of this post:
    "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian.

    Are you kidding?

    Time for a desperately needed history lesson Rick:

    Time for some reading:
    The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism
    by David I. Kertzer


    After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966

    Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis did not invent a new villain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries...

    Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews prepared the way for the Holocaust he said the Nazis are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews.

    Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism

    Dagobert Runes' books: The Jew and the Cross and The War Against the Jew by Philosophical Library, New York.
    Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      You are hitting on a moot point, beating a dead horse.

      On February 16 I commented, "Point out one example in the New Testament where racial prejudice is promoted or defended."

      Today I commented to Andre, "I've asked for one reference in the New Testament that could be used to justify racism and/or genocide and none of you has provided one."

      What a corrupted Pope chooses to do is irrelevant to this debate if it is diametrically opposed to scripture. The scripture is the ultimate authority, not some corrupted pope. Anti-Semitism cannot be justified by scripture. If it can, show me the chapter and verse.

      Delete
    2. Matthew 27:24-25
      When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

      John 5:16
      And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

      John 7:1
      After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

      John 7:13
      Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

      John 8:37 onwards in that chapter.


      That was easy.


      By the way, if you were actually paying attention to what I'd been writing, it's a lot more than "one corrupted" pope responsible for anti-semitism.

      Whether this is a twisted form of xianity I don't really know or care. I gave bible verses that xians like Martin Luther have used. See his book On the Jews and Their Lies.


      Can you give any evolutionary biologists writings that justify say, anti-semitism?

      Delete
    3. Reynold,

      So, which of these verses actually justifies anti-Semitism for true Christians?

      1) His blood be on us, and on our children.

      - Does this mean true Christians should hate Jews or discriminate against them or,God forbid, persecute them? No. Poor logic, Reynold, a non-sequitor. Even if these acts were remembered for many generations, the scriptures teach God is the avenger of wrongs, not people:

      Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (Romans 12.9) http://bible.cc/romans/12-19.htm

      2) Etc.
      3) Etc.

      An accurate understanding of the New Testament is that the Jews still have a unique purpose in God's plan. Romans 11.25 states:

      "All Israel Will Be Saved

      I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written..."

      Presently Jews are mainly in a state of spiritual blindness as to the identity of the Messiah:

      "But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts" (2 Corinthians 3.14-15)

      >Can you give any evolutionary biologists writings that justify say, anti-semitism?

      - How many times do I have to write that racism has nothing to do with religion or nationality? These repeated comments only serve to point out you are becoming increasingly irrational as you fail to bring up valid points.

      Delete
    4. Don't blame me for "poor logic". Look to your fellow xians throughout the ages who have used the bible to justify Jew-hatred. Like Martin Luther for example.

      I gave verses that showed the xians like "John" (or whoever he was) made comments against the Jews in general. This helped lay the groundwork for the centuries of anti-semitism that came afterwards.

      Try reading the books I mentioned in my previous posts.

      Like it or not, bigotry DID have a "spiritual" origin.

      Rick Warden
      How many times do I have to write that racism has nothing to do with religion or nationality?
      How many times do I have to write that racism has no actual justification in biology? Yet you still keep pretending that it does. Those who used biology as such were ignorant as hell. Ask any actual biologist.

      People used religion and other things to justify their hatred of other groups throughout the ages. You're ignoring most of those factors to focus on "evolution".

      Are you trying to imply that any attack on a group of people for "spiritual" reasons doesn't qualify as bigotry? How about what the bible as Henry Morris used it?


      You ignore the religious origins of things like anti-semitism, one of the worst kinds of racism.


      Besides, "racism" as I've shown in previous links has NO basis in biology, either in Darwin's time or modern times.

      Yet you say: "Dawkin's evolution justifies racism and genocide".

      Time to start to back up your statements. I want bloody quotes, NOT the misquotes like what you recently gave.

      I want something other than flawed "syllogisms" (shown to be flawed earlier) and inaccurate "scientific bases" for racism. I gave at least one link to Talk Origins which shows that racism HAS no scientific basis. Even Darwin didn't buy that!

      You ignore all of the facts I give and yet you try to blame the whole thing on evolution? Where in any evolutionists writings do they pick out the Jews as an "inferior race"?


      You are the one who is ignoring the vast amount of facts (references, books, etc) that I and others are giving here. Yet you say that I am "irrational" for "failing to bring up valid points"?

      Good grief. What you consider to be a "valid point" then?

      Dawkins never said a word in actual favour of genocide yet you directly attribute him with "justifying" it. That "quote" of yours above has been shot down already. Including by me.

      I provide actual bible quotes that have been used to promote Jew-hating for centuries but because they have no "biological" basis you ignore that?

      Delete
    5. How many times do I have to write that racism has nothing to do with religion or nationality?

      You don't realize how little this claim supports your point.

      To many anti-Semites, Jews are a race -- that's why, for example, the definition of Jewishness meant that a practicing Christian who had a Jewish parent was, well, a Jew to the Nazis.

      This is what happens when you let unscientific views of "race" color your behavior and your thought, as I've been calling you out on above -- you get bad results.

      So, Jews are, to many anti-Semites, a race; and the justification for anti-Semitic behaviour has often been "They killed Jesus!"*

      Now, you can try and claim "No true Christian believes that", but that is equally vulnerable to "No true scientist believes that..."

      Clear?

      I have a suggestion for you: try and justify your own beliefs not on the grounds that someone else's are bad, but that yours are good, and leave it at that.


      *and do not even try to deny this one, as I know it of my own direct physical experience.

      Delete
  19. You know Rick, you have yet to show, other than distorted strawmen which I've discussed in one of my first posts here, just how Dawkin's views can be used to support genocide.


    Also note this: In this post Rick basically says that genocide that's done because of "biology" is bad, while genocide done for "spiritual" reasons (like to the Canaanites) is good.

    Huh? Genocide is genocide. If there's a so-called "spiritual" reason for it, then that means religion is to blame outright.

    I've noted that Rick also seems to ignore this link which I gave earlier which talks about the true "relationship" between racism and evolution.

    Also read:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html



    And now, since it's slightely related, here's a misquote of Dawkins by Answers in Genesis and the same thing by Creation Ministries International.

    Please note the bolded parts especially, since those articles left those out:
    "Even a cheetah as a killing machine is beautiful. But the process that gave rise to it is, indeed, nature red in tooth and claw.

    However, you go further when you call evolution evil.
    I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      >just how Dawkin's views can be used to support genocide.

      - That's what my premises show, point by point. Most of you seem to have a problem with this premise:

      2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.

      - Some have cited a problem with evaluating intelligence, but IQ and SAT tests together show the same results. Some have claimed that intelligence traits are dictated only by environment, e.g. tropical climates require less intelligence. I pointed out why this is illogical for a few reasons.

      If you believe the noted premise 2 is false, then answer this question:

      1. In what way could being less intelligent be considered a superior advantage to being more intelligent for humans in any environment?

      My second question regards quotes by Dawkins. Previously Dawkins has stated in so many words that he is a moral relativist:

      "So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[4]

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html

      In one of his books he stated he does not have a "confident" moral support for eugenics, suggesting moral confidence does not exist:

      The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits...

      So why, Reynold, do you consider the following a misquote:

      From a debate between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

      Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

      Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

      ‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

      The quote is in perfect harmony with other statements by Dawkins offering this is not a misquote.

      Delete
    2. Your premises have all been shown to be strawmen etc. They've all been shot down by now.


      Now, to your misquoting Dawkins (along with AIG and CMI):
      Yes, it IS a misquote.

      Allow me to show (again) the part that you people always leave out whenever you quote that Psychology Today article.

      You know: the CMI writer who I linked to in my SkepticFriends post did the same thing you just did: He repeated word-for-word the original AIG/CMI portion of that Psych Today article, leaving out the same lines that would have shot down their premise if they had been included.

      I guess I left in plain italics some of the message I quoted from that article that I should have bolded. So I'll repeat it again:

      However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."

      Bottom line: We have to work out our own moral codes, to "work out together the kind of society in which we want to live". Also: "we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is to try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson".

      Hope I've clarified things.

      Delete
    3. 1) Reynold, I noticed that you seemed to have missed something. Please answer my simple question:

      In what way could being less intelligent be considered a superior advantage to being more intelligent for humans in any environment?

      2. >you people always leave out whenever you quote that Psychology Today article.

      - I simply clicked the link you provided:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/quote-evolution-no-morality

      - If you wanted me to read a certain article you could have provided a link.

      Either way, Reynold, the additional quote you provided simply affirms Dawkins is a moral relativist with no specific moral foundation or system in mind:

      "...when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems..."

      >"Bottom line: We have to work out our own moral codes, to "work out together the kind of society in which we want to live".

      - So, in other words, 'Dawkins is being misquoted because we are all supposed to be moral relativists like him because this is what he believes and tells us.'

      Wow. Big time non sequitur, Reynold.

      Delete
    4. Sorry for butting in, but didn t Havok provide a specific example where a higher intelligence is undesirable?

      Rick: Let me ask you, "Would you consider a higher IQ an advantage in any environment?

      H:Not to answer for Reynold, but this is an "no".
      Brains burn a lot of calories and generate a lot of heat. I remember something about our heads being likely to overheat if we were still quadrupedal (or even knuckle walkers) while out on the African Savana. In such an environment, a smaller brain is of obvious benefit.

      R:So, in other words, 'Dawkins is being misquoted because we are all supposed to be moral relativists like him because this is what he believes and tells us.'

      You still have to provide a proof for objective morality. We have plenty evidence against it and practically none for it.

      And you have no basis whatsoever to claim that Dawkings has no moral foundation. Rick, God is not the only source for morality as it was pointed out several times before.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous,

      >Sorry for butting in, but didn t Havok provide a specific example where a higher intelligence is undesirable?

      Feb 16 Havok did mention that thinking burns more calories.

      Feb 17 I pointed out..

      Havok and Reynold,

      - You both agree with Havok's answer but you seem to be conflating a higher IQ with thinking hard. Studies show the process of thinking hard does burn calories "Doing puzzles and quizzes burns an average of 90 calories every hour"

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1230721/Try-Sudoku-diet-How-burn-90-calories-hour-leaving-armchair.html#ixzz1meEIeXAV

      ...but with a higher IQ you would actually be thinking less hard because the answers would come easier and faster.

      >And you have no basis whatsoever to claim that Dawkings has no moral foundation.

      - The three quotes I referenced imply this.

      Delete
    6. - The three quotes I referenced imply this.

      Actually, they imply not that he has no moral foundation, but that he is not using evolution as his foundation.

      See the difference?

      Delete
    7. cont'd...

      Not that providing the actual context (which you claim I did NOT!) seems to do any good for those who have already made up their minds what they want to believe:
      Either way, Reynold, the additional quote you provided simply affirms Dawkins is a moral relativist with no specific moral foundation or system in mind:

      "...when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems..."

      And the xian view which has god ordering the killing of pregnant women and babies, and has no problem with slavery, etc. is a good example of a "specific" moral system?

      Genocide is not very consistent with your so-called "pro-life" stance is it? Yet you call us "moral relativists"?

      As I keep saying, xians have no right to complain about others "moral relativism".


      "Bottom line: We have to work out our own moral codes, to "work out together the kind of society in which we want to live".
      So, in other words, 'Dawkins is being misquoted because we are all supposed to be moral relativists like him because this is what he believes and tells us.'

      Wow. Big time non sequitur, Reynold.

      Huh?

      Dawkins is being misquoted because the title of the AIG article was "Evolution: No Morality".

      That is not what Dawkins was implying. He was saying that we just have to work a moral system out ourselves.

      As I've said, xians already have a system of moral relatvism since it is you people who have no problem with genocide and the killing of pregnant women and children provided that biblegod is the one who orders it.

      Dawkins (and PZ Myers) on the other hand is horrified at the fact that William Craig would feel sympathy for the killers instead of the victims in that case.

      Xians seem to base morality on what god says is ok. Problem is, your god ordered a lot of very bad things done. Yet you people who usually call yourselves "pro-life" have no problem with it.

      A system of "morality" based on who does it as opposed to what is the best for the people within the society, is the definition of "relative morality".

      And it's you theists who have it!

      If you truly want to complain about logical fallacies, then you'd better think more carefully about what you write: All of your postings about Dawkins are fallacies themselves: ad-hom and consequences of belief that in truth, have nothing to do with the factual validity of evolution OR atheism. Instead, you're just playing to the emotions of your readers.

      Delete
    8. So there it is: The second half of my reply is now right before the first half.

      Delete
    9. Nope, it's gone again.

      So be it. I'm gone

      Delete
    10. 1.I did explain to you that your understanding is flawed. Unfortunately, you ignored my comment as usual.

      R:...but with a higher IQ you would actually be thinking less hard because the answers would come easier and faster.

      A: Your basis to assert that people with a high IQ use their brain less than people with a low IQ is wrong. To maintain a high capacity of the brain one has to train it constantly or else it will atrophy itself.

      Imagine people coming to work after a long vacation. Their effectiveness has dropped considerably, because they did not train their brains during that time.

      2.As for improving humankind, using genocide and eugenics it is idiotic, contradicting evolution and natural selection. I did explain to you before that it would significantly diminish the number of possible gene combination, but the more combinations our genes can provide the more successful we are.

      Your fear of some artificial forced breeding of humans and the annihilation of "lesser" beings, without their consent, is groundless.

      1. Genetical engineering can provide the possibility of correcting undesirable mutation, without "terminating" the person itself.

      2. In theory it is possible to force humans to breed in a specific way, but what would the cost of such policy be? People will be constantly protesting and trying to break free. Why bother with tyranny when one can achieve the same results by just encouraging people to play sports and educate themselves?

      3. Human beings are not just about their genes. The social structure plays an equally important role. Just by improving genes, no major problem will be solved.

      Delete
  20. Here's someone else who picked apart another example of Dawkins getting dishonestly mis-quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok, now the first half of my reply is gone again!


    Rick Warden
    1) Reynold, I noticed that you seemed to have missed something. Please answer my simple question:

    In what way could being less intelligent be considered a superior advantage to being more intelligent for humans in any environment?

    One where the religious right is predominant? Other than that, I can't think of any. So what? How does this make me a "eugenicist"?

    Where would that show that I'd favour killing or even selective breeding of people? Where does it show that people of different IQ's are not all of the "human race"? Why have you ignroed the links I gave earlier that shows that as far a "race" goes, all humans are one?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

    If you want to throw down the "eugenics" charge against me, you'd better read some of the links I gave ealier. Let me help you:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr-west-meet-dr.html

    Some more: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/dawkins_and_eugenics_the_backlash.php

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html
    (read Reply by Richard Trott) where he notes:
    The reason the Morris passage is easily interpreted as racist is because Morris refers specifically to "Negroes" and their "genetic character" that he alleges makes them less "intellectual" than others.

    Here's Morris's own words: "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

    Next, Mr. Bergman writes that ,"historians do not generally regard the Hamites as a race." This gives the reader the impression that I have fabricated the correlation of "Hamites" in Morris's text to some "races." It is Morris himself, however, who states that in his opinion, "all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin." This quotation makes it clear that Morris believes that white Europeans are generally not of Hamitic descent. The previous quotation ("especially the Negroes") makes it clear that Morris believes (or believed) that "Negroes" generally are Hamites.


    Read on, why? Remember when you used that (http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dawkins_sides_with_the_race_realists) link where they quoted Dawkins talking about different "races" of man? Creationist Henry Morris does the same thing there.

    Rick Warden quoting me:
    2. you people always leave out whenever you quote that Psychology Today article.

    I simply clicked the link you provided:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/quote-evolution-no-morality

    - If you wanted me to read a certain article you could have provided a link.

    I provided the rest of the quote which shoots down their message within the same post where I had the links!

    I posted the part of the article that those people left out!

    I also noted that the CMI people had read the same article and had left out the exact same words that the AIG article did. Even after I wrote Don Batton about it, he just went over the same words the CMI/AIG article did and claimed no misquote.


    (cont'd).....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rick: Bergman outline's Hitler's Darwinian rationale as follows:
    Hitler didn't have a "Darwinian Rationale". He was a creationist rather than accepting evolution.
    From Mien Kampf:
    “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”
    Bergman and you are both quite simply wrong, and Bergman seems to be pushing an ideological agenda rather than simply reporting history.
    Bergmans's rubbish is mentioned in the link I posted earlier (repost here):
    "Another typical example, attempting to link Darwinism to the Nazis, is by the creationist Jerry Bergman. It is notable, though, that this piece consists almost entirely of assertions backed up, not by actual quotes from the Nazis, but merely by quotes from others about the Nazis. In contrast, in this article I have tried to present sufficient quotes from the Nazis themselves in their own words, that their ideas and motivations are made clear. And read in that context Bergman’s article can be seen as nothing but misrepresentation."

    Rick, perhaps you should rely on better sources for your information?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Havok,

      >Hitler didn't have a "Darwinian Rationale". He was a creationist rather than accepting evolution.

      -From the same article linked in my post:

      ‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20


      >It is notable, though, that this piece consists almost entirely of assertions backed up, not by actual quotes from the Nazis, but merely by quotes from others about the Nazis.

      - If Hitler could not have been considered a Nazi, then who could have been?

      Havok, perhaps you should rely on more objective sources for your information?

      It is possible to be a creationists and an evolutionist, as Darwin himself apparently was (see prior article). Though Hitler gave lip service to Christianity, he did not believe in human exceptionalism, as I pointed out. Human exceptionalism is the logical deduction of scripture. If people want to make illogical deductions, then the illogical deductions should not be considered representative of the original supposed source of inspiration.

      Delete
    2. Rick, Hitler believed that man kind was created by God, that man didn't evolve, and that the Aryan race were "closer" or "higher" than other races (like the Jews).
      I'll repeat the same passage, since you seem to not have read it:
      "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will."
      This is not evolutionary theory. This is creationism.

      Rick: If Hitler could not have been considered a Nazi, then who could have been?
      You again seem to have missed the point.
      The article you mentioned doesn't reference the writings of Nazis to make it's point. It references what other people have said about Nazis. As my quote from Mien Kampf shows (and as the link I mentioned, which you seem to be ignoring also shows) is that Hitler did not accept evolutionary theory. He was a creationist.

      Rick: Though Hitler gave lip service to Christianity, he did not believe in human exceptionalism, as I pointed out.
      This is ridiculous Rick. Hitler believed that man was created directly by the will of God, and that Aryans were "higher" than other races of man.
      If that isn't human exceptionalism, then I don't know what it.

      Rick: It is possible to be a creationists and an evolutionist, as Darwin himself apparently was (see prior article)
      That's not quite the same Rick. Darwin accepted that life evolved, but didn't seem to have a strong opinion about abiogenesis (though he does reference it, and seems to think it plausible).
      Hitler believed in the direct creation of man by God, and of the Aryan race being created "higher" than other races, by this very God.

      You really should read through things before commenting - you seem to make a hash of things when you don't :-)

      Delete
    3. Havok,

      >The article you mentioned doesn't reference the writings of Nazis to make it's point.

      You seemed to have missed the sub-quoted statement from Mein Kamf. It is at the bottom of the main quote:

      ‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20

      In this section in particular Hitler appeals to evolution for his justification:

      “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20

      (Mein Kamf reference: Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958., P. 115)

      If a dictator offers justifications for genocide based on an atheistic evolutionary perspective, denying human exeptionalism, there is no reason to believe his Christianity is sincere.

      Delete
    4. Rick: You seemed to have missed the sub-quoted statement from Mein Kamf. It is at the bottom of the main quote:
      I didn't miss it. It shows a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. As I understand it, the word translated as "evolutionary" can also be translated as "developmentally", and since there is profound ignorance concerning evolutionary theory, coupled with distaste for evolutionary ideas, I think we're better off reading it as "developmentally", so as to avoid the confusion that you are experiencing.

      Rick: If a dictator offers justifications for genocide based on an atheistic evolutionary perspective, denying human exeptionalism, there is no reason to believe his Christianity is sincere.
      Except of course he didn't do this. Hitler offered theistic justification for aryan exceptionalism, and Jewish inferiority.
      Hitler was not an atheist, considered himself a Christian, and believed he was doing God's work. He didn't accept evolutionary biology, at least as far as humans were concerned:
      From Mein Kampf
      "Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God’s handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will…

      Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth.

      Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc…

      From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today."


      Aryans were the higher race because they were more like God:
      "Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures [i.e. Aryans] would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."

      Hitler made his claims on religious/Theistic/Christian grounds rather than scientific/evolutionary grounds.

      Delete
    5. From a list of banned books:

      "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H?ckel)."

      "c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk."

      From this paper

      "But almost immediately, in the mid-1930s, the official guardians of party doctrine quashed any suggestion of consilience between Haeckel’s Darwinism and the kind of biology advanced by their members. Günther Hecht, who represented the National Socialist Party’s Department of Race-Politics (Rassenpolitischen Amt der NSDAP), issued a monitum:

      The common position of materialistic
      monism is philosophically rejected
      completely by the volkisch-biological
      view of National Socialism. . . . The
      party and its representatives must
      not only reject a part of the
      Haeckelian conception — other parts
      of it have occasionally been advanced
      — but, more generally, every internal
      party dispute that involves the
      particulars of research and the
      teachings of Haeckel must cease."


      From a speech in 1935 by Herman Goering
      "God has created the races. He did not want equality and therefore we energetically reject any attempt to falsify the concept of race purity by making it equivalent with racial equality. We have experienced what it means when a people has to live in accordance with the laws of an equality that are alien to its kind"

      The claim that Hitler and/or Nazi Germany were atheistic, or embraced evolutionary biology, or were not theists, simply cannot be maintained when looking at the work of the people themselves.

      Delete
    6. To be fair, there was both christian and atheistic Nazis. But Rick s claim that Hitler only catered to the Christian in his speeches is irrelevant. Some Christian did embrace the Nazi ideology and did consider moral the extermination of Jews. The concept of genocide was completely compatible with the historic cultural tradition of that time and was practiced a long time before the theory of evolution. And since Western culture was in a huge part forged by Christianity, one can make his own conclusion.

      Of course, Rick is going to apply the "no true scotsman fallacy" against them, but he has shown several times the his own logic is far from being perfect. Since his own understanding can be flawed, he cannot claim with absolute certainty that his interpretation of the word of God is the sole possible one. It could be funny to watch him in a debate with a racist Christian, each side claiming that the verses are being taken out of context 8)

      Delete
    7. Anonymous: Some Christian did embrace the Nazi ideology and did consider moral the extermination of Jews.
      I'd say a lot of German Christians embraced it :-)

      Anonymous: Since his own understanding can be flawed, he cannot claim with absolute certainty that his interpretation of the word of God is the sole possible one.
      It seems to me that the bulk of the German's who supported the Nazi movement were sincere in their beliefs. Therefore, if the omnibenevolent God Rick claims exists, surely this God could have divulged to these sincere believers that Nazi ideology was flawed, and prevented the atrovities before they happened.
      Interestingly this didn't happen (and the Church's were often complicit).

      Anonymous: It could be funny to watch him in a debate with a racist Christian, each side claiming that the verses are being taken out of context 8)
      That would be entertaining :-)

      Delete
  23. Ok, for the last time I'm going to try to post the first half of my latest reply to Rick.

    The second half can be found above where it starts with "cont'd"....


    Rick Warden
    1) Reynold, I noticed that you seemed to have missed something. Please answer my simple question:

    In what way could being less intelligent be considered a superior advantage to being more intelligent for humans in any environment?

    One where the religious right is predominant? Other than that, I can't think of any. So what? How does this make me a "eugenicist"?

    Where would that show that I'd favour killing or even selective breeding of people? Where does it show that people of different IQ's are not all of the "human race"? Why have you ignroed the links I gave earlier that shows that as far a "race" goes, all humans are one?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

    If you want to throw down the "eugenics" charge against me, you'd better read some of the links I gave ealier. Let me help you:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr-west-meet-dr.html

    Some more: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/dawkins_and_eugenics_the_backlash.php

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html
    (read Reply by Richard Trott) where he notes:
    The reason the Morris passage is easily interpreted as racist is because Morris refers specifically to "Negroes" and their "genetic character" that he alleges makes them less "intellectual" than others.

    Here's Morris's own words: "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

    Next, Mr. Bergman writes that ,"historians do not generally regard the Hamites as a race." This gives the reader the impression that I have fabricated the correlation of "Hamites" in Morris's text to some "races." It is Morris himself, however, who states that in his opinion, "all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin." This quotation makes it clear that Morris believes that white Europeans are generally not of Hamitic descent. The previous quotation ("especially the Negroes") makes it clear that Morris believes (or believed) that "Negroes" generally are Hamites.


    Read on, why? Remember when you used that (http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dawkins_sides_with_the_race_realists) link where they quoted Dawkins talking about different "races" of man? Creationist Henry Morris does the same thing there.

    Rick Warden quoting me:
    2. you people always leave out whenever you quote that Psychology Today article.

    I simply clicked the link you provided:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/quote-evolution-no-morality

    - If you wanted me to read a certain article you could have provided a link.

    I provided the rest of the quote which shoots down their message within the same post where I had the links!

    I posted the part of the article that those people left out!

    I also noted that the CMI people had read the same article and had left out the exact same words that the AIG article did. Even after I wrote Don Batton about it, he just went over the same words the CMI/AIG article did and claimed no misquote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      To summarize. I asked you, "In what way could being less intelligent be considered a superior advantage to being more intelligent for humans in any environment?"

      And you answered, "I can't think of any. So what?"

      So what? Well, you considered my premises shaky. Consider the 2nd one:

      2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.

      But if there is no viable reason why being less intelligent should have a survival advantage in any environment, then, obviously, higher intelligence could be considered an advantage in any environment. So, higher intelligence could be considered superior to lower intelligence.

      >If you want to throw down the "eugenics" charge against me, you'd better read some of the links I gave ealier.

      - You are missing my point. I simply wrote that, according to atheisic, non-religious belief, evolution COULD be used to theoretically justify racism and genocide. I did not write that is what YOU or DAWKINS personally believe should be done. There is a big difference.

      Delete
    2. Oh, you didn't? Maybe you should alter the title of this post then. It says nothing about whether it COULD (which is a bs claim itself) but that it does justify racism and genocide. Havok, see below, is right. You are backpedaling.

      Besides, you have missed my point...I gave examples of CHRISTIANS like Henry Morris and that Dr. Tinkle guy (from that pandasthumb link) who himself practiced eugenics. And Tinkle was a founding member of the Creation Research Society, a young earth group.

      Henry Morris used the bible to justify his racist view, something that you obviously never bothered to even check out.

      How can I have a dialogue with someone when he keeps ignoring all the facts I put out here?

      Delete
    3. >Henry Morris used the bible to justify his racist view, something that you obviously never bothered to even check out...How can I have a dialogue with someone when he keeps ignoring all the facts I put out here?

      - Reynold, It seems you don't have a handle on the biblical position of human value. Humans are created in God's image as spiritual beings and the spiritual quality supersedes physical qualities. This is the bottom line. When you keep this in mind you will understand why Morris' explanations are not racist.

      The non-religious atheist evolutionist cannot appeal to a spiritual value and, thus, physiological qualities are considered the primary value of humans by many people.

      If there are people who claim to be Christians and they support racist eugenics, the only logical conclusion is that they don't understand the Bible or they are not sincere Christians.

      Delete
    4. Rick: When you keep this in mind you will understand why Morris' explanations are not racist.
      Rick, I'm not sure what your definition of "Racist" is, but it doesn't seem to be the common usage.
      What about the racism of Luther and others, who have justified their beliefs by relying upon the Christian Bible?

      Rick: If there are people who claim to be Christians and they support racist eugenics, the only logical conclusion is that they don't understand the Bible or they are not sincere Christians.
      This is not the only logical conclusion.
      You could be mistaken in your understanding.
      The bible could simply be ambiguous, or put forward a number of different views.
      I'm sure there are other possibilities, but since you're committed to the bible being without error, prior to any engagement with the evidence, you simply cannot countenance anything other than your own position.

      Delete
    5. Rick: The non-religious atheist evolutionist cannot appeal to a spiritual value
      This is false, since there is nothing about bare atheism which implies materialism.
      Perhaps you should have simply written "naturalist" or "materialist" or "physicalist" where you wrote "atheist?

      Rick: and, thus, physiological qualities are considered the primary value of humans by many people.
      This seems to me to be taking a very naive view regarding value without God. Different theories of value are available which do not appear to devolve into this simplistic scenario you put forward (for example, "intrinsic value" is compatible with atheism, but is not necessarily "naturalistic").
      Even if it were true that your naive view was the only available theory of value, that doesn't mean that racism and genocide are compatible with this viewpoint - you do little more than assert this point.

      Delete
    6. Havok,

      >This is false, since there is nothing about bare atheism which implies materialism.
      Perhaps you should have simply written "naturalist" or "materialist" or "physicalist" where you wrote "atheist?

      - How is a "non-religious atheist evolutionist" referring to "bare atheism"? Sometimes you really concern me, Havok. I pray you wake up spiritually before you totally lose it.

      Delete
    7. What part of "non-religious atheist evolutionist" necessitates materialism Rick?

      Delete
  24. Rick: But if there is no viable reason why being less intelligent should have a survival advantage in any environment, then, obviously, higher intelligence could be considered an advantage in any environment.
    More education (correlated with higher intelligence) is correlated with fewer offspring, so in the real world, higher intelligence appears to actually be selected against.

    Rick: So, higher intelligence could be considered superior to lower intelligence.
    It could be, but it could also be the other way around.
    That's the thing Rick - instead of just throwing around what you think is the case, or could be, you need to support your claims.
    And as has been pointed out to you, higher IQ (very likely) comes with the cost of higher caloric consumption.

    Rick: You are missing my point. I simply wrote that, according to atheisic, non-religious belief, evolution COULD be used to theoretically justify racism and genocide. I did not write that is what YOU or DAWKINS personally believe should be done. There is a big difference.
    This seems like some serious back pedaling Rick.
    Your original point seemed to be that racism was a logical inference from evolutionary theory, while it couldn't logically be connected to Christianity. Both of these claims seem to have been undermined.
    Now you want to say that evolutionary theory can be used to justify racism and genocide - but that is an uninteresting claim - people can and do use all sorts of justifications for their bigoted views.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I do feel like a parrot for some reason. 8)

    1.I did explain to you that your understanding of intelligence is flawed. Unfortunately, you ignored my comment as usual.

    R:...but with a higher IQ you would actually be thinking less hard because the answers would come easier and faster.

    A: Your basis to assert that people with a high IQ use their brain less than people with a low IQ is wrong. To maintain a high capacity of the brain one has to train it constantly or else it will atrophy itself.

    Imagine people coming to work after a long vacation. Their effectiveness has dropped considerably, because they did not train their brains during that time.

    2.As for improving humankind, using genocide and eugenics, it is idiotic, contradicting evolution and natural selection. I did explain to you before that it would significantly diminish the number of possible gene combination, but the more combinations our genes can provide the more successful we are.

    Your fear of some artificial forced breeding of humans and the annihilation of "lesser" beings, without their consent, is groundless from the point of view of science.

    1. Genetical engineering can provide the possibility of correcting undesirable mutation, without "terminating" the person itself.

    2. In theory it is possible to force humans to breed in a specific way, but what would the cost of such policy be? People will be constantly protesting and trying to break free. Why bother with tyranny when one can achieve the same results by just encouraging people to play sports and educate themselves?

    3. Human beings are not just about their genes. The social structure plays an equally important role. Just by improving genes, no major problem will be solved.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Another thing that I don't think has been mentioned is the types of justification for racism being compared here.
    Even though they are very likely to be flawed, the IQ studies could actually pan out, and it might be the case that group A has, all other things being equal, a higher average IQ than group B. While this would still not justify racism (as I don't think a person's intelligence signifies their value), it provides some concrete empirical basis, and lacks the backing of some omnipotent being.
    Contrast that with religious claims to racism. These are dependant upon subjective interpretations of ambiguous and error prone books which are claimed to be the inerrant word of the creator. This gives this flawed "knowledge" an additional weight in the eyes of believers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Havom,

    >Your original point seemed to be that racism was a logical inference from evolutionary...

    - This all depends on a person's perspective. A Buddhist, a Christian and an anti-religious atheist will infer different logical meaning depending on foundational beliefs. For someone like Dawkins, racism apparently is the logical inference of evolution, however, you still cannot prove what a person thinks or believes, only what their statements logically imply.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rick: For someone like Dawkins, racism apparently is the logical inference of evolution
    This is utter rubbish Rick. This is not something Dawkins' would claim, nor is it something that you've demonstrated. It is a ridiculous accusation which seems you only put forward because you believe it makes your own ridiculous beliefs look more favourable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >This is utter rubbish Rick. This is not something Dawkins' would claim, nor is it something that you've demonstrated.

      - Havok, In comparison to Christian and Buddhist beliefs, I've demonstrated in my article why racism can easily be rationalized by ant-religious atheists who believe in macro-evolution.

      Dawkins has not offered any reasons why he should not be a racist, on the contrary, with regard to eugenics, he offers, "I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding"

      What does he imply? 'He's not confident of the moral desirability of the selective breeding for humans.'

      His words imply that he is leaning towards a favorable view of eugenics.

      If I wrote, "I am against selective human breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability", the statement would not make sense.

      However, if I wrote, "I am in favor of human selective breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" This statement makes sense. The statement "though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" is simply a clarification of a positive opinion.

      In basic outlines of the history of eugenics, you will find the following:

      "This aspect of eugenics has historically been tainted with scientific racism."

      http://www.google.com.ua/search?q=eugenics+racism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

      In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, where Dawkins approves the theme of human selective breeding, did Dawkins in anyway imply there is a danger of scientific racism or did he in any way expressed disappointment with this known connection with eugenics? No he did not. On the contrary, Dawkins simply implies he is favorable towards the possibilities of human selective breeding and eugenics.

      Delete
    2. Rick: Havok, In comparison to Christian and Buddhist beliefs, I've demonstrated in my article why racism can easily be rationalized by ant-religious atheists who believe in macro-evolution.
      Actually, you've tried to smear Dawkins by attributing to him positions he does not hold.
      You've also shown that people will rationalise their beliefs with reference to things which do not support those beliefs.
      And you've also failed to show that Christianity doesn't also lead to racism and genocide, and there have been many references to show that Christians have indeed rationalised their racism and approval of genocide by reference to Christianity (Luther quoted from the bible extensively to justify his anti-semitism and WLC is a documented apologist for god commanded genocide, for example).

      Rick: Dawkins has not offered any reasons why he should not be a racist, on the contrary, with regard to eugenics, he offers, "I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding"
      So you completely ignore the bracketed part of his statement?
      Not surprising since you have amply demonstrated a disregard for the truth.

      Delete
    3. Rick: In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, where Dawkins approves the theme of human selective breeding,
      From the passages you and your link quoted, this is false. Dawkins simply stated that it could be done, not that it should be.
      Why do you need to lie Rick?

      Rick: did Dawkins in anyway imply there is a danger of scientific racism or did he in any way expressed disappointment with this known connection with eugenics? No he did not.
      Irrelevant to the point, as far as I can tell.

      Rick: On the contrary, Dawkins simply implies he is favorable towards the possibilities of human selective breeding and eugenics.
      Another complete falsehood Rick. Unless you can actually produce a quote where Dawkins is actually endorsing something, I expect you to acknowledge this lie and take it back.

      Delete
    4. Havok,

      Every subject has an historical context. If the professional "evolutionary biologist" Richard Dawkins is not familiar with the fact that the history of eugenics is tainted with scientific racism, who's fault is that? Not mine.

      If Dawkins want's to weigh in with his opinion on the subject, his words are fair game for analysis.

      It is clear Dawkins offers no negative connotation or implication whatsoever with regard to the historical context of eugenics.

      On the contrary, as I pointed out, in according with simple English grammar, Dawkins' statements on human selective breeding lean more towards a positive opinion than a negative one. The fact you feel the need to call this evidence a "lie" shows you have some kind of ideological reason for defending Dawkins which is not logical or rational.

      Delete
    5. Rick: If the professional "evolutionary biologist" Richard Dawkins is not familiar with the fact that the history of eugenics is tainted with scientific racism, who's fault is that? Not mine.
      As you've been told over and over, eugenics goes back far further than Darwin's "The origin".
      And as I pointed out Dawkins quotes are not promoting a favourable view of eugenics, he's simply stating facts.

      Dawkins states that selective breeding of humans could give results similar to what we see in animals (larger size, larger strength, etc). He doesn't say we should do this, and in fact, explicitely states that he is not offering anything other than a factual observation.
      However, you (and the link you supplied) seem to take that explicit lack of comment about the morality of selective breeding/eugenics as a tacit approval of it - you're reading your own opinion into the text (something you seem to do with almost everything, it appears).

      Delete
    6. Rick: It is clear Dawkins offers no negative connotation or implication whatsoever with regard to the historical context of eugenics.
      Dawkins doesn't appear to address the historical context at all, so this seems irrelevant.

      Rick: On the contrary, as I pointed out, in according with simple English grammar, Dawkins' statements on human selective breeding lean more towards a positive opinion than a negative one.
      This is simply false Rick. Dawkins doesn't say this at all, and I would think that his statement that he is not saying selective breeding is moral would actually imply the opposite of your conclusion.

      Rick: The fact you feel the need to call this evidence a "lie" shows you have some kind of ideological reason for defending Dawkins which is not logical or rational.
      No, it is a lie because it is false Rick. Dawkins does not, in the passages you've quoted, or anywhere else to my knowledge, endorse the views you are claiming that he endorses.
      To claim something to be true when it isn't, as you are doing, is commonly called "lying", especially when the falsehood is pointed out, yet the person (you) continues to promote the falsehood.
      Your inability to actually accept correction speaks volumes about your own commitments in this regard :-)

      Delete
    7. Havok,

      >No, it is a lie because it is false Rick.

      - Show me specifically which sentence you believe is false:

      "Any brief review of the subject of human selective breeding, also known as Eugenics, would reveal that the subject is tainted with scientific racism, civil rights abuses and horrific genocide. Richard Dawkins, as a professional "evolutionary biologist", should be aware of this history and context. As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply a favorable attitude towards the subject, albeit cautiously favorable.

      If I wrote, "I am against selective human breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability", the statement would not make sense. However, if I wrote, "I am in favor of human selective breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" This statement makes sense. The statement "though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" is simply a clarification of a positive opinion.

      Delete
    8. Rick: On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply a favorable attitude towards the subject, albeit cautiously favorable.
      the above is false Rick. Dawkins does not imply a favourable attitude towards eugenics or scientific racism, or anything of the sort.
      in fact, as I pointed out, his statement that his claim that selective breeding could be successful but that did not take into account the morality of the situation indicates that he is against it, as far as common usage of the English language is concerned.

      I pointed this out above, and you're continuing to push the falshood, hence you're a liar.
      The narrative you tell yourself in your head doesn't seem to allow you to accept this.

      Delete
    9. Havok, Let's try again. Maybe if you have a cup of coffee or tea it will help you focus. What little detail did you leave out of your reply? I asked for one simple thing:

      "Show me specifically which sentence you believe is false"

      - It's very easy to make generalized statements and accusations, Havok. But can you actually demonstrate your position with an actual sentence using a real quote with actual words of mine? That would be a start. Thanks.

      Delete
    10. There is nothing false in that quote of Dawkins. He just never spoke about his own attitude towards eugenics in this one. What is false is not his quote, but your interpretation of it. The same way you do with your Bible 8)

      Delete
    11. Rick, the sentence I quoted, from you, is false. It's been shown to be false, to you. You continue to present it as if it were true, hence you are a liar.

      You should try harder to follow the conversation, and put less effort into appearing condescending.

      Delete
    12. Havok,

      >Rick, the sentence I quoted, from you, is false. It's been shown to be false, to you. You continue to present it as if it were true, hence you are a liar...You should try harder to follow the conversation, and put less effort into appearing condescending.

      - Which sentence are you referring to? - Is it one summarizing my points or one of the points themselves?

      Let me ask you a simple question, Havok:

      Do you recognize that some of the following descriptions reveal positive beliefs and others portray negative ones?

      confident in
      not confident
      somewhat sure
      not sure
      neutral
      hesitant
      doubtful
      don't believe
      can't believe
      certainly doubt

      Delete
    13. *sigh*
      It's like pulling teeth Rick.
      This sentence, which I quoted above, the claim of which I pointed out earlier as being false, is such a sentence:
      Rick: On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply a favorable attitude towards the subject, albeit cautiously favorable.

      Rick: Do you recognize that some of the following descriptions reveal positive beliefs and others portray negative ones?
      Let me ask you Rick, do you understand that someone saying
      ""I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding"
      The "pretty confident" relates only to the practical feasibility, and confers a negative connotation to the "moral or political desirability"?

      But keep lying for Jesus Rick! :-)

      Delete
    14. Havok,

      >The "pretty confident" relates only to the practical feasibility, and confers a negative connotation to the "moral or political desirability"?

      This is patently false, Havok. The implied meaning is a matter of conventional grammar.

      Firstly, as I already pointed out, the use of the word "though" does not imply a negative opinion but "a challenge to overcome" - i.e. it is cautiously positive.

      http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/9-2.html

      Secondly, if a phrase cannot stand on its own then the missing meaning is necessarily derived from the context of the sentence. See point 57 in the following linked outline regarding this principle:

      http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/overview.html


      I've updated the article in order to clarify these two points:

      Dawkins' implied meaning may be interpreted in two ways.

      Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" in the parenthesis. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific Eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" in the beginning of the parenthesis, but he did not.

      Secondly, incomplete supplemental relative phrases (and parenthetical phrases) derive meaning from the main clause.What additional information do we need in Dawkins' parenthetical clause in order for it to stand on its own? Let's insert it: (though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of Eugenics]) The phrase "not confident about'" is similar to the phrase 'not convinced of' and the meaning is quite clear: If some additional reason should persuade him, Dawkins could indeed become confident (privately and publicly) that Eugenics is morally acceptable. Based on the two reasons mentioned, it is logical to assume that Dawkins is cautiously open-minded towards being convinced that Eugenics can be morally acceptable.

      Havok, any time you would like to apologize for calling me a "liar for Jesus" you are welcome to.

      Delete
    15. Rick: This is patently false, Havok. The implied meaning is a matter of conventional grammar.
      No it isn't.

      Rick: Firstly, as I already pointed out, the use of the word "though" does not imply a negative opinion but "a challenge to overcome" - i.e. it is cautiously positive.
      No it does not.
      "I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding"
      Dawkins' confidence relates to the practical feasibility of selective breeding, as has been pointed out, and as I think you accept.
      The "though" is being used to contrast Dawkins' confidence of the practical success of selective breeding with his lack of confidence in the moral or political desirability of such a thing.
      "Though" can be used, and is used, for more than your link indicates, though such alternative uses would not serve your purposes.

      That you went in to so much needless detail in order to try make your point (and failed in the process) only goes to show your inability to accept contrary data.
      The better course of action for you would have been to have accepted your error and moved on.

      Rick: Havok, any time you would like to apologize for calling me a "liar for Jesus" you are welcome to.
      Anytime you'd like to stop being a liar for Jesus, I'll stop calling you one.

      Though should you cease your lying for Jesus, you will always have been a liar for Jesus in the past.

      Delete
    16. And just to add to the the issue, this link discusses further uses of "though".

      I wonder why you felt compelled to interpret Dawkin's statement in such a negative manner Rick, when grammar doesn't demand it, and a plain reading (as well as any background knowledge of Dawkins) indicates that it was not intended in this negative manner in the least.

      Poor, poor Rick :-)

      Delete
    17. Ps. Rick, perhaps you could mail Dawkins and see if he'd further explain his position, like you did with Vilenkin.
      Then, if he admits that he is cautiously optimistic about the moral and/or political desirability of eugenics, I'll apologise to you for falsely accusing you :-)

      Delete
    18. >And just to add to the the issue, this link discusses further uses of "though".

      - The provided link has nothing to do with the word "though" as noted:

      Today's topic is “although” versus “while.”

      >I wonder why you felt compelled to interpret Dawkin's statement in such a negative manner Rick, when grammar doesn't demand it

      - I just documented what Dawkins wrote and what it means. Your false link, Havok, is nothing but disinfo.

      >Ps. Rick, perhaps you could mail Dawkins and see if he'd further explain his position, like you did with Vilenkin.

      - If Dawkins considers William Lane Craig substandard to his own CV and intellect, he certainly won't find me worth replying to.

      In short, Havok, you have no excuse for calling me a liar. Dawkins' view on the subject of eugenics is cautiously open-minded as has clearly been shown. It's sad that you feel the need to comment on multiple articles calling me a liar. Your comments have been shown to be nothing more than spam, spamming for Satan.

      Delete
    19. Rick: - The provided link has nothing to do with the word "though" as noted:

      Today's topic is “although” versus “while.”

      Rick, if you had bothered to read the article you would have noticed this:

      “Although” Versus “Though”

      First, it's fine to substitute “though” for “although.”In the way we're using it here, “though” is simply a less formal version of “although,” and it's in such common use that it's OK to use it in formal writing too. In fact, “though” came before “although.” In the 1300s, before “although” became one word, it was two words--“all” and “though”--with the “all” there to add emphasis to “though (5, 6).”

      You can't always do the opposite and substitute “although” for “though” because “though” also has other meanings. Here are two examples where you couldn't make a substitution.

      He ran as though zombies were chasing him.

      Cats make me sneeze; I love dogs, though.


      So, the link certainly has something to do with the word "though".

      Rick: - I just documented what Dawkins wrote and what it means. Your false link, Havok, is nothing but disinfo.
      You quoted what he wrote, and then forced your tortured interpretation upon it.

      Rick: - If Dawkins considers William Lane Craig substandard to his own CV and intellect, he certainly won't find me worth replying to.
      Dawkins actually often replies to comments on the rd.net website. He appears to be quite generous with his time.

      Rick: In short, Havok, you have no excuse for calling me a liar.
      I've shown that you have knowingly misrepresented Dawkins position. You've promoted something which is an untruth - that's called "lying" Rick.

      Rick: Dawkins' view on the subject of eugenics is cautiously open-minded as has clearly been shown.
      No Rick. You provided a single link from a grammer quiz. You didn't bother to do any further research into either other uses of the words in question, nor into Dawkins other stated views.

      Rick: It's sad that you feel the need to comment on multiple articles calling me a liar. Your comments have been shown to be nothing more than spam, spamming for Satan.
      If the shoe fits, wear it.
      If you don't like the label of "liar", then you should avoid lying (or at least avoid getting caught in a lie).
      If you didn't like the accusation being spread around your blog, then you shouldn't have asked for an undeserved apology all over your blog.

      Delete
    20. Lets look once again at the sentence which you continue to lie about Rick, and see if you will continue in your dishonesty, or face the music.

      Dawkins states, as you've quoted:
      "The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding..."
      You claim that "It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle.". This is simply false (as you should have found prior to making your claims), and is a result of you apparently relying solely upon a grammar quiz on the internet for your claims, rather than an actual investigation into the uses of the term "though".

      If we look at Merriam Webster, we see though defined as:
      1. in spite of the fact that
      2. in spite of the possibility that

      (Note: a google search shows there is fairly uniform agreement to this definition).

      There seems to be no inherent indication of a "challenge to overcome" here.

      If we expand Dawkins' bracketed statement, and substitute the 1st definition (the second doesn't seem to make much sense in this context) for the term "though", we can clearly see that you're mistaken:
      (though not the moral or political desirability)
      becomes
      (though I am not confident about the moral or political desirability)
      becomes
      (in spite of the fact that I am not confident about the moral of political desirability)

      We can now clearly see that Dawkins' statement does not indicate that he is supportive of selective breeding in the least bit. We can clearly see that you have forced an unfavourable interpretation upon the statement. It is clear that your claim concerning the statement is false.

      Delete
    21. Rick: First, the parenthetical context of Dawkins' view:(though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]).
      So Dawkins has no confidence in the moral or political desirability of selective breeding in humans. He is not convinced of the moral or political desirability of selective breeding.
      There is no "challenge to be overcome" no "cautious optimism". That is all in your head.
      Seems to be a slam dunk against your claims, no?

      Oh, you keep repeating the definition of "though" you cribbed from a grammar quiz on the internet, and refuse to even countenance actual definitions and usages of the term from moer reputable sources.

      Typical of you Rick - you know the "Truth" and are willing to twist any arguments and evidence in order to rationalise this to yourself and others. reality doesn't matter, only your beliefs matter.

      Delete
  29. Anonymous,

    >A: Your basis to assert that people with a high IQ use their brain less than people with a low IQ is wrong. To maintain a high capacity of the brain one has to train it constantly or else it will atrophy itself.

    - This point is a non-issue to bein with because a majority of people will consider intelligence as the most important survival mechanism regardless of how many calories are burned.

    After human evolution achieved a certain stage, what is called "postbiological evolution" became most important factor in success, according to mainstream theory. This means that brute strength ceased to be the most important factor, but problem solving and intelligence now were:

    "But as survival is still the main driving force behind life and that intelligence and knowledge is currently the most important factor for that survival."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postbiological_evolution

    Evolution has no moral or political agenda; it is merely a manifestation of the fact that some persons have superior survival mechanisms than others. Evolution has endowed human beings with intelligence because intelligence is the most potent survival mechanism.

    http://www.rationality.net/intelligence.htmte

    Someone's logic regarding mass persecution:

    "The evolution of the Jews gained momentum during the extermination of Jews in World War II."

    The sales popularity of Richard Lynn's Bell Curve book also underscores the belief that intelligence is most important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postbiological_evolution

      In case you hadn't noticed, that's an orphan article on transhumanism. You're retreating back into "Some people who believe in evolution believe X, therefore evolution leads to X" again.

      And you do it twice more with the quote from rationality.net and the utter nonsense I notice you don't even bother to link to, but only cite as "Someone's logic..." Somehow, I suspect that if I dismissed the last person as someone with a deep and profound misunderstanding of evolution, you'd not accept that -- even though, again, it's as deep and profound as you claim the misintepreters of the Bible are.

      The sales popularity of Richard Lynn's Bell Curve book also underscores the belief that intelligence is most important.

      As has been pointed out, you've gone from arguing logical premises and conclusions to an argument from popularity. This is not a step in the right direction.

      I notice you've stopped responding to me altogether; I will, however, repeat my suggestion: Try emphasizing the positive in your worldview, rather than trying (and failing) to smear those who disagree with you with bad logic. Whether or not it works better from a persuasive point of view (and I suspect it would, as, among other things, it would not arouse the same ire among those you smear), it's better for your conscience and your soul (for whatever definition of that last term you choose to use.)

      Delete
    2. >You're retreating back into "Some people who believe in evolution believe X, therefore evolution leads to X" again.

      - No, you are simply missing my thesis. It's right there in the first paragraph:

      I do not offer that the theory of evolution in and of itself justifies anything. However, when this theory is combined with moral relativism, and the kind of anti-religious atheism that Richard Dawkins embraces, then not only may racism be rationalized, but racist genocide may be rationalized as well.

      Delete
    3. So, in other words, "Racists can use this to justify things." And as we've seen amply demonstrated throughout this thread, Christians can (and have) used their beliefs to justify genocide as well. Why bother spending so many words on "Bad people do bad things"?

      Your thesis leads in one direction -- your *conclusion*, however, is this:
      "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian.

      And, as has been discussed many times in this thread, that answer is *wrong*.

      You start out saying "Oh, this may happen" and end by saying, to use your preferred syllogism form (and justing from your presumptions):

      1: Evolutionary theory, combined with anti-theism and moral relativism, can justify genocide.
      2: Becoming Christian prevents genocide
      3: Therefore, genocide is the result of evolutionary theory, anti-theism, and moral relativism.

      That's the case you make in its entirety. Now, from what I've seen, people are willing to accept #1, but only when combined with #1a: Racists will use whatever is handy and convincing to justify their beliefs.

      And, as was the case in Rwanda, as was the case with pogroms (I'll even leave the Nazis out of this one, because I don't need their case), #2 is clearly false.

      So, instead of quoting your first paragraph and claiming relative innocuousness, look at your entire article before making your claims?

      Delete
  30. Rick: This point is a non-issue to bein with because a majority of people will consider intelligence as the most important survival mechanism regardless of how many calories are burned.
    Your point is irrelevant because we're talking about objective criteria not peoples subjective opinions.

    Rick: The sales popularity of Richard Lynn's Bell Curve book also underscores the belief that intelligence is most important.
    But Rick, we're not talking about people's beliefs here. Were talking about logical deduction.

    If you want to claim that people believe racism results from evolutionary biology and atheism - that is completely uninteresting, because it is trivially true - you are an example of someone who appears to believe this.
    If you want to argue that racism actually results from evolutionary biology (which is what your original point actually appeared to be), then what you are saying here is completely beside the points.

    I suppose it isn't too surprising that you equivocate between these positions, since you seem to think that reality should conform to your own wishful thinking. But such is not the case Rick :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: This point is a non-issue to bein with because a majority of people will consider intelligence as the most important survival mechanism regardless of how many calories are burned.

      Havok: Your point is irrelevant because we're talking about objective criteria not peoples subjective opinions.

      - Havok, you need to read my premises more carefully and avoid injecting your own prejudices into them.

      There are three key words you seemed to have missed "could be considered" - This IS a reflection of human opinion.

      "In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race."

      I didn't write, "evolution selects for the most intelligent" But this is what you continue to infer.

      In order to clarify my point let me ask you,

      1) Would you prefer your children, if you have any, be more intelligent or less intelligent?

      2) Do you consider brute strength more important for the survival of the human race or intelligence?

      3) Do you believe that humans can guide human evolution today through eugenics?

      Delete
    2. Then do change the title of your article of "How Dawkins Evolution justifies Racism and Genocide" to "How a misunderstanding of Evolution can justifie Racism and Genocide". And all the problems will be solved.

      However, then there would be no point in your article at all.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      No misunderstanding at all. Eugenics and "guided evolution" have been around since people began offering their sick babies as sacrifices to idols, whether or not people were aware they were performing eugenics or not. War and genocide are a part of the theoretical evolutionary process, therefore, human opinions, decisions and political policies have influenced human evolution more than some people perhaps would care to admit. This is simply a brute fact.

      Delete
    4. I explained why your position is faulty in my post at the bottom.

      Delete
  31. R:This point is a non-issue to begin with because a majority of people will consider intelligence as the most important survival mechanism regardless of how many calories are burned.

    Personally, I do value intelligence highly, but as Havok mentioned, that is irrelevant to objective facts.

    You still did not address my second point, much more relevant, how eugenics and genocide can be justified by science and common sense in a godless society.

    R:Evolution has no moral or political agenda; it is merely a manifestation of the fact that some persons have superior survival mechanisms than others. Evolution has endowed human beings with intelligence because intelligence is the most potent survival mechanism.

    I completely agree with the above statement. The problem would be that you are trying to make a connection between morality and evolution, while there is none.

    You are also ignorant about other systems of morality, foolishly lumping every non-theistic one as "relativistic", illogical and inferior to theistic morality. Dawkings, as far as I know, has not explained where he takes his morality from. Why don t you ask the man himself like you did with Vielenkin, instead of making ridiculous accusations on a topic you have no knowledge off?

    R:Someone's logic regarding mass persecution:
    "The evolution of the Jews gained momentum during the extermination of Jews in World War II."

    That is not logic, that is a bold assertion. The person cannot be talking about genetical changes (too short of a time lapse). He could be talking about social changes in the Jewish community (that did happen), but his choice of words is confusing to put it mildly and that has little to do with biology.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous,

    >You still did not address my second point, much more relevant, how eugenics and genocide can be justified by science and common sense in a godless society.

    - I believe points I offered Havok address this:

    1) Do you consider brute strength more important for the survival of the human race or intelligence?

    2) Do you believe that humans can guide human evolution today through eugenics?


    >The problem would be that you are trying to make a connection between morality and evolution, while there is none.

    - This is not a problem, this is a major point in my argument. I added this today in the syllogisms:

    1. In accordance with non-religious atheism, morality is merely the result of human evolution.

    2. Evolution is a-moral and offers no objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior.

    3. Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.

    >You are also ignorant about other systems of morality, foolishly lumping every non-theistic one as "relativistic", illogical and inferior to theistic morality.

    - If I am ignorant, then enlighten me. Please outline your best example of objective atheist morality, one that is not based on a relativistic premise.

    ReplyDelete
  33. R:Do you consider brute strength more important for the survival of the human race or intelligence?

    You are introducing a false dilemma, The answer to your question: most likely both. If you want a more precise answer, please provide a context.

    R:Do you believe that humans can guide human evolution today through eugenics?

    I believe that stupidity is infinite and someone could try something like that. The same way like someone could use a cooking knife to slaughter some innocent bystanders.

    Guiding evolution through eugenics would be the most stupid and antiscientific thing to do (we have only a limited understanding of the genes for now, we would diminish significantly the natural diversity of genes, we would have to waste huge resources to control the opposition, we would not solve any major social problems).

    R:Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.

    Rick... That is a huge non-sequitor. It is like saying that since the theory of gravity is a-moral and offers no objective basis for morality than there is no objective basis for morality. Social evolution explains why things are the way they are, not how they ought to be. Do you understand the difference?

    R:If I am ignorant, then enlighten me. Please outline your best example of objective atheist morality, one that is not based on a relativistic premise.

    I already explained to you what sort of morality I have and which I consider the best one. I cannot find a suitable label for myself. I am at the same time a utilitarian, a secularist, a humanist, a descriptive relativist and so on.

    I also told you that I value happiness and progress above all. It is a subjective choice of mine, but which is consistent with the preferences of most of humanity and which allows our social and biological potential to flourish. To achieve happiness and progress, two objective features of reality (they can be approximately measured and defined by science), one should behave themselves in a more or less precise manner. Do you understand my position?

    ReplyDelete
  34. So, to sum it up. My objective basis for morality is happiness and progress.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh! And if you want an example of a working atheistic objective morality (even if I personally reject the term "objective morality", this morality is based on completely objective premises) look up Contractualism. It is completely compatible with my morality.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous,

    >So, to sum it up. My objective basis for morality is happiness and progress....this morality is based on completely objective premises) look up Contractualism. It is completely compatible with my morality.

    - So what is the objective moral anchor of your morality? What is the standard by which you specifically determine what is "good" and "bad" behavior?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: So what is the objective moral anchor of your morality? What is the standard by which you specifically determine what is "good" and "bad" behavior?
      Anonymous already gave you the answer:
      "My objective basis for morality is happiness and progress"

      What more do you require and why?

      Delete
    2. Indeed, I have pointed out to you what is my anchor for morality. I even have two anchors, so my boat is much more steady 8)

      I am little tired of providing the same link over and over again. Though, I should praise you for trying to understand your opponent and do get past all of that indoctrination.

      - for happiness

      http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

      - for progress

      Look up the term "Human Development Index"

      Delete
    3. By happiness, I expect you mean something like "eudaimonia", as expounded by Aristotle.

      Delete
    4. Well... There is a couple of points that I reject in Nicomachean Ethics, but basically yes.

      Delete
    5. I've not read "Nicomanachean Ehics" itself, but I do find Virtue Ethics very interesting.

      Delete
    6. The most ironic thing in this discussion would be that, according to the Christian dogma, the most immoral and repugnant person could end up in heaven for accepting Jesus on their deathbed, while the most caring and altruistic person would end up in hell, for the sole fact of not accepting a god one has no sufficient evidence to believe in. Truly, God is omnibenevolent.

      I do wonder... Could Hitler have ended up in heaven? He did believe in Jesus after all. The only reason for him to be in hell would be his suicide. But it would have been the biggest laugh if he had repented before a priest and ended up executed by the Nuremberg tribunal. 8)

      Delete
    7. Anonymous,

      >The most ironic thing in this discussion would be that, according to the Christian dogma, the most immoral and repugnant person could end up in heaven for accepting Jesus on their deathbed, while the most caring and altruistic person would end up in hell...

      - That is what the example of the thief on the cross represents. Even if the most hardened criminal repents of his sins and received Christ as his savior, he is forgiven of his sins and receives spiritual rebirth and eternal life.

      People who consider themselves "good" have a difficult time understanding this because they do not appreciate the perfection of God's holiness. They compare themselves with other people, instead of comparing themselves with God's perfection.

      The self-righteous religious Pharisees hated Jesus for this reason, while prostitutes and criminals were often glad there was a way for them to be cleansed and saved.

      Choose your path: 1) No righteousness, 2) self-righteousness or 3) Christ's righteousness. Choose wisely.

      Delete
    8. So the highest act of love to your children would be to kill them before they are tainted with sin and sacrifice your own soul for eternal damnation. See any problems there?

      And do you deny that there are good people that are not Christians?

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,

      >So the highest act of love to your children would be to kill them

      - No, that is not love. What is much more common is abortion, the sacrifice of children often for the love of self. Of all the abortions 83 % are by unmarried women and 17% by married women. Christianity strongly promotes marriage while the atheist view of marriage is losing favor in preference towards cohabitation. You can hopefully figure out what that implies.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/ns/health-womens_health/t/whos-getting-abortions-not-who-youd-think/#.T0m9LYH4IqE

      Delete
    10. A & H,

      >Anonymous already gave you the answer:
      "My objective basis for morality is happiness and progress"

      - Most people consider happiness to be a subjective phenomenon, not objective. For this reason it is not an objective moral anchor and it's a poor one all things considered.

      Ted Bundy was pleased as a serial killer and rapist and if these pleasures are his ultimate moral anchor then who are you to judge according to your personal views of happiness?

      As far as "progress" goes, moves are a reflection of culture and they show there is increased corruption, divorcee and promiscuous sex than in the past. Progress is a subjective term as well. Your 2 moral anchors don't hold very well.

      Delete
    11. R:Most people consider happiness to be a subjective phenomenon, not objective.

      Did you read Maslow s paper? What point about happiness is subjective there? And who said that happiness is a complete synonym for pleasure?

      R:Progress is a subjective term as well.

      What is subjective about the Human development index?

      R:No, that is not love. What is much more common is abortion, the sacrifice of children often for the love of self.

      So on what grounds are you going to blame devout Christians who killed their more or less big kids so that they are not tainted by sin and go straight for heaven (which did happen)? That they opposed God and that it is much worse than guaranteeing to their children a life in heaven?

      Is it moral to allow a good person like Gandhi to rot in hell while an ex-rapist enjoys heaven? The problem would be not that the repented sinner ended in heaven, but that a good person is rotting in hell. Is it moral to enjoy heaven while your loved ones suffer in hell?

      Delete
    12. Oh! And to show how ridiculous your notion of equalizing happiness and pleasure. Can you say that Ted Bundy was happy?

      Delete
    13. And I would also like to answer to your red herring about abortion. The majority of abortions is done by Christians. The most probable explanation would be the opposition of religion towards contraception and sexual education. Atheists also tend to behave much more morally than Christians. Lower homicide rate, lower abortion rate, lower rape rate in countries, where atheism is predominant usually. And, unlike you, I have reliable statistics to back up my claim. I will provide them to you if you do not ignore my questions.

      Your gallop poll statistics, on the other hand, are quite difficult to understand. The "well-being" index is composed of different other index, that are not explained and they were calculated through not entirely objective means. Not to mention that the difference between highly religious and not religious is a meager 4-5%.

      Delete
  37. Anonymous, it just goes to show you the ethical bankruptcy of the Christian belief system.

    There is no justice, though Yahweh|Jesus is claimed to be perfectly Just. There is no mercy, though Yahweh|Jesus is claimed to be Merciful.

    There is reward|punishment based solely on disregarding your "God given" capacity to reason, and accepting something on little to no evidential basis.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rick, are you going to correct your nonsense about evolution being neutral towards eugenics and genocide? Even from a purely practical point of view it is nonsense as I pointed to you before.

    Furthermore, you should stop nitpicking with the quotes from Dawkins. Even your hero Craig did acknowledge him as a moral person and a moral person from the point of view of a "true" Christian is not that kind that would opt for eugenics. Or I you going to do a tap-dance like with Vielenkin, claiming that your ignorant interpretation of his words is the only right one? Or maybe you need a lesson on polite British language, that tends to avoid strong forms? And why in the first place would he say about eugenics:"Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work". What king of eugenic proponent would classify it as unfortunate? Now who is taking quotes out of context?

    And I do hope that you can read more about non-religious morality before making a fool out of yourself, claiming that atheists are all moral relativists, that have no coherent opinion on human actions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is nuts...if one wants actual justifications and commands for anyting like genocide, one should just read the bible. Or Koran, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold, So which specific premise in the syllogisms do you disagree with?

      Delete
    2. Let's count the ways, shall we?

      IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide

      1. In accordance with non-religious atheism, morality is merely the result of human evolution.
      2. Evolution is a-moral and offers no objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior.
      3. Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.

      Technically true, but you've left somethings out: 1) All that means is that we have to figure out our own moral codes, which Dawkins says in that article you and the AIG people have twisted as I pointed out earlier
      2) The bible does not offer any source of "objective morality" either. If you can say that the killing of babies and pregnant women is OK if God does it, as William Lane Craig does, and which you back him up on, yet the same actions (genocide) is "wrong" when people do it, it is not a consistent source of morality you follow.

      Xian "morality" is entirely SUBJECTIVE. ie): If god says it's ok, it's ok, no matter who suffers and dies because of it.

      Any decent moral code takes into account the VICTIMS point of view, not that of the perpetrator.

      1. According to evolution theory, the intelligence of homo sapiens has increased due to natural selection.
      2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.

      Only by that ONE NARROW definition. That, and please, show the studies that show that there is more than one human "race" in existence right now. Biologists agree that there is only ONE human race, even Darwin believed that trying to divide people into different races was at best, impractical.

      Besides, other people can have higher disease resistances, have more stamina, etc.
      3. Therefore, the theory of evolution could allow for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
      See above

      1. The primary definition of racism offers that certain human races are superior to other races.
      Again, see what I said above.

      2. The theory of evolution allows for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
      You'd better do some reading.
      Please try to pay attention to their first two points...

      3. Therefore, the theory of evolution allows for racism to be theoretically justified.
      See above. Also, read about Henry Morris racism as based on the bible itself. (from same link):
      Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
      Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

      Delete
    3. cont'd:
      Rick Warden:
      1. In accordance with non-religious atheism and evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
      Xians have only a subjective basis for morality, as explained above.

      2. If there is no objective basis for morality, then genocide by an elite group could be rationalized.
      See William Lane Craig for an example. And see how an evolutionary atheist reacts to him!

      By the way, even if all the justifications that xian apologists give for the OT genocides were true, guess what? That is nothing more than situational ethics as practiced by your source of "absolute morality". After all, genocide isn't allowed by your religions NOW, is it? Think about why that is for a while...


      3. Therefore, genocide by an elite group could be rationalized based on non-religious atheism and evolution.
      Where do you draw that conclusion please?

      Do you not know what natural selection means? Think about it for a while, hmmm?? Here's hint: That means that the environment determines which strain is able to breed more and become successful. Not humans, and not their ideologies.

      Even when people practice animal husbandry, that's called artificial selection. And genocide is a far bloody cry from that even!

      1. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value.
      Doesn't mean a darn thing given the many times that "god" ordered the deaths of different groups of people...the justifications are irrelevent.

      2. If all people are created with God-given value, then racism is not logical.
      Just as I've shown in the sources in my previous post that biologically racism is not logical there either.
      3. Therefore, racism is not logical in accordance with biblical Christianity.
      Neither is it with biology, but on the other hand, the bible has actual commands to kill women and babies, something that no evolutionary biology textbook I've ever heard of has...

      Delete
    4. >1) All that means is that we have to figure out our own moral codes

      - Reynold, your argument isn't getting off to a strong start. Hitler and Stalin had moral codes that millions of people were subservient to. Part of Hitler's moral code was based on evolution theory, as noted in a quote from Mein Kamf in the article. Your comment supports my argument, that people can and have used evolution as a basis for a moral code.

      Delete
    5. How many times do I have to point out that it was a profound distortion of evolution. How many times do I need to point out that the genocide and eugenics go against the principles of survival?

      Delete
    6. Hitler and Stalin? How's about noting the fact that Hitler used your religion in "Mein Kampf" as the basis for his antisemitism in the first place? Look for when he mentions a guy named Karl Leuger.

      You need to do more reading other than just from people like the CMI who's writer Jerry Bergman you got some of your "material" from. I mean, Social Darwinism?

      Really?

      Allow me to educate you.

      Let's look at some highlights:
      -the nazis BANNED Darwin's books
      -Hitler claimed to have gotten his ideas about jewish people from a christian named Karl Leuger.
      -various historians like Dagobert Runes have pointed out that it was centuries of xian anti-semitism that laid the foundation for the holocaust.

      Now you say that my comment SUPPORTED your argument?

      Huh? Seriously, HUH? Think, Rick...it is a far cry from using evolution as a basis for a moral code which is what YOU claim to what I actually SAID: That we have to figure out a moral code for ourselves. I NOWHERE said that evolution was the basis for it.

      In that one Dawkins misquote from that Psychology Today article which you and AIG use, the part you people leave out, which I bolded was the part where Dawkins says that we can NOT use nature as a basis for developing a system of morality!

      Please, Please, PLEASE try to read what we're writing here.

      One more thing: In your post here you quote from that book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn as if he represents the mainstream scientific community to support your view?

      Big mistake. Scientists have nothing but contempt for the guy. And for eugenics itself, unlike that creationist Dr. Tinkle I brought up in an earlier post.

      Besides, as you yourself pointed out: The guy's results were flawed. But, guess what? If the results are wrong, then there IS NO RATIONALE for equating "racial superiority with intelligence" is there? Especially when as I had said before that biologically there is no justification for dividing modern people into different "races" in the first place!

      (From above link:)
      There's no denying that several prominent scientists were strongly in favor of eugenics at the turn of the century, but tying that to evolutionary theory was rather weak. The heyday of eugenics was also a period known as the "eclipse of Darwin", when support for Darwinian evolution was at a low ebb; this was the time before genetics was reconciled with evolutionary principles in the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and there were a lot of malformed ideas flourishing on the scientific scene. And finally and most tellingly, he shot down West's bizarre suggestion that a scientific elite has ever dictated public policy in this country. Eugenics was a popular movement, not a top-down set of rules imposed by Princeton and Harvard.

      Delete
    7. Now, for your Mein Kampf quote as provided by Jerry Bergman, you do realize that there are many sections in that book where Hitler used xian terminology right?

      He used whatever ideas he could to justify his aims to everyone. And christians were definately among them, like it or not:

      Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image.
      Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 6.

      What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.
      Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 9.

      You can say he didn't believe that himself, that he wasn't a true "Christian", but so what? Who do you think he was catering to there?

      Delete
    8. Hitler and Stalin? How's about noting the fact that Hitler used your religion in "Mein Kampf" as the basis for his antisemitism in the first place? Look for when he mentions a guy named Karl Leuger.

      You need to do more reading other than just from people like the CMI who's writer Jerry Bergman you got some of your "material" from. I mean, Social Darwinism? Really?

      Allow me to educate you.

      Let's look at some highlights:
      -the nazis BANNED Darwin's books
      -Hitler claimed to have gotten his ideas about jewish people from a christian named Karl Leuger.
      -various historians like Dagobert Runes have pointed out that it was centuries of xian anti-semitism that laid the foundation for the holocaust.

      Now you say that my comment SUPPORTED your argument?

      Huh? Seriously, HUH? Think, Rick...it is a far cry from using evolution as a basis for a moral code which is what YOU claim to what I actually SAID: That we have to figure out a moral code for ourselves. I NOWHERE said that evolution was the basis for it.

      In that one Dawkins misquote from that Psychology Today article which you and AIG use, the part you people leave out, which I bolded was the part where Dawkins says that we can NOT use nature as a basis for developing a system of morality!

      Please, Please, PLEASE try to read what we're writing here.

      One more thing: In your post here you quote from that book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn as if he represents the mainstream scientific community to support your view? Big mistake. Scientists have nothing but contempt for the guy. And for eugenics itself, unlike that creationist Dr. Tinkle I brought up in an earlier post.

      Besides, as you yourself pointed out: The guy's results were flawed. But, guess what? If the results are wrong, then there IS NO RATIONALE for equating "racial superiority with intelligence" is there? Especially when as I had said before that biologically there is no justification for dividing modern people into different "races" in the first place!

      (From above link:)
      There's no denying that several prominent scientists were strongly in favor of eugenics at the turn of the century, but tying that to evolutionary theory was rather weak. The heyday of eugenics was also a period known as the "eclipse of Darwin", when support for Darwinian evolution was at a low ebb; this was the time before genetics was reconciled with evolutionary principles in the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and there were a lot of malformed ideas flourishing on the scientific scene. And finally and most tellingly, he shot down West's bizarre suggestion that a scientific elite has ever dictated public policy in this country. Eugenics was a popular movement, not a top-down set of rules imposed by Princeton and Harvard.

      Delete
  40. Oh! And please provide a quote in the first place where Dawkins endorses eugenics from your point of view. As it was pointed out, Dawkings only said he was confident that such thing could be done and that is it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, Your question is addressed in part VI:

      "Any brief review of the subject of human selective breeding, also known as Eugenics, would reveal that the subject is tainted with scientific racism, civil rights abuses and horrific genocide. Richard Dawkins, as a professional "evolutionary biologist", should be aware of this history and context. As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins comments imply a favorable attitude towards the subject, albeit cautiously favorable.

      If I wrote, "I am against selective human breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability", the statement would not make sense. However, if I wrote, "I am in favor of human selective breeding, though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" This statement makes sense. The statement "though I'm not confident of it's moral desirability" is simply a clarification of a positive opinion.

      Delete
    2. Hm... It is like talking to a brick wall... Please explain why Dawkins says this about eugenics:"Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work". What king of eugenic proponent would classify it as unfortunate?

      Besides, he only said it was physically possible, not that it would be desirable. In the quote you present he does NOT talk about his personal attitude towards eugenics. If I am mistaken, then please show me where.

      "The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising."

      Furthermore, I am still waiting for you to correct your mistake that the idea evolution could lead to genocide and eugenics. I have pointed out that eugenics and genocide go against the principles of survival.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous: Please explain why Dawkins says this about eugenics:"Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work".
      The answer is simple, though it seems Rick simply cannot admit it - Dawkins does not support eugenics or forced selective breeding or homo sapiens.

      Rick has a narrative in his head, and in this narrative, Dawkins is evil (and God exists and Jesus is Lord, etc). Reality doesn't matter to Rick, because he's convinced himself that his narrative is true, therefore he simply cannot accept things which run counter to this "true" narrative :-)

      Delete
    4. No surprise there. Rick has a clear cognitive bias. However, he is not completely hopeless. He did acknowledge his mistake with Vielenkin.

      Delete
    5. I find it funny that the essence of religion can be all compressed in a 2 min clip

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BCNio07gU

      Delete
  41. I do wonder... Is it moral to allow a good person like Gandhi to rot in hell while an ex-rapist enjoys heaven? Is it moral to enjoy heaven while your loved ones suffer in hell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous: Is it moral to enjoy heaven while your loved ones suffer in hell?
      According to some, it is not only moral, but it's a part of what makes heaven so good - those in heaven will actually enjoy the suffering of those in hell.
      Just more of the sick morality which Christianity engenders :-)

      Delete
    2. From a masters thesis "Seeing Hell: Do the saints in heaven behold the sufferings of the damned (and how do they respond)":
      "This thesis affirms that the saints in heaven will be aware of hell and know a great deal concerning it. It is probable that they will see it. They will look into hell, see its ferocity and rejoice over it as an immensely glorifying spectacle to the glory of God
      given to them for their eternal benefit.

      This assertion is consistent with the nature of heaven, heaven’s Creator and the saint’s glorified state. It is both consistent with Scripture and logically deduced from Scripture. It is consistent with honored theologians who have drawn similar conclusions.

      This conclusion is of practical benefit for the comfort of the saints. An honest reflection
      concerning its assertions may yet be of eternal benefit to some reader. "

      Delete
    3. Havok,

      >Is it moral to enjoy heaven while your loved ones suffer in hell?

      -Compared to God, there is no one really "good" because we all have had sinful thoughts and performed sinful deeds. But in order for us to enjoy God's salvation and fellowship we need to acknowledge we have sinned and do need forgiveness and redemption. People who consider themselves good relative to other people often do not understand this or believe it is somehow unfair. But it is simply how God's grace is extended equally to different kinds of individuals.

      If two people made a bet to see who could swim across the Atlantic Ocean from England to America, would it matter if one swam 1 kilometer more than the other? In the face of the Atlantic Ocean, a few kilometers are minimal. But people are often so filled with pride by their self righteousness as they compare themselves with the worst cases in humanity.

      The rapist who repents and receives Christ has more understanding and revelation than a 'do gooder' who is self-righteous and too proud to repent of his or her many sins and receive Christ.


      >This thesis affirms...

      - It's funny how there is not even one scriptural verse from said thesis... not much here to comment on.

      Delete
    4. Rick: It's funny how there is not even one scriptural verse from said thesis... not much here to comment on.
      My mistake - the link was messed up (though a simple google search for the title would have found it).
      Here is the link to the masters thesis.
      You'll notice there are plenty of scriptural references within it. Please read it before making another claim in ignorance :-)

      Delete
  42. Not at all on this topic, but note that one of the links to the side here is to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Just so you all know, there is a series of youtube videos put up by Chris Mohr as well as an article in the Volume 17 Number 1 issue of Skeptic magazine. The article is titled 9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions.

    Mohr says that he was in a video debate with the founder of that A&E for 9/11 Truth guy, Richard Gage, but that his group won't release it. Hence, the series of Mohr's youtube videos and the Skeptic article.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lilith led me to a book in a second-hand store: Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel by William R. Koenig. The idiot author who is a US senator lacks the intelligence to see through his own writings in the book. Phrases like "because the bible says so" and such reveal the gross stupidity of this deceived believer. It is obvious he cannot think for himself, BUT his research is excellent in providing a summary of events that correlate with the verses in the bible.

    Now, every time there are issues involving Israel and before the manifestation of the bandit criminal state; any issues involving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Gta,

      There are two descriptions of a spiritual Lilith in Wikipedia. One regards Jewish folklore and the other, with regards to the Kabbalah, seems to be less based on "folklore" and more based on a true belief in such a spiritual element. I'll offer quotes from both:

      1. In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards, Lilith becomes Adam‘s first wife, who was created at the same time (Rosh Hashanah) and from the same earth as Adam. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam’s ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar, and Jewish mysticism.[3]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

      2. In the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria, it is said that there are many Liliths.[citation needed] Manasseh Matlub Sithon said "many Liliths and demons are abroad, and go up and down."[1]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_(Lurianic_Kabbalah)

      When you write that Lilith led you to a book, I'm curious to know how you define Lilith.

      Delete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!