What if I'm wrong ?

Originally posted by googlefudge
First you loose for bringing up Hitler...

Second, Hitler has [b]well thought out reasons??????????????

He had reasons, they made sense to him, that doesn't make them well thought out.
Or good.

Hitler was a tyrant, and was evil.
His 'logic' was deeply flawed, his reasons, unjustified.
And I don't need any god or religion to justify that.

Third, you loose for bringing up Hitler.[/b]

Hitler was not evil, evil doesn't exist -- does it?

'Bringing up Hitler' is not a reason to disregard a persons argument, irrespective of what you read about so called "internet debating law".

Originally posted by divegeester
Hitler was not evil, evil doesn't exist -- does it?

'Bringing up Hitler' is not a reason to disregard a persons argument, irrespective of what you read about so called "internet debating law".

I don't think there is some thing out their personifying evil.
But that doesn't mean evil doesn't exist, in the same way that love is not a
thing that you can put in a jar but it still exists. (and can be measured but
different topic)

Why would you suggest Hitler was not evil?
If you can't apply the tag of evil to Hitler then who can you apply it to?


And yes, bringing up Hitler as your argument (in pretty much anything but a debate
about WW2) is almost always, and certainly in this case, cause to instantly lose.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry i dont find anything in your statement which supports your assertions. The
fact of the matter remains that Hitler was deeply influenced by Darwin and Spencer,
your assertion that he was not is simply not true. Regardless of what it means, it was
used as a basis for the most utterly inhumane affairs, from economics and a
justifica ...[text shortened]...
the way that it has.

Yes its late, i am wasted! I am Scottish, you are English, what of it?

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is often misunderstood, and has frequently been used to justify things that a correct
understanding of it, and its application in evolutionary biology would never justify.
And this is even before you get to the fact that the applications it has been put to would fall fowl of any moral code
worth the name.

The context of the phrase is the 'natural selection' part of evolution by natural selection.

Those individuals of a species that have random adaptations that increase their survivability to the point of reproduction,
stand a better chance of passing on those adaptations to the next generation.

This was pithily reduced to survival of the fittest.

The question, and misunderstanding stems from the word 'fittest'.

Fittest is a tricky concept here, and doesn't necessarily mean bigger, tougher, stronger, in the physical sense.

A classic example is the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in those living in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Carrying the recessive gene for Sickle Cell Anemia significantly increases your chances for surviving malaria.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

So it turns out in Malarial regions having the gene for a crippling and unpleasant genetic disease actually boosts
your chances of survival.

Going to one of the original inspirations for evolution the Galapagos fiches, it was beak size and shape that gave
advantages in eating certain nuts/seeds/fruits, that determined fitness.

There are also advantages in situations where there is no great evolutionary pressure, for a species to diversify
and increase its genetic and structural variation (within limits) so that if/when at some point in the future some
sudden change in environment or appearance of some new disease threatens the species, there is a greater chance
that some individuals will be resistant or better adapted to the new environment, thus improving the species chance
of survival.

So you can see that simply claiming that being more belligerent or martially successful made you 'evolutionarily superior'
and thus had more of a right to survive... yada yada yada... tripe they came out with...
Is not, and never was, supported by evolutionary theory.


They deliberately or otherwise misunderstood and misappropriated evolution to justify their aims.

This is a bit like claiming to be influenced by Marx and advocating capitalism.
You can claim it as much as you like but you're just wrong, and you can't claim it to be Marx's fault that you failed to
understand what he said.


Hitler was not influenced by Darwin... he was influenced (maybe, this assuming its not just trying to gloss over something
they were going to do anyway for other reasons.) by a misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) of what Darwin proposed.

It is thus inaccurate to claim that either Darwin or evolutionary theory were in any way to blame for the actions of a tyrant
dictator 100 ish years later.




I was just curious why you translated into English the title of Mein Kampf,
It's not like anyone would not know what you were talking about if it's titles in German.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think there is some thing out their personifying evil.
But that doesn't mean evil doesn't exist, in the same way that love is not a
thing that you can put in a jar but it still exists. (and can be measured but
different topic)

Why would you suggest Hitler was not evil?
If you can't apply the tag of evil to Hitler then who can you apply it ...[text shortened]... a debate
about WW2) is almost always, and certainly in this case, cause to instantly lose.

Your first point here seems to contradict your second, and therefore your previous post I think.

No I don't feel that using Hitler automatically loses any debate in point. There seems to be this social/internet belief that using certain arguments such as the "Hitler "or the "any other Scotsman" references mean that the posters position is therefore null and void.

This is of course, complete bollocks.

A debating argument is constructed by (amongst other things) proven fact, rational presumption and reasonable conjecture. A person from history being mentioned or used as a point of reference is irrelevant; despite them being Adolf Hitler, Pontius Pilate or Albert Einstein.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Evolution from normal to gay should be called "your stupid!" And someone believing in evolution and is gay, is way passed stupid. If I was a bit harsh on someone here, at least you know I am talking the truth.

I agree with RJHinds, man is to be blamed themselves for the defects, not God.

I have 4 sons and a daughter. My last son is gay but he is far from stupid.
He graduated from every school he attended as the top student, including
the two universities. He is classified as a genius. He can read a whole
page of text in about two or three seconds and tell you what it said. I
don't associate the defect of being gay with how intelligent a person is.
That just can't be true from my own personal experience. He knows my
belief on evolution and has never said he disagreed, but I have never
actually discussed the matter with him to get his opinion. I once asked
him if he was being taught certain things concerning evolution in school
and at that time he said, "No".

Originally posted by divegeester
Your first point here seems to contradict your second, and therefore your previous post I think.

No I don't feel that using Hitler automatically loses any debate in point. There seems to be this social/internet belief that using certain arguments such as the "Hitler "or the "any other Scotsman" references mean that the posters position is therefore n ...[text shortened]... eference is irrelevant; despite them being Adolf Hitler, Pontius Pilate or Albert Einstein.

The more interesting question is why you don't think there is such a thing as evil.

However,

You need to elaborate. I didn't number my points, and don't feel I posted anything contradictory.
I thus don't know what you are referring to.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah, I think I see the problem....
I don't have eyes in the back of my head...
He should try standing in front of me and waving to get my attention...

defeats the purpose of faith. anywhoo, supposedly he stood in front of people when he came here, what did they do? killed him in a brutal fashion😀



so i think he is justifiably hiding, at least for this reason than the whole "defeats the purpose of faith" thingie

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, I am an equal opportunity religious railer. I have spoken about the Islamic cruelty before, people are being killed as we speak for refusing to convert to Islam. So you don't think Christianity has destroyed whole cultures? I think you better take a look at the history of christianity. Look at what Cortez did to the Aztecs. Or does that not count? Just ...[text shortened]... that says if your son disrespects you, kill him. Yessir, quite a nice religion you have there.

mmyeah, don't mention the aztecs. they were taking out hearts and fed them to various gods.


just a simple case of brutal society meets an even more brutal society.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
defeats the purpose of faith. anywhoo, supposedly he stood in front of people when he came here, what did they do? killed him in a brutal fashion😀



so i think he is justifiably hiding, at least for this reason than the whole "defeats the purpose of faith" thingie

Ah yes, indeed knowing does remove faith.
Unfortunately (for you/your religion) I have to know.
I need proof to believe something, evidence and reason.
I have always been this way.
I thus can't believe in your god because he requires blind faith.


Side note though, does he not have the ability to judge the likely hood of someone crucifying him if he appeared before them?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah yes, indeed knowing does remove faith.
Unfortunately (for you/your religion) I have to know.
I need proof to believe something, evidence and reason.
I have always been this way.
I thus can't believe in your god because he requires blind faith.


Side note though, does he not have the ability to judge the likely hood of someone crucifying him if he appeared before them?

You must mean that as a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must mean that as a rhetorical question.

heh, yeah of course.

My point was that he isn't hiding behind me because he thinks I am going to crucify him.

Originally posted by divegeester
No I don't feel that using Hitler automatically loses any debate in point. There seems to be this social/internet belief that using certain arguments such as the "Hitler "or the "any other Scotsman" references mean that the posters position is therefore null and void.

This is of course, complete bollocks.

You logic here is as bad as Hitlers was when trying to justify "survival of the fittest".

Originally posted by googlefudge
The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is often misunderstood, and has frequently been used to justify things that a correct
understanding of it, and its application in evolutionary biology would never justify.
And this is even before you get to the fact that the applications it has been put to would fall fowl of any moral code
worth the name.

Actually 'might is right' has been a popular 'moral code' (if one can call it that) throughout recorded history. I am sure that that was the true 'code' Hitler advocated. Throw into that racism and nationalism. And like anyone else trying to peddle nonsense, tagging the name 'science' on to his claims was a natural thing to do. I always find it interesting how everyone has a strong natural respect for science even when they are really totally anti-science.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The more interesting question is why you don't think there is such a thing as evil.

However,

You need to elaborate. I didn't number my points, and don't feel I posted anything contradictory.
I thus don't know what you are referring to.

I do think there is personification of evil.

MY bad, I was trying to be convoluted and take the atheistic position that evil acts do not mean there is a personification of evil i.e. Satan.