In the name of God

[infamous]

Hmmmm.

 

Infamous, I don't know whether you were talking to me, but I am not trying to convert anyone. Freethinker responded to two separate threads on "God" topics with assertions of fact with which I disagree. I am engaging in two unrelated fact-oriented discussions with him. I am pretty sure that no one is forcing him to respond to these threads, and the discussions are generally on topic with the thread.

 

My impression was/is that this is the format of the site. True?

 

Yes Biochemist; First I would like to clarify that I am a Christain, and I don't disagree with anyone testifying to their belief in Christ. I'm only saying that you will find it difficult if not impossible to prove your point of view on this matter. My faith is sufficient for the proof I personally need to justify my convictions about the matter. But I'll never convince anyone that is not willing to at least concede to the possibility for the existence of a God. You will have no luck talking about faith at this forum. I would give a lot to be able to convey the reality that I have about my experience with God, but I can't. I have no earthly proof and without evidence nobody will be willing to listen, expecially an atheist. I'm not scolding you for trying, I'm just saying it may cause you more grief than it's worth.

[TINNY]

Ever heard of Social Darwinism?

 

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation. In the time since then, evolutionary theory has de-emphasized inter-species competition as well as the importance of violent confrontation in general, which discredits many of the social Darwinist theories of that time.

[Fishteacher73]

It seems that I can see no real example when individual violence was used as a tool that did not have a faith origin. Kaczynzki had come up with a ludite type religion, the mid-east problems are driven by faith, even the anarchist movement of the early 20th century was driven by a highly religious mind-set (which probably would make a number of punkers blanche if the knew, heheheh).

[Freethinker]

Uh, how does that make those despondent young radicals atheists? Their leaders like Zarqawi and Bin Laden have stated time and time again that these martyrs are going to to Allah. Please show one credible report where any of them have claimed to be atheists. You could also explain that “Allah akbar. Allah is great. All praise to Allah.” phrase they all seem to recite before they press their detonator.

Ah C1ay, I ask Christians for facts and proof because it can be fun to see to what extent they will go to do everything but! Linda has made the same comment numerous times. I hope you are not expecting actual reasoned and logical responses from one. The FACT that Zarqawi is NEITHER an Atheist NOR a suicide bomber is irrelevant to people that base their personal philosophy on antiquated superstitions that have no basis in FACT.

 

But keep asking. Just make sure you take your Dramamine before reading the replies!

[Freethinker]

C1ay- I concede that my response was poorly worded. My intent is posted in post #27.

Ya when replying your statement that there were plenty of Atheist suicide bombers, we find that your intent was to give a false answer knwing you did not have a clue

(from post #27)I don't actually know whether Zarqawi is a theist or not

.

Sure wouldn't expect a Christer to actually KNOW something before they make claims about it now would we!

 

So we find to a Christian that spewing nonsense when they have no factual knowledge of the suject becomes "my response was poorly worded".

 

Sounds like Bush's "Intellegence failures". And it is all too obvious who's intellegence has failed!

[Biochemist]

I'm just saying it may cause you more grief than it's worth.

You certainly might be correct on that point.

[C1ay]

The FACT that Zarqawi is NEITHER an Atheist NOR a suicide bomber is irrelevant to people that base their personal philosophy on antiquated superstitions that have no basis in FACT.

 

That's kind of exactly why I would like to better understand the FACT that all of these alleged atheist suicide bombers exclaim "Allah akbar. Allah is great. All praise to Allah.” as they distribute themselves with a wave of propulsive energy about their surroundings. I cannot particularly imagine an atheist exclaiming this before any act he may perform.

[TINNY]

There are groups of Muslims who espouse terrorism. And there are groups on the contrary. It goes to show that the acts depend on their interpretation and thus subjective. Atheists have committed atrocious massacres too (refer to social darwinism). You can always say that it was because they wrongly interpreted the concept of Natural Selection. But it is still an atheistic concept and done by professed atheists such as Marx and Lenin.

[C1ay]

There are groups of Muslims who espouse terrorism. And there are groups on the contrary. It goes to show that the acts depend on their interpretation and thus subjective. Atheists have committed atrocious massacres too (refer to social darwinism). You can always say that it was because they wrongly interpreted the concept of Natural Selection. But it is still an atheistic concept and done by professed atheists such as Marx and Lenin.

 

All very true. It is not my intent to imply any majority of the believers of any faith have conducted evil in the name of God. There have certainly been a fair share of evil atheists as well. I wonder though, of the faithful, would the situation be the same without God. If there were no religion at all, would a conflict exist in Ireland between the same people that would be protestant or catholic because religion does exist? If there were no religion at all, would a conflict exist in the middle east between those that would be muslim vs those that would be jewish? How much conflict has the world endured over the course of time simply because of man's belief in religion? What if the very concept of religion had never been conceived?

[TINNY]

Default Re: In the name of God

Quote:

Originally Posted by TINNY

the acts depend on their interpretation and thus subjective. Atheists have committed atrocious massacres too (refer to social darwinism). You can always say that it was because they wrongly interpreted the concept of Natural Selection.

I wonder though, of the faithful, would the situation be the same without God... How much conflict has the world endured over the course of time simply because of man's belief in religion? What if the very concept of religion had never been conceived?

Interesting. It begs the question of how people would think of a creator in the first place. Actions are mostly dependent on the person's worldview. If they saw the world as a struggle for existence, of course they will strive to eliminate others. If they saw their mission is to act as the vicegerent of god, then they will do so to their utmost free-will. Their worldview would depend upon the social conditioning they went through. Motivated by their worldview, people choose, via freewill to carry out their mission.

 

All in all, it comes down to what constitutes an accurate, positive and motivational worldview. If it is just conflict and competition, then so'll be it. In that case, killing and warfare is exactly what should be done and is absolutely the most moral behavior. But the question becomes Is it the correct worldview? And so we have to understand the true nature of this existence.

 

 

 

Ahhh.. I knew it. This is just religious mumbo-jumbo to ye'all. BUt it is rational enough to be considered.

 

Just Tinny. I don't know much.

[C1ay]

It begs the question of how people would think of a creator in the first place.

 

I have often wondered that very question. I tend to believe that it likely originated with the earliest of man since the world consisted of so much he could not understand or explain. Common acts of nature must have seemed almost magical to the earliest of mankind.

[Fishteacher73]

There are groups of Muslims who espouse terrorism. And there are groups on the contrary. It goes to show that the acts depend on their interpretation and thus subjective. Atheists have committed atrocious massacres too (refer to social darwinism). You can always say that it was because they wrongly interpreted the concept of Natural Selection. But it is still an atheistic concept and done by professed atheists such as Marx and Lenin.

 

I see no connection to atheism and the concept of social darwinism, is there one?

 

As well what massacres have Marx and Lenin been a part of?

[Biochemist]

I see no connection to atheism and the concept of social darwinism, is there one?

Gracious, yes. The vast majority of folks that hold to this point of view are in the Naturalism camp. Naturalism is, by definition, atheistic. The association is so common that darwinism (of any sort, social or otherwise) is often labeled Darwinism-naturalism.

 

In case it isn't obvious, the real issue that people of faith have with Darwinism is NOT the elements of evolution per se. It is the close association with a presumption of Naturalism that comes in the same package.

 

I do think that Christians, in particular, are pretty inarticulate on separating these two issues, and (with no intent to be unkind) it often makes them look like idiots.

[TINNY]

I see no connection to atheism and the concept of social darwinism, is there one?

I thought proponents of darwinism are atheists. and ideas of social darwinism came first from Herbert Spencer, an atheist. Following him were more and more atheists who expounded on social darwinism such as Engels and Marx in his Das Capital. Communism is atheistic

 

here's a quote:

The idea of a social evolution as Spencer and Darwin saw it was merely the change that society goes through over time. It also includes the idea that this change is leading towards a more effective and perfect society. The original ideas of these two men did not include the horribly skewed vision that has become known as Social Darwinism. The most horrible atrocities on the largest scale that the world has ever known have been enacted by people using Social Darwinism as a defense. Events such as the slaughter of the Native Americans, the oppression of non-Anglo races, the rampant imperialism of Europe and America during the early 20th century, the oppression of the lower classes, and most recently and vividly the genocide of millions by the German Third Reich, have all been justified by the idea of "survival of the fittest." In detail, Social Darwinism is seen at work in imperialism. Taking Europe for example, by using claims of an inherent superiority of species over all races in Africa, the Anglo-Christians of England and Belgium conquered and attempted to control large portions of the continent for their own monetary gain. The enslavement and exploitation that occurred during this time period had no justification other than the power and wealth that could be obtained, or that was perceived to be obtainable, from the African continent. But, these conquerers made use the idea that, due to their superior standing in the social evolutionary chain they were obligated to enter these areas and construct a society which was similar to their own. In the name of bringing civilization to the savages millions of Africans were displaced, enslaved and slaughtered. The idea of Social Darwinism was put to use in this and so many more instances around the world and throughout the time since the idea first appeared. By employing the idea of a "fittest" society, that being the most superior, groups of people have attempted to exploit, subjugate and destroy other societies and cultures that are viewed as being "unfit" to survive.

 

(taken from http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/haymarket/jasonz/zahrhyperessay.html)

[Biochemist]

I thought proponents of darwinism are atheists. and ideas of social darwinism came first from Herbert Spencer, an atheist. Following him were more and more atheists who expounded on social darwinism such as Engels and Marx in his Das Capital. Communism is atheistic

This is a great excerpt, TINNY. I do think it is possible to be Darwinian and not be in the Naturalism/atheism camp, but the association between the two is certainly high. These are great examples of the reasons that people of faith have a strong adverse reaction to social Darwinists.

[Fishteacher73]

Perhaps I am just slow in this idea, but there are connections between the conception of social Darwinism and atheism, but the concept iself I can see no atheistic implications (In fact most of the incedents cited by TINNY were fueld by theistic ideals and superiority, NOT atheism). This line of thought would imply that Dawinism was theist because Darwin had a theology degree from Cambridge.

[Biochemist]

Perhaps I am just slow in this idea, but there are connections between the conception of social Darwinism and atheism, but the concept iself I can see no atheistic implications...

I don't think you are slow at all, but you are thinking like a scientist. Go figure.

 

I suggest there are no absolute connections between the two, but there are lots of associations. This means that social darwinism (in normal usage) picked up "meaning" by association, and over time the "meaning" included atheistic elements, even though those elements were not originally imputed in the fundamental thought model.