A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
by Carl Wieland
Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has resiled for decades.
Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a crutch for his atheistic faith, often saying, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’
From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad, no standard outside of human opinion. Dawkins is the author of the recent book ‘The God Delusion’, in which he blames belief in God for all manner of ‘bad things’ (even though his own philosophy says there can be no objective yardstick for calling something ‘bad’) [see our devastating review, Atheist with a Mission].
Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other ‘fundamentalist atrocities’, implying that if only humanity were to grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some peaceful utopia. It’s important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian- French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian wars …
Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler’s genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity. Not to mention the fact that the millions of people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also Christianity’s Real Record (off-site)).
Also, as many others have pointed out, those who engage in atrocities are denying the Lord they claim to serve, whereas regimes like Pol Pot and Stalin exhibit not the slightest inconsistency with their underlying philosophies—the opposite, in fact. See Evolution and Social Evil. ‘I hate to agree with Hitler, but …’ Adolf Hitler
Hitler’s ideas of a ‘master race’ were driven by Darwinian notions of favouring the strong over the weak, and humans as a biological commodity. Today’s cutting-edge evolutionists are seeking to revive aspects of Nazi thought.
Eugenics is the ‘science’ developed by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton (see Eugenics ... death of the defenceless). Based on the principles of controlled selection, it advocates the increase of desirable characteristics in a human population. Extreme applications of this principle, however, have resulted in forced sterilization and culling of the ‘less fit’.
This philosophy was prominent and popular prior to WW2, and in the United States it led to the widespread practice of forcibly sterilizing ‘undesirables’. Many in the US even lauded the Nazi government’s public promotion of such principles as ‘progressive’. See:
* The Lies of Lynchburg, * Eugenics in Vermont * America’s evolutionists: Hitler’s inspiration? (review of War against the Weak by Edwin Black).
Eugenic ideas fuelled the thinking of the Nazis, including their notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ program. It progressively led to worse atrocities, including the pre-war elimination of entire wards full of people who had serious chronic mental handicaps, for example.
After the gruesome unveiling of the Nazi death camps following Allied liberation, eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism slunk shamefacedly into the shadows. (Although most modern evolutionists would seek to dissociate themselves from social Darwinism, claiming that it is a misapplication of Darwinian theory, Darwin was definitely a social Darwinist). Yet it is unsurprising that such principles are now under review, as selection of beneficial traits is logically consistent with evolution.
Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald (Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?’1
Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their strongly held worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases. (This is different from genetic repair of harmful mutations, because Christ’s healing example shows that ameliorating effects of the curse is a blessing—see for example:
* Reshaping people: Interview with plastic surgeon Dr David Pennington * Hot Potatoes: Is there a ‘creationist view’ on genetically modified foods? * Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?)
Breeding and culling humans
Dawkins writes:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me.'
His fellow evolutionist Dr Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton University, would strongly agree. Singer is also a prominent promoter of euthanasia, including as a moral obligation in the case of certain elderly/disabled people (though not, incidentally, his own mother when she had Alzheimer’s). (Groups of the disabled picket his lectures in Germany, since this country knows what eugenics is like in practice).
In addition, he regularly promotes the idea of infanticide, the right of parents to dispose of babies, particularly handicapped ones. He readily accepts that babies in the womb are human. Rather than this being a reason not to kill them, he argues in reverse. If it is OK to kill a baby in the womb (abortion) because it has not yet aspired to the full ‘rights’ of ‘personhood’, why cannot one give parents the right to decide, say for a few months of a newborn’s life, whether they want to ‘accept’ the child or dispose of it?
The same is illustrated by a New Scientist report on an abortion task force:2
The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.
But since New Scientist, as an evolutionary magazine, is basically anti-Christian, it added:
The point at which life acquires personhood is not something biology can settle ...3
As a consequence of this anti-life ethic advocated by Dawkins and Singer, some countries are already well embarked on the eugenic road, permitting genetic screening in IVF clinics, as well as pre-birth screening to permit undesirable traits to be weeded out by abortion. Note that in some countries, one common ‘undesirable trait’ is being female, which makes it bizarre that most of today’s feminists fanatically support abortion for any reason—see China Gender Imbalance Increases as Sex-Selection Abortions Continue. Rights for apes, wrongs for people
On what basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a clever chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
Another logical outcome of rejecting Genesis is that humans are no longer regarded as uniquely created in the image of God. This inevitably causes pressure in two directions: to demote and devalue humanity, and to promote and elevate the animal kingdom (well beyond its place in God’s created purpose—see The Greenness of God).
So it is no coincidence that Singer is perhaps the world’s leading ‘animal rights’ activist, and Dawkins is a leader of the movement to have great apes be awarded the same legal rights as people. Such things may still seem bizarre and unnatural to the reader, but consider how much sense it makes to people steeped in evolutionism. No Creator, no infallible revelation, no rules. No God, no soul. On what basis, apart from the Bible, would you argue against giving a clever chimp the same ‘rights’ as a severely retarded human being?
See also A ‘Bill of Rights’ for apes? Evolutionists becoming more vocal with atheism
It seems that the Darwinian genie is out of the bottle, thanks in part to the failure of a unified stand against its foundational philosophy, and 'pro' Genesis history, by believers en masse.4 Evolution’s promoters are becoming ever bolder in dispensing with the disingenuous claims that evolution is not threatening to Christianity, into which far too many churchians have bought. We see this not only in their increasing frontal attacks on theistic religion (especially Christianity, and particularly, and hysterically, on creationism—or its slightest whiff a la ID)5 but in their social engineering visions. We Christians should have realized that the evolutionary claims of ‘neutrality’ towards Christianity could not last—see this section of The Hypocrisy of Intolerant ‘Tolerance’. Conclusion
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0800 (PST), ["Sound of BULLCRAP" <SoundOfIdi...@dcemail.com>] PARROTED:
> Dawkins and Eugenics
> A leading high priest of evolution...
<flush bigoted & nonsensical swill>
ROTFL!!!
Either you are trying to compete with "Jon Young"/"IBeen Getiner" for the title of "Usenet's Most Absurd PARROT," or human cloning has arrived, and you're outing the two of you as an example of it.
Any dictator can *misuse* SCIENCE, and Hitler's regime was adept at committing such abuses. That is the fault of the *regime* -- NOT of SCIENCE!
Actually, macroevolution has been proven with an overwhelming weight of evidence. That is why it has withstood over a century of attacks from creationists and those that would deny it. It is one of the most solidly-supported scientific theories currently in existence. However, understanding the evidence takes some intelligence and cannot easily be explained in a single post. Usually, the easiest solution is to point the person to a website that explains the topic in detail, such as http://talkorigins.org. Not that an ardent creationist will read it or try to understand it.
The Theory of Evolution is the basis for a number of branches of science, and is influential in medicine as well. The findings in these areas also support the theory.
Usually, when creationists attack evolution, they usually do so by asserting that their deity created the earth and left and so on, which is a positive assertion and requires that the creationist support his claim with evidence that does not depend on his personal beliefs. Something that they cannot do. They are also asked to provide their objective evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution so that everyone can examine it and confirm their claims. They cannot do this either because they do not have any objective evidence to present, only their personal, subjective, unscientific beliefs.
To those "Intelligent Design"/"Creationist" RRR Cultists ---
*My* God is omniscient and omnipotent, and therefore would have had no problem creating an evolutionary process to go along with everything else in the universe.
> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
> by Carl Wieland
> Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but > seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has > resiled for decades.
> Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor > Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people > that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a > crutch for his atheistic faith, often saying, ‘Darwin made it possible > to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’
> From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad, > no standard outside of human opinion.
From *that*, it follows that the author and the poster are both idiots.
-- "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." Bertrand Russell
>> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>> by Carl Wieland
> Anyone who takes this crap seriously is a moron who shouldn't be > entrusted with tasks more complicated than emptying wastebaskets.
Unfortunately they'd still be entrusted with having children and raising them.
-- "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." Bertrand Russell
>A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
>by Carl Wieland
>Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but >seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has >resiled for decades.
Why do you repeat the lies of so-called Christians like Carl Wieland?
Discussion subject changed to "Dawkins & Abortionist Are Liars & Thiefs" by (`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´) .. WHY be Employed When You Can Scam People Like Me? <www.faithguard.org>
(`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´) .. WHY be Employed When You Can Scam People Like Me? <www.faithguard.org>
The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other 'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian- French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian wars .
Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity. Not to mention the fact that the millions of people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also Christianity's Real Record (off-site)).
>The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion >clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida >Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been >expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was >unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
>Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA >press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
>Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other >'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to >grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some >peaceful utopia.
You mean like murdering children?
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[[[ IGNORE the LYING and FORGED subject header above, written by a SUBMORONIC CRETIN. ]]]
**OBVIOUS** FORGERY ---
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:23:38 -0900, "\(`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´\) .. WHY be Employed <www.faithguard.org>"
<forged garbage flushed>
It's FUN to watch the DESPERATION of the bigots as their hate-agendas swirl faster and faster down the Drain of Extinction! It's the best comic theater since the equally-ignorant segrega- tionists bit the dust!
[[[ READERS: Note the DISCREPENCIES between the data above, and the user information in MY posts.
So in case you want to see a good example of just *how* abjectly IGNORANT the FORGER who posted this crap is -- just consider the fact that the average 4-year-old newbie would probably be able to copy and paste my user data accurately -- but THIS dolt isn't even THAT intelligent. Thus making it OBVIOUS that I had nothing to do with the posting.
They should start a new TV show for that bigoted CLOWN and entitle it, "Are You Smarter Than a PRE-schooler?" The pre-schooler would run circles around the ignoramus.
(AND -- what a good reminder provides that bigotry and intelligence NEVER go together. LOL!!! What a tool. ]]]
> The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion > clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida > Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been > expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was > unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
> Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA > press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other > 'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to > grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some > peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to > do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, > Falklands War, Vietnam
Very arguable, JFK probably supported the South because of it's large Catholic population.
> and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in > South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War,
Very specifically a war to "Christianize" large parts of the globe (many of them already largely Christian).
> Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War,
At the very least encouraged by religious beliefs on both sides.
> Napoleonic wars,
Sorry, that was very much religious, both from the point of very of protecting the Church and it's property to making sure Catholics didn't run Europe (depending on which ally you talked to). So you've been wrong at least 3 times that I, a complete amateur can detect.
> Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian > wars .
> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's > genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely > antibiblical) fervour that drove them,
There was no evolutionary support for Hitler's theories, in fact evolution would suggest that genocide is unneccesary. The bible on the other hand makes clear that genocide is fine.
> as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity.
He remained a Christian until the day he died.
> Not to mention the fact that the millions of > people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number > as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative > handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also > Christianity's Real Record (off-site)).
None of the deaths caused by atheists were caused by any fundamental quality of atheism though, unlike the murders by Christians.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:15:09 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> Of course, the entire middle east has been at war over religion for > over two thousand years. Not to mention a few hundred years in the > Balkan States.
Rather, Islam has been at war. Not "religion"
The OP is wrong to blame Darwin, but the true problem is that when a civilization's ruling religion expires, the vacuum is apt to be filled by faiths far more foolish, destructive, and deadly: in our case Gaia worship, islam, socialism, and new ageism, states that aspire to the theocratic power that they absurdly accuse Christianity of exercising. When people believe in nothing, they are apt to believe in anything.
Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease that protects people against more serious diseases. Global Warming is theocracy and the forcible imposition of religion. Marriage is not.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:54:53 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote in <408e896e-9b3e-4ad0-8266-d2d842d75...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>> The Community Healthcare Center, which was dually licensed as an abortion >> clinic and as a clinical laboratory, faced a $413,000 fine after the Florida >> Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) found its lab license had been >> expired for 413 days. The clinic was fined $1,000 for each day it was >> unlicensed, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
>> Instead of paying the fine, the abortion clinic decided to shut down, AHCA >> press secretary Tiffany Vause reported.
>> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other >> 'fundamentalist atrocities', implying that if only humanity were to >> grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some >> peaceful utopia. It's important to note that religion had nothing to >> do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, >> Falklands War, Vietnam
> Very arguable, JFK probably supported the South because of it's large >Catholic population.
We were already in Vietnam when JFK became President.
>> and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in >> South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War,
> Very specifically a war to "Christianize" large parts of the globe >(many of them already largely Christian).
>> Prussian-French War, Crimean War, US Civil War,
> At the very least encouraged by religious beliefs on both sides.
>> Napoleonic wars,
> Sorry, that was very much religious, both from the point of very of protecting the >Church and it's property to making sure Catholics didn't run Europe (depending >on which ally you talked to). So you've been wrong at least 3 times that I, a >complete amateur can detect.
>> Wars of the Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian >> wars .
>> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler's >> genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely >> antibiblical) fervour that drove them,
> There was no evolutionary support for Hitler's theories, in fact evolution would suggest >that genocide is unneccesary. The bible on the other hand makes clear that genocide >is fine.
>> as well as his clear intent to exterminate Christianity.
> He remained a Christian until the day he died.
>> Not to mention the fact that the millions of >> people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number >> as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative >> handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also >> Christianity's Real Record (off-site)).
> None of the deaths caused by atheists were caused by any fundamental >quality of atheism though, unlike the murders by Christians.
> > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to > > believe in anything.
> > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease > > that protects people against more serious diseases.
Attila
> There are few more serious such diseases,
The Gaia worshippers want to sacrifice man to their God. The Christians sacrifice their god to themselves. Christians eat Christ, Gaia eats man, as illustrated in the death of millions from protected malarial mosquitoes, and deaths, much fewer in number, but considerably more dramatic, from man eating salt water crocodiles.
As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah has to say about Fort Hood incident:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:15:09 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> >wrote: >> Of course, the entire middle east has been at war over religion for >> over two thousand years. Not to mention a few hundred years in the >> Balkan States.
>Rather, Islam has been at war. Not "religion"
Heard the same religious bigotry from the nazis 70 years ago.
> > > When people believe in nothing, they are apt to > > > believe in anything.
> > > Christianity is like vaccination - a mild disease > > > that protects people against more serious diseases.
> Attila
> > There are few more serious such diseases,
> The Gaia worshippers want to sacrifice man to their God. > The Christians sacrifice their god to themselves. > Christians eat Christ, Gaia eats man, as illustrated in > the death of millions from protected malarial > mosquitoes, and deaths, much fewer in number, but > considerably more dramatic, from man eating salt water > crocodiles.
> As for Islam, hear what Major Nidal Malik Hasan's mullah > has to say about Fort Hood incident:
See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those agreed with that assumption. I only read two thirds of the comments, the first 131 comments - I am summarizing that.
> A leading high priest of evolution reveals its ugly side.
> by Carl Wieland
> Professor Richard Dawkins attacks Christians for ‘atrocities’, but > seeks to revive aspects of Hitler’s thinking from which the West has > resiled for decades.
Oh boy, lieing from the get go. Good start.
> Fanatically antitheistic Darwinists like the prominent Professor > Richard Dawkins of Oxford are busily convincing millions of people > that everything made itself. Dawkins needs goo-to-you evolution as a > crutch for his atheistic faith, often saying, ‘Darwin made it possible > to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’
Dawkings would be an atheist based on the lack of evidence of gods. The Theory of Evolution explains one of life's mysteries to a fulfilling degree. Other theories like the one for gravity and the big bang theory fulfill other aspects of fundamental questions. Calling them crutches is misrepresenting the facts.
> From this, it follows that there can be no such thing as good or bad, > no standard outside of human opinion.
No objective good or bad no. Morals and ethics already change according to culture and progressive knowledge. Even if there happend to be a god, there is still loads of evidence that morals are not objectively defined. If you disagree I might ask when was the last time you killed your children for disobeying. Or ate the heart of a member of a rival clan you killed? Those were accepted morals in older civilisations.
> Dawkins is the author of the > recent book ‘The God Delusion’, in which he blames belief in God for > all manner of ‘bad things’ (even though his own philosophy says there > can be no objective yardstick for calling something ‘bad’) [see our > devastating review, Atheist with a Mission].
There is no objective good or bad. The subjective ones are mostly cultural, changing over time. Morals are mostly determined by what is good for society (or in more primitive times, for the family, tribe or city etc). Very detrimental things have been considered bad since ancient times. Murder or theft within the own group for instance is so bad for group cohesion that it's been considered "bad" by practically every culture. What Dawkings eludes to is that religions in the past centuries have gone from being beneficial to a detrimental influence on the development of society. In the present day the detrimental effects of religions massively outweigh the supposed benefits.
> Those like Dawkins often raise the spectre of religious wars and other > ‘fundamentalist atrocities’, implying that if only humanity were to > grow up and face life without God, we would finally attain some > peaceful utopia.
Incorrect. Most atheists, among whom Dawkings, acknowledge other sources of strife. But to take up all sources of bad things in the world is way more then any person can handle. What atheists do focus on is the one that impacts them directly. Making the world a step at a time so to say.
> It’s important to note that religion had nothing to > do with the vast majority of wars, e.g. Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, > Falklands War, Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Gran Chaco War in > South America, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War, Prussian- > French War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Wars of the > Roses, Mongol wars, Gallic War, Punic wars, Peloponesian War, Assyrian > wars …
Probably true.
> Such critics usually overlook the clear link between Hitler’s > genocidal atrocities and the evolutionary (and definitely > antibiblical) fervour that drove them, as well as his clear intent to > exterminate Christianity.
Hitler the christian who was on good terms with the pope, promoted belief in god and had atheists on the top of his hit list (even above jews)? That Hitler? He didn't want to exterminate Christiaanity, he wanted to reform it to acknowledge a master race or something like that. He never lost faith in God or Jesus.
> Not to mention the fact that the millions of > people killed last century by anti-God régimes are so vast in number > as to cause to pale into comparative insignificance the relative > handful killed in things like Crusades, Inquisition, etc. (see also > Christianity’s Real Record (off-site)).
The people killed weren't in the name of atheism though. Just like all those wars that weren't religious. The crusades, inquisition, conquistadors etc were directly working to promote their religion. Besides, conquistadors killed off roughly 20% of the world population in their time. Nobody in any time frame ever came close to relative numbers like that.
> Also, as many others have pointed out, those who engage in atrocities > are denying the Lord they claim to serve, whereas regimes like Pol Pot > and Stalin exhibit not the slightest inconsistency with their > underlying philosophies—the opposite, in fact. See Evolution and > Social Evil.
Stalin's philosophy was Marxism or communism. What he did was a tyranny (one ruler) which is directly opposed to communism (everybody equal). Stalin is close to the epitome of philosophical inconsistency.
Those who engage in atrocities for the Lord usually derive their justification from the same book that condemns them. The Bible is filled with contradictions so any viewpoint can be justified. They were convinced they were doing what the abrahamic god wanted them to do just as much as present day Christians are convinced they were wrong.
> ‘I hate to agree with Hitler, but …’ > Adolf Hitler
> Hitler’s ideas of a ‘master race’ were driven by Darwinian notions of > favouring the strong over the weak, and humans as a biological > commodity. Today’s cutting-edge evolutionists are seeking to revive > aspects of Nazi thought.
> Eugenics is the ‘science’ developed by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton > (see Eugenics ... death of the defenceless). Based on the principles > of controlled selection, it advocates the increase of desirable > characteristics in a human population. Extreme applications of this > principle, however, have resulted in forced sterilization and culling > of the ‘less fit’.
> This philosophy was prominent and popular prior to WW2, and in the > United States it led to the widespread practice of forcibly > sterilizing ‘undesirables’. Many in the US even lauded the Nazi > government’s public promotion of such principles as ‘progressive’. > See:
> * The Lies of Lynchburg, > * Eugenics in Vermont > * America’s evolutionists: Hitler’s inspiration? (review of War > against the Weak by Edwin Black).
Theory of Evolution deals with natural causes and populations over time. The fact of evolution itself is not good or evil, it's just a fact of life. Eugenics is more like dog-breeding. It has nothing to do with the ToE and just focusses on the fact of evolution and tries to steer it. Eugenics is self-defeating though. By eliminating any deviant properties the result is actually eliminating evolution. You could say that eugenicists are trying to stop evolution even more then creationists are.
> Eugenic ideas fuelled the thinking of the Nazis, including their > notorious ‘racial hygiene’ and ‘breeding superhumans’ program. It > progressively led to worse atrocities, including the pre-war > elimination of entire wards full of people who had serious chronic > mental handicaps, for example.
> After the gruesome unveiling of the Nazi death camps following Allied > liberation, eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism slunk > shamefacedly into the shadows. (Although most modern evolutionists > would seek to dissociate themselves from social Darwinism, claiming > that it is a misapplication of Darwinian theory, Darwin was definitely > a social Darwinist). Yet it is unsurprising that such principles are > now under review, as selection of beneficial traits is logically > consistent with evolution.
Evolution is a fact. Finding better cures for diseases is a beneficial application, Hitler's eugenics is a detrimental application. Nuclear fusion is a fact. Building nuclear reactors for cheaper energy is a beneficial application, nuclear bombs is a detrimental application.
Just get it already!
> Dawkins himself now says that certain ideas of eugenics may not be > that bad after all. In a letter to the editor of the Sunday Herald > (Scotland), Dawkins says that, while one would not want to be seen > agreeing with Hitler, eugenics can be practical and desirable. He > writes that, ‘if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for > running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be > impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic > ability?’1
There is something to be said for that. And as Dawkings probably mentioned as well, when you go down that road you need to focus on good parts and/or fixing bad ones. Not eliminating people with bad genes and not trying to get everyone equal; those things defeat the purpose. But it needs to be debated now that technology is getting close to cloning and direct gene manipulation. We need to know where we stand as mankind preferably before the first genetically altered babies see the light (and they will appear, initially just altered to fix chronic diseases probably)
> Dawkins and other prominent evolutionists increasingly apply their > strongly held worldviews to issues such as the genetic improvement of > the human species which, they say, is a logical consequence of wanting > to use genetic manipulation to cure diseases. (This is different from > genetic repair of harmful mutations, because Christ’s healing example > shows that ameliorating effects of the curse is a blessing—see for > example:
Let's leave the mythological figures out of the debate please.
> See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring > the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the > discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated > numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding > in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large > number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on > whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those > agreed with that assumption.
It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam. Therefore we are at war with Islam. We are not at war with "terror", not even at war with "Islamofascism". We are at war with Islam. Islam is the enemy, no matter how much we wish otherwise. Checking back through history, we see a thousand years of unilateral and unsuccessful declarations of peace by Christendom, such as Jefferson's infamous declaration of the end of the "first" Barbary war. Jefferson "ended" it, but the other side did not. Does this sound familiar?
This kind of warfare just does not fit into the Westphalian model of war between nation states. Charles the Great's Westphalian style expeditions had the usual depressing results, foreshadowing a thousand years of similarly unsuccessful operations. The best he could do was to create a desert between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. What succeeded for Charles the Great and his successors was to grant Muslim lands and Muslim people to Christian adventurers - the landgoing equivalent of letters of marque and reprisal.
War between Muslim non state entities and Christian non state entities worked out pretty well for Christendom. War between Muslim states and Christian states did not work out so well, because victory over a Muslim state merely transitioned into war between Christian states and Muslim non state entities. War by Christian centralized states has only been successful to the extent that they were willing to create deserts.
> > See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring > > the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the > > discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated > > numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding > > in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large > > number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on > > whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those > > agreed with that assumption.
> It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast > majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam. Therefore we > are at war with Islam. We are not at war with "terror", not even at > war with "Islamofascism". We are at war with Islam. Islam is the > enemy, no matter how much we wish otherwise. Checking back through > history, we see a thousand years of unilateral and unsuccessful > declarations of peace by Christendom, such as Jefferson's infamous > declaration of the end of the "first" Barbary war. Jefferson "ended" > it, but the other side did not. Does this sound familiar?
> This kind of warfare just does not fit into the Westphalian model of > war between nation states. Charles the Great's Westphalian style > expeditions had the usual depressing results, foreshadowing a thousand > years of similarly unsuccessful operations. The best he could do was > to create a desert between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. What > succeeded for Charles the Great and his successors was to grant Muslim > lands and Muslim people to Christian adventurers - the landgoing > equivalent of letters of marque and reprisal.
> War between Muslim non state entities and Christian non state entities > worked out pretty well for Christendom. War between Muslim states and > Christian states did not work out so well, because victory over a > Muslim state merely transitioned into war between Christian states and > Muslim non state entities. War by Christian centralized states has > only been successful to the extent that they were willing to create > deserts.
We (the US) are still trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and these fanatics. For example:
which I think probably expresses some of the thinking on the US side. However, if eight years on we are still having this problem then it is probably futile. And if it is futile despite everything done to avert it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no solution short of killing them all, but we've survived Islamic aggression for over a thousand years and we can probably survive another thousand years.
> which I think probably expresses some of the thinking > on the US side. However, if eight years on we are > still having this problem then it is probably futile. > And if it is futile despite everything done to avert > it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no > solution short of killing them all, but we've survived > Islamic aggression for over a thousand years and we > can probably survive another thousand years.
Quite so. But we did not survive it by denying the problem, nor by prematurely announcing peace. All these strategies have been tried before, with results unfailingly dreadful. We are not the first to pursue peace by political correctness.
Rather, the effectual strategy over the last thousand years or so has been to make state to state war until Islamic heads of state are deterred by fear that they will be overthrown and replaced by someone else, and non state to non state war, until non state Islamic holy warriors are deterred by fear that they will lose their lands and their women to Christian brigands.
Contrary to the myths of the Marines, the Barbary wars were ended not by US marines, but by Christian settlers.
When Christian settlers moved into the Barbary coast, then Islam, all of Islam, not just the Barbary coast, became peaceful. When they were kicked out of the Barbary coast, Islam, all of Islam, started to make trouble again.
This strategy - settlement by piratical and violent Christian settlers worked for Christendom when Charles the Great applied it in 780 AD, and worked when the French employed it in 1830.
When a nation state army attempts to fight a bunch of local small scale wars, it suffers diseconomies of scale, thus large Christian states have generally done poorly against non state, not-quite-state, and semi state Islamic enemies. The solution to this problem has always been to privatize the war effort - using soldiers that directly answer to the Christian head of state (state soldiers and state armies) only against large scale enemies, only against enemies that are conventional states, and encouraging adventurers, mercenaries, brigands, and pirates against more dispersed enemies, against non state and not-quite-state enemies.
> > > See also the comments for a cross section of Muslim reaction. Ignoring > > > the non-Muslim comments, there are a few dissenting Muslims, but the > > > discussion is dominated by Muslims who approve - visibly dominated > > > numerically, by length of entry, by cogency of argument, by grounding > > > in religious teaching, and by indefatigability. Moreover a large > > > number of the dissenters felt it necessary to express a judgment on > > > whether the West was fighting a war against Islam, and all of those > > > agreed with that assumption.
> > It takes two sides to make peace, only one side to make war. The vast > > majority of Muslims believe we are at war with Islam. Therefore we > > are at war with Islam. We are not at war with "terror", not even at > > war with "Islamofascism". We are at war with Islam. Islam is the > > enemy, no matter how much we wish otherwise. Checking back through > > history, we see a thousand years of unilateral and unsuccessful > > declarations of peace by Christendom, such as Jefferson's infamous > > declaration of the end of the "first" Barbary war. Jefferson "ended" > > it, but the other side did not. Does this sound familiar?
> > This kind of warfare just does not fit into the Westphalian model of > > war between nation states. Charles the Great's Westphalian style > > expeditions had the usual depressing results, foreshadowing a thousand > > years of similarly unsuccessful operations. The best he could do was > > to create a desert between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam. What > > succeeded for Charles the Great and his successors was to grant Muslim > > lands and Muslim people to Christian adventurers - the landgoing > > equivalent of letters of marque and reprisal.
> > War between Muslim non state entities and Christian non state entities > > worked out pretty well for Christendom. War between Muslim states and > > Christian states did not work out so well, because victory over a > > Muslim state merely transitioned into war between Christian states and > > Muslim non state entities. War by Christian centralized states has > > only been successful to the extent that they were willing to create > > deserts.
> We (the US) are still trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and > these fanatics. For example:
> which I think probably expresses some of the thinking on the US side. > However, if eight years on we are still having this problem then it is > probably futile. And if it is futile despite everything done to avert > it, then the problem is Islam itself. There is no solution short of > killing them all, but we've survived Islamic aggression for over a > thousand years and we can probably survive another thousand years.
This analysis totally ignores the thousand years of European harassment and looting of the Muslim nations. No one can claim the West has left Islam in peace. Imperialism is the Peace that Devastates.
Europe is continuously carving up the Arab lands and installing puppets, as in the "creation" of Kuwait. When Europe installed and supported the Saudis in Arabia, do you think that was a peaceful act? When the Saudi puppets machine gunned the Haaj in 1987, was that peaceful?
If the OPEC nations were permitted to charge free market prices for oil, what would that price be?
Both writers ignore the thousand years of attacks by Europe on the Arab people, affectionately termed the Crusades, and the wars of against the Spanish Moors, too.
No one has a claim to innocence, least of all the West.
> This analysis totally ignores the thousand years of > European harassment and looting of the Muslim nations.
When we really were harassing and looting (the settlement of the Barbary coast by piratical christians), Islamic terrorism stopped - stopped pretty much everywhere, not just on the Barbary coast. When the French government disarmed those settlers and allowed them to be driven out, Islamic terror resumed.
1. We did that stuff because of vicious, evil, and unprovoked Islamic terror.
2. During the 130 years we were doing that stuff, from 1830 to 1960, little no Islamic terror.
3. When we stopped doing that stuff, Islamic terror resumed.
Muslims will kill infidels and take their stuff, as they are doing all along the bloody borders of Islam, unless they have a reasonable and well founded belief that doing so will be answered in kind.
> No one can claim the West has left Islam in peace. > Imperialism is the Peace that Devastates.
During the 130 years of European imperialism against Islam, terrorism stopped. When European imperialism stopped, terrorism resumed.
It is inherent in the Muslim religion that they are at war with us. So whenever we stop oppressing them, they start to oppress us.
|
