Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Atheists and Specieism

Lest I offend by generalising, let me say that atheism leads some atheists, those who hold true to the logical conclusions of atheism / naturalism, to conclusions like those reached by Peter Senger and Nietzsche.

According to CNN, Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, claimed black people are less intelligent than whites. Because an atheist scientist would never make a statement unless it was based on scientific, observable, repeatable, verifiable evidence, we can know that Mr. Watson is correct. Going back to the origins of evolutionary thought, Dr. Watson said “there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically." Of course not! It makes absolute evolutionary sense. "The Nobel prize winner went on to say that he would like to think of all people as being equal but, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".


Atheist Hermann Klaatch - “The humanitarian nonsense which grants equal rights to all on the premise of the unity of humanity, is to be condemned from the scientific standpoint.”

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

These are examples of the natural fallout of atheism at it purist. Survival of the fittest. Some atheists, however, find that kind of thing distasteful. Having been marinated in Christian values of human equality and worth and dignity, these amusing atheists actually say that there is a difference between the human animal and other animal species of the world.

Well, no, that’s not quite right. When it suits, these atheists say that we’re evolved in the same manner as all other animals. When it doesn’t suit, these atheists say that morally, we’re very different. “Other” animals seem to have evolved a very different moral system than have we humans.
Bears don’t say it’s wrong to steal fish from other bears.
Lions don’t say it’s wrong to kill the offspring of other lions
Chimpanzees don’t say it’s wrong to murder and eat other chimps
There aren’t any males in other animal species that say it’s wrong to force females to have sex with them. In the rest of the animal world, “No” does not mean “no.”

Here’s where it gets complicated for atheists. Other animals have been tremendously successful doing things the way they doing them. Without the shackles of morality non human animals have survived much longer than it appears will be the case with us. Many people would say that we should copy them. Many people do copy them. Morals, values and obligations are just an illusion, these brights tell us. In reality, right and wrong, good and bad simply don’t exist. At worst, a rapist is merely flouting social convention. On atheism, the only wrong that Hitler did was to cross into other countries. Even that wasn’t so much wrong as it was stupid. If he’d stayed home and minded his own business, he could be frying Jews to this very day. After all, he was only doing what was best for his society. Or at least, so say atheists.

But then there are others who say that it’s wrong to copy survival of the fittest. Ask them why it’s wrong and they say, “Well, it just is. It’s what’s been decided along the way.” But is that any reason to do what “the man” says to do? Everyone knows that the rules of society are biassed against minorities. So who decides on right and wrong, good or bad? Well, in atheists world, it’s each to his own. Everyone does what is right in his own eyes, because in atheist world there is no higher authority than yourself. In atheist world, all there is are thoughts and behaviours governed by chemical reactions that either will or will not help the phenotype survive.

14 comments:

tinkbell13 said...

Wow, there is so much here that I am not even going to go after because it is insane that I have read such crap. Now, while you appear to be a little more aware of your inherent tendency to overgeneralize, you have become racist.

First of all, you might want to get the facts right. Darwinian evolution and Social Darwisnism (which later became Eugenics) are two seperate things. Here is what Social Darwinism is:

Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.[1]

The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which is a social adaptation of the theory of natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin. Natural selection explains speciation in populations as the outcome of competition between individual organisms for limited resources, popularly known as "survival of the fittest", a term coined by anthropologist Herbert Spencer, or "The Gospel of Wealth" theory written by Andrew Carnegie.

The term first appeared in Europe in 1877[2] and was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates; instead it has chiefly been used (pejoratively) by its opponents.[3]

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.

What crap are you talking about? What atheist scientist are you quoting, be specific.... Please, provide name and source so that I can make some sense of what you are getting at...

tinkbell13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tinkbell13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tinkbell13 said...

Okay.... I think that I understand what this crap is about.

I think that you are trying to show that atheists can be dangerous. Much in the same way that we tell you that you are endorsing the most sociopathic belief system on this planet. Dr. James Watson is disgraceful. You are not wrong in what you said about him. In all consciousness, I would not endorse nor support him. Guess what, that is the beauty of it all- I can decide what I think is acceptable.

However, bringing up Hitler. This is often, a very misconstrued argument. Hitler used Eugenics, which is an offshoot of Social Darwinism. Both of these branches of thought are completely isolated from Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology.

Here is some information;

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious, and weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action T4.[1]

This involved forced sterilization programs that were adopted from systems that were already in place in the United States.

I also found this quote to best illustrate how far off the mark you are. Here it is, with link as source.

Darwin's explanation for evolution--natural selection--has nothing to do with eugenics. Darwin's name was misappropriated by eugenicists who wanted to improve humanity by artificial--not natural--selection to give their ideas scientific legitimacy. Temple quotes Darwin that proves he was opposed to coercive eugenics, but she dismisses it as political spin!

Early eugenicist motives were laudable and based on a modern understanding of genetics and heredity, not evolution. They wanted to improve humanity by encouraging families with the best genes to voluntarily have many children (positive eugenics) and discouraging families with defective genes from having children (negative eugenics).

Unfortunately, these idealistic and beneficial goals degenerated first to biological determinism by zealous authorities, which obliged families to undergo forced sterilization, and finally to the Nazi medical and racial atrocities. Attributing this sorry social history to Darwin, evolution, and science is ludicrous and mendacious, since it was brought about by extreme social, political, and religious authoritarianism, not by science.

Here is the link so that you can clarify what you mean.
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/expelled.htm

Getting better, but still a house of cards. Survival of the fittest had nothing to do with Jewish People.

Gorth Satana said...

I'll make this quick because I'm ill as well. (Maybe I have caught it off Rod?)
Thanks for making an attempt not to over generalize.

Because an atheist scientist would never make a statement unless..
Atheists, even atheist scientists, are people and as people sometimes say stupid things.
James Watson has also said "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them."

Anyway, saying racism and nihilism is the natural progression of atheism is like saying these people are the natural progression of Christianity.

The rest is a typical theists muddling of "survival of the fittest" as a prescription instead of a description.
As an aside, I've often disliked the phrase "survival of the fittest" because it seems to me to be a tautology.

tinkbell13 said...

Yes, if you are trying to provide evidence (thank you for that) that atheism is as dangerous to this world as Christianity... Well, good luck. There may be the occasional bonehead scientist, but the atrocities highly pale in comparison. I really do not want to bring the Westboro Baptist Church, but I will if I have too. That is, if you want a modern example.

JD Curtis said...

saying racism and nihilism is the natural progression of atheism is like saying these people are the natural progression of Christianity

1. Gorth, it's been said that the ethics of centuries of Christian influence will stick around for probably a generation or two after a civilization (Whether it be Europe even perhaps the US someday) becomes "post-Christian". After that it's all downhill from there as it becomes murkier as time goes on as to what is right-wrong and what standard shall be used to judge so.

The other item you mentioned re: the "progression" of Christians was debunked as far back as 1879 if not further Link

Hope you feel better soon G.

Gandolf said...

"These are examples of the natural fallout of atheism at it purist. Survival of the fittest. Some atheists, however, find that kind of thing distasteful. Having been marinated in Christian values of human equality and worth and dignity, these amusing atheists actually say that there is a difference between the human animal and other animal species of the world."

No Mak many of us find it distasteful simply because not everyone needs to agree with what all that the "James Watson types" of this world happen to think about everything.

Thats especially the beauty of being nonbelievers who can decide more among themselves as a group, rather than being ruled over by some sort of dictatorship.

People being marinated in Christian dictatorship values in the past,has proved that this dictatorship doesnt always help human equality and worth and dignity....No far from it!!.Mak more often than not,christian values have worked against some human equalities.Have we not seen women delegated silence and domination by male,and children cursed with thoughts of stoning for talking against parent.

And infact nasty thoughts about people as slaves etc and how they could supposedly be treated,was written in the bible and around for a very very long time "marinating folks" in this bigoted type thinking.

Many folks were marinated by these biblical inspired thoughts to some extent,know doubt even Darwin didnt fully escape this type thinking that through the popular presense of the bible was also common thought often even throughout many whole communitys and countrys at that time.

Whether the bible actually does suggests this type of bogotry or not after mega scrutinising and hand waving etc has taken place, is really still beside the point.

How it WAS translated and WAS used is still VERY relevant and what matters most.Biblical scripture about slavery and domineering attitude WAS what helped reinforced the bigotry long before any Dawin figure arrived thats for sure.


I agree its a "typical theists muddling of "survival of the fittest" as a prescription instead of a description."

Tristan Vick said...

Religion, as far as I can tell, has no claim on morality. In fact, nonbelievers are the first to have come up with the golden rule nearly 500 years before Christianity. Christian ethics, and that's what it is less it be confused with goodness, is slow to the uptake.

http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-is-goodness-naturalists.html

JD Curtis said...

Religion, as far as I can tell, has no claim on morality

Would you say "none whatsoever"? Would you claim all religions? Christianity exculsively? The subject matter is a bit more in depth than that.

In fact, nonbelievers are the first to have come up with the golden rule nearly 500 years before Christianity.

For comparative purposes, who stated that you should "love" your enemies before Christians?

Makarios said...

He's making a good point tb. Even the twist on the golden rule from "don't do to others," to "Do unto others what you would have them do to you," is really important. It defines God's love which is the willed, desired, volitional, take action kind of love. The kind of love that causes Jesus to step down from His heavenly throne and comes to earth, to meet you where you're at and to undo the horrific consequences of what you've done to your relationship with Him.

JD Curtis said...

if you are trying to provide evidence (thank you for that) that atheism is as dangerous to this world as Christianity... Well, good luck. There may be the occasional bonehead scientist, but the atrocities highly pale in comparison.

This is either the most incredibly stupid statement ever made in an internet forum or I'm completely misreading it. 56% of all atheist leaders have murdered (non-martial deaths) a MINIMUM of 20,000 of their own people. How does that stack up against either Catholic or Lutheran leaders? (just for starters)

Gandolf said...

Tristan Vick said..."Religion, as far as I can tell, has no claim on morality"

Yes for religion to honestly calculate they had any claim to our human morality,they would first need good evidence of total immorality within tribes of humans who are without gods and religion.

There is very little evidence to suggest such a thing.None.Every single seperate tribe on earth we found they had their tribal morals.

We do see variations some folks morals were developed more than others, but still all groups of humans show evidence of morals they share amongst each other.Arguments of who is supposedly more moral than the other tribe, comes down more to culture and assertions and opinions and distance between the tribe or to what country you belong etc.

Morality is obviously connected to human thought,there is no evidence that suggests its connected to thought of any god.Nil

JD .."For comparative purposes, who stated that you should "love" your enemies before Christians?"

JD how does evidence of variation,do anything to prove claim of origin likely lays with that of, religion or the god/s ?.

Thats like saying i can change somebodies book around a bit, and then try and claim that it were i that wrote the book in the first place.Fraudulent practice.Dishonesty.Very Unjust.

JD..."56% of all atheist leaders have murdered (non-martial deaths) a MINIMUM of 20,000 of their own people. How does that stack up against either Catholic or Lutheran leaders? "

If what you wish to prove with these figures is that when a few atheist dictator leaders get to kill folks, they manage to kill in very high numbers.Well im guessing thats most likely very true JD.

But in my opinion that does very little to prove atheism is as dangerous to this world as Christianity or faith/god beliefs are.

All you have done is proved a few dictator leaders managed to kill in very very high numbers when they killed.And even then its debatable as to whether any religious influence has been accounted for honestly.But even putting that aside.

How does the threat of a few dictators, compare even with the numbers of religious fanatics who are willing to fight for their gods even in wars taking place today.You can bet a high majority of the Teliban soldiers believe they fight the war "for god also".And a higher percentage of U.S soldiers still feel their "god is with them" as they fight.

Gods play a big part in disasters like at Fort Hood,the god of both the muslim and the christian behind the scenes is always ever busy niggling away against any possible chance of any honest harmony and peace ever happening.As has always happened for thousands of years now gods have never been very happy unless people are battling each other over something,even Jesus admitted it honestly was the sword of society.

Atleast the man Jesus didnt try beating around the bush trying to twist the outcome by use of a few numbers.

The Atheist Missionary said...

There is a saying commonly used in physics: not even wrong that could be applied to this post.

So who decides on right and wrong, good or bad? Answer - each individual based on his or her evolved (or often not) sense of morality. If you haven't read Hugh Mackay's "Right & Wrong", please do.