Page 3 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,168
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2011, 8:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.


Murder, robbery, rape, and a variety of other crimes can be blamed on human nature, too. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hey, we're all just chimps anyway. Right?
WTF do you expect of us, not being of devine creation and all?

:lol:


As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Quote:
As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.


Evolutuon and creationism both at the same time? Isn't that contradictory to science?

Quote:
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?


Social Darwinism is the factory installed hard wiring.
Christianity is doing the right thing inspite of the hard wiring.


No, it's not a contradiction. I don't have a need to prove God, I just credit him with his handiwork. And the evidence of his handiwork is the fossil record proving evolution, as well as observation of the natural world.
And I'll give credit where credit is due - I very much respect your assertion that Christianity is doing the right thing by opposing Social Darwinism, which basically is an outgrowth of our flawed human nature.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,988
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Sep 2011, 8:28 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.


Murder, robbery, rape, and a variety of other crimes can be blamed on human nature, too. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hey, we're all just chimps anyway. Right?
WTF do you expect of us, not being of devine creation and all?

:lol:


As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Quote:
As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.


Evolutuon and creationism both at the same time? Isn't that contradictory to science?

Quote:
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?


Social Darwinism is the factory installed hard wiring.
Christianity is doing the right thing inspite of the hard wiring.


No, it's not a contradiction. I don't have a need to prove God, I just credit him with his handiwork. And the evidence of his handiwork is the fossil record proving evolution, as well as observation of the natural world.
And I'll give credit where credit is due - I very much respect your assertion that Christianity is doing the right thing by opposing Social Darwinism, which basically is an outgrowth of our flawed human nature.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What it comes down to is the controversy over what is the right thing......



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,234
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

21 Sep 2011, 8:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Just because not everyone is equal, or because many make poor life choices, we're still a western industrial democracy, and we have a part of our culture that makes it a virtue to care for those who are in need, or who otherwise would be left behind. Call it a secularization of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Even if someone is not equal to another in work ethic or intellect, they're still both of equal worth.

I agree that if we look at morality on the negative - ie. preventing human suffering - it pushes toward equalization of human value. What I am arguing is that there is a critical mass pushing the other way and that it comes from something so topographical that you might as well call it physics; its as predictable and intuitive as water running downhill.

How do you actually make something like that go away? About all you can do is make the human genome obsolete, ie. master our own genetics via technology to where you could take someone from a special needs group, give them the right treatment, and make them a viable for a Nobel Prize in science. No doubt that would not solve inequality necessarily but it would perhaps solve the problem of people chained to the sum effect of the genes their born with.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind though is that we are automatons, we are purely pass-through entities. We have no actual ownership of what we either think to say or do or follow through on in actuality. We may believe our decisions are our own but they're not - its really a mass of data coming together that our subconscious minds compile and then push up the chain to the conscious mind. No actual choices are made, if anything the illusion of choice comes in the form of 'what ifs' on the front end and Monday-night quarterbacking at the back end, little more. I'm not saying that we're permanently bound to cruelty on the level we are right now - we're significantly better than we were two-hundred years ago and likely two-hundered years ago we were significantly better than we were two hundred years before that. Its just to say that shaping the environment to change the playing field is slow work and you can't predict what kind of technological upsets (like gene-restructuring) may come along and completely change the paradigm.

Regardless though, the human being is just a complex whirlpool of reactions driven by input. Hence there's really no such thing as something we do that isn't 'natural'.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,168
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2011, 8:52 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.


Murder, robbery, rape, and a variety of other crimes can be blamed on human nature, too. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hey, we're all just chimps anyway. Right?
WTF do you expect of us, not being of devine creation and all?

:lol:


As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Quote:
As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.


Evolutuon and creationism both at the same time? Isn't that contradictory to science?

Quote:
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?


Social Darwinism is the factory installed hard wiring.
Christianity is doing the right thing inspite of the hard wiring.


No, it's not a contradiction. I don't have a need to prove God, I just credit him with his handiwork. And the evidence of his handiwork is the fossil record proving evolution, as well as observation of the natural world.
And I'll give credit where credit is due - I very much respect your assertion that Christianity is doing the right thing by opposing Social Darwinism, which basically is an outgrowth of our flawed human nature.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What it comes down to is the controversy over what is the right thing......


Call me dull witted, but I'm afraid you've lost me with that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,168
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2011, 9:05 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Just because not everyone is equal, or because many make poor life choices, we're still a western industrial democracy, and we have a part of our culture that makes it a virtue to care for those who are in need, or who otherwise would be left behind. Call it a secularization of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Even if someone is not equal to another in work ethic or intellect, they're still both of equal worth.

I agree that if we look at morality on the negative - ie. preventing human suffering - it pushes toward equalization of human value. What I am arguing is that there is a critical mass pushing the other way and that it comes from something so topographical that you might as well call it physics; its as predictable and intuitive as water running downhill.

How do you actually make something like that go away? About all you can do is make the human genome obsolete, ie. master our own genetics via technology to where you could take someone from a special needs group, give them the right treatment, and make them a viable for a Nobel Prize in science. No doubt that would not solve inequality necessarily but it would perhaps solve the problem of people chained to the sum effect of the genes their born with.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind though is that we are automatons, we are purely pass-through entities. We have no actual ownership of what we either think to say or do or follow through on in actuality. We may believe our decisions are our own but they're not - its really a mass of data coming together that our subconscious minds compile and then push up the chain to the conscious mind. No actual choices are made, if anything the illusion of choice comes in the form of 'what ifs' on the front end and Monday-night quarterbacking at the back end, little more. I'm not saying that we're permanently bound to cruelty on the level we are right now - we're significantly better than we were two-hundred years ago and likely two-hundered years ago we were significantly better than we were two hundred years before that. Its just to say that shaping the environment to change the playing field is slow work and you can't predict what kind of technological upsets (like gene-restructuring) may come along and completely change the paradigm.

Regardless though, the human being is just a complex whirlpool of reactions driven by input. Hence there's really no such thing as something we do that isn't 'natural'.


That sounds a lot like what I hear in church on Sunday, using terms such as man's fallen nature, and sinful nature, and original sin, which so hardwired into our very being that we can't even want to affect our salvation without God's intervention.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make a convert of you; rather I just noticed a strong similarity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,988
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Sep 2011, 9:23 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.


Murder, robbery, rape, and a variety of other crimes can be blamed on human nature, too. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hey, we're all just chimps anyway. Right?
WTF do you expect of us, not being of devine creation and all?

:lol:


As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Quote:
As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.


Evolutuon and creationism both at the same time? Isn't that contradictory to science?

Quote:
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?


Social Darwinism is the factory installed hard wiring.
Christianity is doing the right thing inspite of the hard wiring.


No, it's not a contradiction. I don't have a need to prove God, I just credit him with his handiwork. And the evidence of his handiwork is the fossil record proving evolution, as well as observation of the natural world.
And I'll give credit where credit is due - I very much respect your assertion that Christianity is doing the right thing by opposing Social Darwinism, which basically is an outgrowth of our flawed human nature.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What it comes down to is the controversy over what is the right thing......


Call me dull witted, but I'm afraid you've lost me with that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The conservative definition of right vs. the liberal definition of right.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,168
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Sep 2011, 9:32 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.


Murder, robbery, rape, and a variety of other crimes can be blamed on human nature, too. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hey, we're all just chimps anyway. Right?
WTF do you expect of us, not being of devine creation and all?

:lol:


As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Quote:
As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. We did evolve from lower primates, but I believe God had endowed us with a soul along the way, and with that, a sense of right and wrong. So no, Social Darwinism isn't justified.


Evolutuon and creationism both at the same time? Isn't that contradictory to science?

Quote:
And if you're a Christian, how can you defend Social Darwinism?


Social Darwinism is the factory installed hard wiring.
Christianity is doing the right thing inspite of the hard wiring.


No, it's not a contradiction. I don't have a need to prove God, I just credit him with his handiwork. And the evidence of his handiwork is the fossil record proving evolution, as well as observation of the natural world.
And I'll give credit where credit is due - I very much respect your assertion that Christianity is doing the right thing by opposing Social Darwinism, which basically is an outgrowth of our flawed human nature.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What it comes down to is the controversy over what is the right thing......


Call me dull witted, but I'm afraid you've lost me with that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The conservative definition of right vs. the liberal definition of right.


Right is right, regardless of political position.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,234
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

21 Sep 2011, 9:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
That sounds a lot like what I hear in church on Sunday, using terms such as man's fallen nature, and sinful nature, and original sin.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make a convert of you; rather I just noticed a strong similarity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think religion found these things through observation that the secular would. Its part of why I've always felt that it was a little insane that many atheists were anti-theistic to the point of throwing anything out that even felt vaguely religious. World religions essentially house thousands of years of knowledge on society-building experiments as well as the outcomes of what will happen when certain types of ideas are floated over others. The idea of getting people in the neighborhood together on a regular basis and pushing community is good and is needed to a point, having ritual and holidays to remind us of who we are and to have culture is something we seem to need for health, morality seems to revolve around a clean and high-achieving life; Mormons are even more exemplary of that than most it seems. We're in a very strange and sophomoric age of reasoning where we feel like we know so much better than anyone before us that we need to re-invent history to prove that it still has any bearing on our newly enlightened selves. What gets missed in that logic - we're no different genetically to our ancestors for several thousand years back and additionally they had far more time and far less distraction to watch each other all day and see how it works.

Regardless some people might call the evil of the world Lucifer and his angels, I'd see it from my perspective as living in a universe that's every bit as sentient as your average tennis ball. Massive swells of energy build up from non-sentient processes, our whole universe is one of cause and effect, human dynamics are a universe of cause and effect, and the things that input into who we are - ie. act on us for our response - end up pushing through us, leading our behavioral tendencies, and they're things that don't necessarily have either good nor values - they have no sentience for value judgements such as justice, good vs. evil, or the great tragedy of human suffering and inequity. This is as true regarding domino-effect dynamics in real time as it is of our 46 chromosome DNA and how shoddy the quality of our interactions and view of each other tends to be on account of its inability to give us functional equality.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

21 Sep 2011, 11:37 pm

Raptor wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Personally, I think it's an ugly, heartless philosophy, which only is meant to justify social inequities for political reasons. Unlike real Darwinism, social Darwinism is nothing more than a pseudoscience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Ugly, heartless, whatever, but it's human nature and will always be.
So, which part of human nature do you believe has any relationship with the concepts of social darwinism?.


You're the monkey you tell me about it.
Or will you just get mad and throw sh** at me?
I see your attempt at changing subject as a clear sign that you were never intellectually prepared to actually answer the question I made.


_________________
.


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Sep 2011, 6:15 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Joker wrote:
I have always thought since they teach Evolution in school they should teach Social Darwinism to.

Evolution and Social Darwinism go hand in hand with each other.

Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible.

Neither does Social Darwinism.


Social Darwinism is an incorrect, late 19th century interpretation of the theory of evolution. It should no more be taught as a subject in schools than phrenology or creationism


I wholeheartedly agree with Vig on that one.