|
Reasoned Faith
|
 |
« Reply #180 on: November 12, 2007, 05:28:10 PM » |
|
I did address it.
I offered a comparison, and you refuse to hold the "athiest/materialst" worldview to the same standard as a theist philosophy.
Your holding of your own views to a different set of standards more or less makes the discussion pointless.
The two worldview are polar opposites. The atheist/materialist worldview can only be properly evaluated from its framework just as the Christian worldview can only be properly evaluated from its framework. It seems pointless to insist that atheists and Christians adopt common principles. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,103
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #181 on: November 12, 2007, 05:44:23 PM » |
|
It seems pointless to insist that atheists and Christians adopt common principles.
Is that what he was doing? Guess I missed that. Could point out where that was please? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #182 on: November 12, 2007, 07:14:19 PM » |
|
Yes it was in response to illy's complaint that I have two standards, one for Christianity and another for Atheism. Different standards are appropriate when there are different baselines/principles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,103
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #183 on: November 12, 2007, 07:29:57 PM » |
|
I guess I don't understand, because your point makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about?
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,066
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #184 on: November 12, 2007, 09:11:11 PM » |
|
The view that "Darwinists" (I feel silly writing this, we don't call people who believe in atoms "atomists") need answer for eugenics, introduces the concept that adherents to a positive belief must answer for a normative view vaguely related to that belief.
This is either a principle that is valid and should be viewed as credible, or it isn't.
Application of the principle to one set of ideas, and not another gives me serious doubt as to the sincerity with which the principle is presented and applied.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #185 on: November 13, 2007, 05:42:56 AM » |
|
The view that "Darwinists" (I feel silly writing this, we don't call people who believe in atoms "atomists") need answer for eugenics, introduces the concept that adherents to a positive belief must answer for a normative view vaguely related to that belief.
This is either a principle that is valid and should be viewed as credible, or it isn't.
Application of the principle to one set of ideas, and not another gives me serious doubt as to the sincerity with which the principle is presented and applied.
illy I suppose the issue is over how one should frame a question. When one is asked to explain diverging views that seem to run counter to an underlying principle is that seeking better clarity, or is it begging the question? Here again are the primary points of this thread: My purpose in this thread was to demonstrate how Evolutionary Theory fails to provide a coherent explanation for much of the observed behavior that is necessarily prescribed to genetics by the Darwinian narrative. Explanations for the workings of this world must be harmonious with observation or we should consider them incorrect. The fact that some people subscribe to eugenics as an outgrowth of the Darwinian narrative while others reject it for the same reason seemed a good way to illustrate the issue as it applies to the worldview (atheism/materialism) that subscribes to the Darwinian Evolutionary theory as a reasoned explanation for diversity of life, and the source of our brain, the mind, reason, logic and morality. I also offered the following questions as challenges to those who hold to an atheistic/materialistic worldview to draw out the lack of a coherent explanation. Those who subscribe to the idea that behaviors and physical manifestation of characteristics are derived from genetic configuration must admit and confront and ultimately explain why they deny the association between this materialistic worldview and the implications that criminally, low intelligence, poor social behaviors can by their worldview be reduced and perhaps eradicated through selective breading. Note that this challenge does not ask these people to answer the normative view that eugenics should be implemented. This only challenges adherents of the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to explain why they deny the association when the theory clearly posits that these characteristics are a result of gene inheritance and can theoretically be bred out of the social pool. This next inquiry is the likely source of your complaint. Next they need to justify why that would not be Noble under their worldview. If they disagree and instead claim that "what is is not what ought to be", then they should explain where by their worldview this moral concept originates. We can quibble over the semantics, and here I fully admit that my prose is not in general very good. But surly you should be able to see that my primary point was directed at those who accept the premise of Darwinian evolutionary theory and strictly materialistic mechanisms but reject selective breading. I am asking them to answer only the position they take and not the position they disagree with. Finally I note that to date nobody has taken me up on this challenge. To date you all seem to be dancing around the subject. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #186 on: November 13, 2007, 07:01:25 AM » |
|
the intent by RF is clear: to attack Evolution. the subtext is also clear: that if there is a truth other than one presented by his xian worldview, it should be avoided, mocked, attacked, ridiculed, etc.
think: gallileo and the church attacking him for discovering the truth that was counter to the claim of the bible. RF, in his arrogance, is doing the same thing. he feels he must make people answer and account for truth, especially if they contradict his narrow world view.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,066
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #187 on: November 13, 2007, 10:40:50 AM » |
|
Why eugenics is not noble has been about beaten to death in this thread, yet the claim that no one has yet answered this challenge is still put forth.
Am I to take this seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #188 on: November 13, 2007, 12:42:22 PM » |
|
Why eugenics is not noble has been about beaten to death in this thread, yet the claim that no one has yet answered this challenge is still put forth.
Am I to take this seriously?
Yes that question has been answered but the challenge to which I referred remains. Read my post again please. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #189 on: November 13, 2007, 12:57:11 PM » |
|
I'm sorry barney, but I am not angry. I am anxious to hear a good explanation. I am also anxious to discuss wether the concepts of Social Darwinism are having a lasting impact on our present society.
What do you think? You presented the thoughts of someone else but didn't add your comments. Just a few leading questions. Let me ask you, RF, do you think people will use genetics to improve the human race, whether it is noble or not? Will the victors write the history? Will our progeny look back on us and see us as savages? Can our genes be improved? Would you deny improving someones genes in order to make them more resilient to disease? What aspect of genetic engineering do you accept already? Do you eat genetically modified foods? Tomatoes that are genetically engineered to resist pests? Is that immoral? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,066
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #190 on: November 13, 2007, 04:27:00 PM » |
|
Why eugenics is not noble has been about beaten to death in this thread, yet the claim that no one has yet answered this challenge is still put forth.
Am I to take this seriously?
Yes that question has been answered but the challenge to which I referred remains. Read my post again please. I am asking them to answer only the position they take and not the position they disagree with. So, in other words, if someone agrees with the positive idea of evolution, but does not agree with normative idea of eugenics, the challenge was not to them? Seems that if your only asking someone to answer for the position they agree with, stating: Those who subscribe to the idea that behaviors and physical manifestation of characteristics are derived from genetic configuration must admit and confront and ultimately explain why they deny the association between this materialistic worldview and the implications that criminally, low intelligence, poor social behaviors can by their worldview be reduced and perhaps eradicated through selective breading.Maybe isn't the best way to get that idea across. Now, I'm trying not to read meaning into this for you, but I did get the impression from the statement that those who do believe the positive idea of evolution are supposed to answer for the normative view of eugenics (which many if not most disagree with). Seems a little contradictory from only having to answer for the position they take, not the one they disagree with. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #191 on: November 13, 2007, 07:38:59 PM » |
|
Have any of those things RF mentioned (criminality, etc.) been shown to be able to be affected through selective breeding? Some how I think he is still arguing 150 year old science - something ID'ists have a penchant for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #192 on: November 14, 2007, 04:30:54 PM » |
|
Have any of those things RF mentioned (criminality, etc.) been shown to be able to be affected through selective breeding? Some how I think he is still arguing 150 year old science - something ID'ists have a penchant for.
Do you intend to cast doubt on your idea that behavior has its roots in our genetic makeup? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #193 on: November 14, 2007, 06:23:34 PM » |
|
are you just going to ask questions when I ask you a question?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,066
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #194 on: November 16, 2007, 10:04:49 PM » |
|
If you ask me, Biker Dude is the one that need answer for eugenics.
Clearly his Spartan world-view does not have a moral thingamajig or what-not to justify why eugenics is not the something or other (or kickin m-fers down wells for that matter).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
