| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 04:12:13 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
partial-birth abortions?
infanticide?
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Dawkins, Richard. 2003. _A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections
on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love_ (USA: Houghton Mifflin
Company), 263pp. A paragraph on 26:
I have argued that the discontinuous gap between
humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is
regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the
present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the
result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of
survival and extinction had been different, the gap
would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are
based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as
if cast in stone.
Williams, George C. 1997. _The Pony Fish's Glow: And
Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature_ (USA:
BasicBooks), 184pp. On 155-6:
Our experience of human life histories today, with the
great majority of our babies surviving to adulthood, is
grossly abnormal.
.... The infanticide I mentioned is not a social pathology
found only in abnormal circumstances. It is prevalent
today in diverse human cultures, including some that we
might not think of as primitive; it is widespread in a large
proportion of the animal kingdom; and it is entirely to
be expected from what we know of evolution. These
assertions are abundantly documented in the technical
literature of anthropology and biology, and infanticide is
just one small detail of a monstrous picture. Mountains
of data on parasitism and predation (including
cannibalism) in nature could be amassed to document
the enormity of the pain and mayhem that arise from
adaptations produced by natural selection.
.... This [just-described explanation] is why infanticide
is adaptive for the male [monkey].
A paragraph on 160:
The only realistic view is that a human life arises
gradually. A child’s acquisition of speech, and use of it
to convey ideas to others, is perhaps the most obvious
indication of this process. This gradualism is not much
help in making personal decisions or devising public
policy. We want clear and simple rules as guides for
human behavior and the recognition of who should be
accorded human rights. The recognition of full
humanity in a full-term newborn would be one such
simple rule. I am not inclined to argue that it is the best
possible, but it makes more sense than any recognition
of fetal rights. All the usual arguments for rights before
birth are based either on an untenable biological
definition of humanity or on fetal behavioral
attainments. The observable capabilities of a human
fetus can all be matched in other mammals at
comparable stages of development.
1995 Dennett: "Darwinian thinking helps us see why the
traditional hope of solving these problems (finding a moral
algorithm) is forlorn"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0408021033.78218bde%40posting.google.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual
activity of many varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and
euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 01:10:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:05:01 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow & extremely
cruel process.
Do you have any evidence for this statement?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 05:35:11 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow & extremely
cruel process.
Of course, it doesn't bother you that that is a lie does it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate!" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 04:53:22 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0pbde$2cb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow & extremely
cruel process.
Of course, it doesn't bother you that that is a lie does it?
Lies are all they have! If it wasn't for lies, Christianity and creationism
simply would not exist!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
11 Mar 2005 05:41:20 AM |
|
|
Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate!
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote in message
news:4230cfd0$0$22223$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0pbde$2cb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of
the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
extremely
cruel process.
Of course, it doesn't bother you that that is a lie does it?
Lies are all they have! If it wasn't for lies, Christianity and
creationism
simply would not exist!!!
Poor Darwin, did he advocate genocide or condone murder?
I'd rather talk about the Inquistition and related subjects.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 05:14:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:53:22 +1000, "Clayton: The Reason The
Housewives Are Desperate!" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d0pbde$2cb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow & extremely
cruel process.
Of course, it doesn't bother you that that is a lie does it?
Lies are all they have! If it wasn't for lies, Christianity and creationism
simply would not exist!!!
Creationisn wouldn't. Christianity would be more liberal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 06:20:17 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was
on early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of
the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
extremely
cruel process.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 09:52:54 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was
on early
Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of
the
fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
extremely
cruel process.
Randy;
This is crap....Hitler used whatever argument he felt would convince
the masses to assist him in his evil goals. He used religious arguments
far more than the arguments based on science....by your logic, we
should then ban all religious teachings.
Consider this....the countries that have the highest rates of violent
crime [immoral behaviour] are those countries [including the good ol'
US of A] that have a strong religious base. Those countries that are
primarily secular have much lower rates of violent crime. Based on this
evidence and your reasoning, religion everywhere should be
banned....don't you agree?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 07:32:11 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported Hitler and this was due in large part because of the
punitive treatment handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
was on early Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of
the fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
extremely cruel process.
No, he based it on What Martin Luther wrote. Anybody who actually knew
anything about the theory would realize that "survival of the fittest", even
if it was true would not apply in this situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:25:13 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Randy Story wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported Hitler and this was due in large part because of the
punitive treatment handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
was on early Nazi designs.
So what, Hitler based all his extreminations on Darwins survival of
the fittest principle. He thought he was just helping out a slow &
extremely cruel process.
No, he based it on What Martin Luther wrote. Anybody who actually knew
anything about the theory would realize that "survival of the
fittest", even
if it was true would not apply in this situation.
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 05:21:26 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians.What?
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on early
Nazi designs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 07:30:18 PM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDKXd.15476$OU1.7072@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported Hitler and this was due in large part because of the
punitive treatment handed down by the good christians of the world.
because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians.What?
Compare the treaty after WWI with the way Germany was treated after WWII.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
was on early Nazi designs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 10:29:04 PM |
|
|
Hmm, I was not able to track down the very first post in this thread to
properly attach this reply, but I just want to say that I consider the
idea that "Darwinists" or any other group of humans can downgrade human
life to be absurd. We can only downgrade what we have authority over.
Hurricanes can be downgraded to tropical storms at a certain velocity
because meteorlogists defined it so. Doctors can downgrade someone's
condition from critical to serious. A priority can be downgraded from
urgent to normal. But who has a say on the value of human life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 10:50:37 PM |
|
|
<eroot@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1111638544.849511.46510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, I was not able to track down the very first post in this thread to
properly attach this reply, but I just want to say that I consider the
idea that "Darwinists" or any other group of humans can downgrade human
life to be absurd. We can only downgrade what we have authority over.
Hurricanes can be downgraded to tropical storms at a certain velocity
because meteorlogists defined it so. Doctors can downgrade someone's
condition from critical to serious. A priority can be downgraded from
urgent to normal. But who has a say on the value of human life?
You need to take a sociological view. Ford is a member of a cult. One of the
defining characteristics of a cult is that they have an Enemy, and that just
about everything wrong with the world can be traced back to that Enemy. It
gives the cult members a sense of fighting the good fight, brothers in arms
etc and allows easy explanations for why there is evil in the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:22:48 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler
1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian community"
that opposed Hitler?
and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
2. I don't follow. Details, please.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
Nazi designs.
3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased being used?
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 06:50:31 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler
1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian
community"
that opposed Hitler?
and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
2. I don't follow. Details, please.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was
on
early
Nazi designs.
3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased being
used?
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
I don't trust your paraphrasing of anyone's position on anything. Could
you please reference the book and page in which Haeckel says this, so
we can read it in context? And what would this have to do with
*anything?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 11:34:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
david ford wrote:
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
I don't trust your paraphrasing of anyone's position on anything. Could
you please reference the book and page in which Haeckel says this, so
we can read it in context?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Compare Dawkins and Williams in
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
And what would this have to do with *anything?
Killing the mentally and physically challenged is very
much in keeping with "social Darwinism," i.e. the application of
Darwinian thought to humans and human society.
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave
Macmillan), 312pp. A paragraph on 148:
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also
supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He
condemned the idea that all human life should be
preserved, "even when it is totally worthless." He called
cretinism and microcephaly "decisive proof" for the
physical basis of the soul, since those suffering from these
conditions "spend their entire life at a lower animal stage of
development in their soul's activity." He complained that
not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society,
but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable
illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and
money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine?
To safeguard against abuse, Haeckel proposed that a
commission of physicians make the final decision in each
case, but the individual being reviewed would have no
voice.^16 The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his
scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in
infancy and in adulthood.
1983 Daniel Brooks
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990628151138.260287C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 12:03:20 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4@individual.net...
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
david ford wrote:
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
I just wanna know, what iw the whole point?
People of all denominations perform all kinds of acts, share all kinds of
kinky philosophies and in general are just like his brother *****
fellow man in all that counts, and able to perform whatever atrocities he
takes his fancy to, so I can't for the life of me se how this possibly can
be any issue worth discussing.
it certainly has noe bearing on the 'first' question: Is nature capable of
evolution on it's own, or does it need designer-manufacturers, of rhe divine
or just the little green men variety?
I'd place my bets on the first alternative.
Rolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
22 Mar 2005 02:33:33 PM |
|
|
Rolf wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4@individual.net...
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
david ford wrote:
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
I just wanna know, what iw the whole point?
People of all denominations perform all kinds of acts, share all kinds of
kinky philosophies and in general are just like his brother son of a
*****
fellow man in all that counts, and able to perform whatever atrocities he
takes his fancy to, so I can't for the life of me se how this
possibly can
be any issue worth discussing.
1. So don't discuss it.
it certainly has noe bearing on the 'first' question: Is nature
capable of
evolution on it's own, or does it need designer-manufacturers, of rhe
divine
or just the little green men variety?
I'd place my bets on the first alternative.
2. Do you have any evidence and arguments for "the first alternative"?
Do you believe life came from non-living matter? If "yes," upon what
basis/grounds do you believe that?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
22 Mar 2005 04:33:51 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Rolf wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4@individual.net...
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
david ford wrote:
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
I just wanna know, what iw the whole point?
People of all denominations perform all kinds of acts, share all kinds of
kinky philosophies and in general are just like his brother son of a
*****
fellow man in all that counts, and able to perform whatever atrocities he
takes his fancy to, so I can't for the life of me se how this
possibly can
be any issue worth discussing.
1. So don't discuss it.
it certainly has noe bearing on the 'first' question: Is nature
capable of
evolution on it's own, or does it need designer-manufacturers, of rhe
divine
or just the little green men variety?
I'd place my bets on the first alternative.
2. Do you have any evidence and arguments for "the first alternative"?
Do you believe life came from non-living matter? If "yes," upon what
basis/grounds do you believe that?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
For many years i believed it on the basis of scripture (Genesis 2:7 And
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,.....)
So your point would be?
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 12:43:23 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported Hitler
1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian
community" that opposed Hitler?
Catholic archbishop Clemens August Graf von Galen.
Ref:
1997 Wesley Smith
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
Did the German atheist community do anything to oppose Hitler? There
must have been a lot of German atheists around at the time, considering
the huge numbers of materialism conversion experiences engendered by the
writings of Haeckel and Buchner in pre-Holocaust Germany.
Are you aware of any atheists of today that are voicing opposition to
Terri Schindler Schiavo's being sentenced to death via starvation?
Or are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
atheist Jack Kevorkian, and supporting the 'euthanizing'/ killing of
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
atheists such as Haeckel, Dawkins, Dennett, George Williams, Steven
Pinker, Peter Singer, and Margaret Sanger, who have supported letting
medical personnel murder pre-born human life, and/or have supported
letting medical personnel commit infanticide?
If there are any atheists here that break with the pro-death position of
the above prominent atheists,
if there are any atheists here that oppose the court-imposed murder of
Terri Schindler Schiavo,
I invite you to speak up. I'm curious to see who you are.
and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
2. I don't follow. Details, please.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name
was on early Nazi designs.
3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased
being used?
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 10:16:20 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
david ford wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported Hitler
1. Are you aware of any individuals in the "German Christian
community" that opposed Hitler?
Catholic archbishop Clemens August Graf von Galen.
Ref:
1997 Wesley Smith
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
Did the German atheist community do anything to oppose Hitler?
Do you really think Mike Painter knows the answer to that? Why is it
important to you?
There
must have been a lot of German atheists around at the time,
considering
the huge numbers of materialism conversion experiences engendered by
the
writings of Haeckel and Buchner in pre-Holocaust Germany.
Do you have any citations for these "huge numbers of materialism
conversion experiences," or are you just talking ***** out some sort of
hostility problem?
Are you aware of any atheists of today that are voicing opposition to
Terri Schindler Schiavo's being sentenced to death via starvation?
You tell us, if you know.
Or are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of
prominent
atheist Jack Kevorkian,
Could we have a citation as to Kevorkian's religious beliefs, and you
realize that sticking a label in front of someone's name, e.g., calling
them "atheist so-and-so" is a form of ad hominem argument?
and supporting the 'euthanizing'/ killing of
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
Are rank-and-file atheists following the pro-death lead of prominent
atheists such as Haeckel,
Citation of teligious belief, please.
Dawkins, Dennett, George Williams,
Citation of religious belief on Williams, please.
Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, and Margaret Sanger,
Citation of religious belief on all the previous, please.
who have supported letting
medical personnel murder pre-born human life,
Who above has done so? Is that some sort of dysphemism for abortion?
and/or have supported
letting medical personnel commit infanticide?
Who in the modern western world has done that?
If there are any atheists here that break with the pro-death position
of
the above prominent atheists,
if there are any atheists here that oppose the court-imposed murder
of
Terri Schindler Schiavo,
I invite you to speak up. I'm curious to see who you are.
Why? What business is it of yours?
and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
2. I don't follow. Details, please.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of
Jesus was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the
name
was on early Nazi designs.
3. In your view, what is the significance of that?
What's your view of it.
For what reason/s was "the name of Jesus" removed or ceased
being used?
Do you disagree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals?
What _is_ Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
between humans and (I assume you mean non-human) animals? In other
words, what's the obsession with Haeckel? It smacks of McCoyism. Why
do you keep asking everybody over and over again? When you have some
sort of point to make, why are you so afraid of making it?
How long have you denied the Biblical injunction for a wife to "leave
her parents, and cleave to her husband?"
Are you aware that you are kind of creepy?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 05:13:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:19:29 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on early
Nazi designs.
I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating. The
question to ask him is, how the ***** do his perceived
political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
neutrons don't exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:23:39 PM |
|
|
Nivlem wrote:
On Wed 9 Mar 2005 "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was on
early
Nazi designs.
I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating.
IIRC, John Wilkins promised me that question-filled dialogue between him
and I would be fun.
The
question to ask him is, how the ***** do his perceived
political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
neutrons don't exist.
What is the name of "the theory" that you refer to? The theory of
natural selection?
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 06:46:50 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Nivlem wrote:
On Wed 9 Mar 2005 "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
No. I'm an atheist, it was the German Christian community that
supported
Hitler and this was due in large part because of the punitive
treatment
handed down by the good christians of the world.
"God is with us" was not on the American belt buckle and the name
of
Jesus
was not on the early designs for an American symbol, the name was
on
early
Nazi designs.
I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating.
IIRC, John Wilkins promised me that question-filled dialogue between
him
and I would be fun.
The
question to ask him is, how the ***** do his perceived
political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
neutrons don't exist.
What is the name of "the theory" that you refer to? The theory of
natural selection?
Natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection - the modern
sythesis.
Evolutionary theory. What theory did you think you were talking about?
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent
a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 11:33:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
david ford wrote:
Nivlem wrote:
I killfiled dumbshit ford quite some time ago. The mock 8th
grade textbook questions about nothing in particular
technique he loves so much is incredibly irritating.
IIRC, John Wilkins promised me that question-filled
dialogue between him and I would be fun.
The
question to ask him is, how the ***** do his perceived
political and social implications of the theory, bogus as
they are, have anything to to do with whether the theory is
is correct? I don't much like that atomic theory allows us
to build nuclear weapons, myself. That doesn't mean that I
get to insist that matter isn't composed of atoms, or that
neutrons don't exist.
What is the name of "the theory" that you refer to? The theory of
natural selection?
Natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection - the modern
sythesis.
Evolutionary theory. What theory did you think you
were talking about?
I have talked about the Synthetic Euphoria before. I don't recall
talking about "perceived political and social implications of" the
Synthetic Euphoria. Perhaps you will refresh my memory.
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent
a natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 09:53:06 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Why would you ask the question specific to Germany? The idea was common in the western world. Are
you unaware you are spouting anti-German propaganda or are you doing it deliberately?
--
The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
opinion of the man in the street and the less important
the opinion of the government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:28:17 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Why would you ask the question specific to Germany?
8. Because Haeckel's and Buchner's ideas permeated Germany and thereby
helped engender a moral climate informed by Darwinian thinking that
helped make the Holocaust possible.
The idea was common in the western world.
9. When did the idea that there is no qualitative difference between
humans and animals become common in America?
Are
you unaware you are spouting anti-German propaganda or are you doing
it deliberately?
10. What do you mean by "propaganda"-- untruths?
Do you think that the biology textbook at the other end of this URL
contains "propaganda"?:
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
--
The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
opinion of the man in the street and the less important
the opinion of the government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
