Atheists are Racist
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Clueless

Sydney, Australia

#1 Aug 5, 2012
Why do theists always use the Social Darwinism assertion against Atheists?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Aug 6, 2012
Most creationists active in debate seem to be at least slightly mentally ill. Perhaps it is merely a form of projection to cover up their own racism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3 Aug 6, 2012
1 - This is the evolution debate forum, so 'Clueless' is so very cluelessly off-topic.

2 - Atheism is irrelevant to either social Darwinism or evolution.

3 - Social Darwinism is irrelevant to the scientific validity of evolution.

4 - Theists (or rather creationists and similar like-minded anti-science promoters) always bring up irrelevant topics such as social Darwinism due to their penchance for painting their opponents with a very wide brush, irrespective of whether or not their accusations are accurate. Much like the invocation of Godwin's to equate an opponent with Hitler.

5 - Creationists like to project their failings onto others, as their own theology is inexplicably tied to racial prejudice for we are all descendants of two perfect humans (most commonly portrayed as white) who have continually degenerated becoming "less human" with each generation. This is in contrast to evolution which states we are all linked via common ancestry, and since evolution is not goal-directed, no current living organism is any "more evolved" than another.

6 - One will likely find that there are very few atheist proponents of social Darwinism on these forums (with the exception of Skippy maybe).

7 - This is the evolution debate forum, so 'Clueless' is so very cluelessly off-topic. And obviously doesn't like kittens.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#4 Aug 6, 2012
Generalize much?

Theists =/= Creationists =/= "always" using the social Darwinism assertion against atheists.

Hmm..Ken Miller is a theist, is author of the number one HS bio textbook in the US and was the chief biologist offering testimony here to Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v Dover. I am pretty sure that nowhere in his testimony or in his textbook or in his lecture series to his students he mentions "the social Darwinism assertion against atheists".
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Aug 22, 2012
Clueless wrote:
Why do theists always use the Social Darwinism assertion against Atheists?
I have never used the social Darwinism assertion against atheists. I assert that atheists have been deceived by the first demon's message.
http://everythingimportant.org/

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#6 Aug 22, 2012

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#7 Aug 22, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
It is true... they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nFHzTCa3Pz8XX
I think it's only true of Topix's militant atheists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...

I think they've over-stimulated a particular mechanism in their brain. They prolly confused it with orgasm-Ming. Ming was a favorite of mine. >:)

Very hot.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#8 Aug 22, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's only true of Topix's militant atheists.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...
I think they've over-stimulated a particular mechanism in their brain. They prolly confused it with orgasm-Ming. Ming was a favorite of mine. >:)
Very hot.
Ming the Merciless?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#9 Aug 23, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Ming the Merciless?
Yes.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#10 Aug 23, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>
Ming the Merciless?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#11 Aug 23, 2012

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#12 Aug 23, 2012
Ya gotta admire a guy who doesn't play favorites when it comes to torture.:D

The princess got some too.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#13 Aug 23, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
Ya gotta admire a guy who doesn't play favorites when it comes to torture.:D
The princess got some too.
especially orgasm torture

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#14 Aug 23, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>especially orgasm torture
Yer killin me here.

...breathe in....breathe out...

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#15 Aug 23, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yer killin me here.
...breathe in....breathe out...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Aug 23, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I have never used the social Darwinism assertion against atheists. I assert that atheists have been deceived by the first demon's message.
That dude who flooded the world?

Uhuh, you're not crazy.
Rene Chang

Haywards Heath, UK

#17 Aug 23, 2012
I have subscribed to Darwinism until I came across the ideas of Senapathy. I wonder then and now whether if Darwin was a prisoner of the thinking of his days, as we all are, of a single Deity or God.
However, If Senapathy is a atheist and molecular biologist and is not a creationist as is said by some of his critics, then why a single primordial pond? I am not an evolutionary biologist and so cannot argue with ‘facts’, but I am well versed with the concept of a scientific paradigm. I do not oppose Senapathy’s ideas as I would consider myself an evolutionary skeptic. Another problem idea I have are the echoes of Eugenics with the concept of ‘Natural Selection’ and how it had the support of luminaries such as Fisher, and Churchill. I also know that to change a current paradigm requires very strong ideas, and evidence. I am not certain that Senapathy has supplied both. It also contrasts with the way “The Origin of Species” sold out and went into reprint so quickly. Was there a hunger for new ideas in those days? Can more knowledgeable people please enlighten me?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#18 Aug 23, 2012
Rene Chang wrote:
I have subscribed to Darwinism until I came across the ideas of Senapathy. I wonder then and now whether if Darwin was a prisoner of the thinking of his days, as we all are, of a single Deity or God.
However, If Senapathy is a atheist and molecular biologist and is not a creationist as is said by some of his critics, then why a single primordial pond? I am not an evolutionary biologist and so cannot argue with ‘facts’, but I am well versed with the concept of a scientific paradigm. I do not oppose Senapathy’s ideas as I would consider myself an evolutionary skeptic. Another problem idea I have are the echoes of Eugenics with the concept of ‘Natural Selection’ and how it had the support of luminaries such as Fisher, and Churchill. I also know that to change a current paradigm requires very strong ideas, and evidence. I am not certain that Senapathy has supplied both. It also contrasts with the way “The Origin of Species” sold out and went into reprint so quickly. Was there a hunger for new ideas in those days? Can more knowledgeable people please enlighten me?
Well, for one thing eugenics takes the "natural" out of "natural selection".

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#19 Aug 23, 2012
Rene Chang wrote:
I have subscribed to Darwinism until I came across the ideas of Senapathy. I wonder then and now whether if Darwin was a prisoner of the thinking of his days, as we all are, of a single Deity or God.
However, If Senapathy is a atheist and molecular biologist and is not a creationist as is said by some of his critics, then why a single primordial pond? I am not an evolutionary biologist and so cannot argue with ‘facts’, but I am well versed with the concept of a scientific paradigm. I do not oppose Senapathy’s ideas as I would consider myself an evolutionary skeptic. Another problem idea I have are the echoes of Eugenics with the concept of ‘Natural Selection’ and how it had the support of luminaries such as Fisher, and Churchill. I also know that to change a current paradigm requires very strong ideas, and evidence. I am not certain that Senapathy has supplied both. It also contrasts with the way “The Origin of Species” sold out and went into reprint so quickly. Was there a hunger for new ideas in those days? Can more knowledgeable people please enlighten me?
This has already been addressed Shadow, I think the guys responded quite thoroughly to your assertions last time you visited and you have not brought anything new to the table here.

How would simpler forms of life evolve from more complex forms? Where is the evidence of parallel evolution at the DNA level? Where does he provide any empirical evidence?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Aug 23, 2012
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
This has already been addressed Shadow, I think the guys responded quite thoroughly to your assertions last time you visited and you have not brought anything new to the table here.
You saw through his elaborate disguise!!!

:-O

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 3 hr THE LONE WORKER 62
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Science 83,066
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Science 164,673
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr Science 2,558
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... Thu Science 19
Evolution is a racist doctrine Thu Science 51
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN Thu Science 15
More from around the web