tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post846191607458547638..comments2023-09-30T06:42:31.235-07:00Comments on Advocatus Atheist: What’s So Great About Dinesh D’Souza?Tristan Vickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-14007890702335327942009-12-05T05:33:36.047-08:002009-12-05T05:33:36.047-08:00Tink-
Thanks for posting that. I think you shoul...Tink- <br /><br />Thanks for posting that. I think you should do a longer version of it on your blog! Well put.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-75913226707740028372009-12-04T08:16:21.904-08:002009-12-04T08:16:21.904-08:00I agree....
I have also said this one before. Man...I agree....<br /><br />I have also said this one before. Many creationists and Christians also use the argument against evolution by pointing out the various evils of communist and dictator governments are missing a key point.<br /><br />The evolutionary theory explored by Charles Darwin and Social Darwinism and Eugenics are two completely different ideas. The Origin of Species was written in 1859. The idea was then applied to humans (which Darwin never intended). Darwin, likely having realized the problems—scientific and social—arising from the study of natural selection in humans, remained decidedly focused on plants and animals, at least publicly. But his cousin Francis Galton, who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” just five years after Darwin’s publication.<br /><br />Galton introduced his own controversial idea—the theory of eugenics—in 1883. At the time, Galton was probably thinking simply in terms of science, using his theory to describe selective breeding in humans as a means to improve the fitness of the human race. However, when his theory was united with Spencer’s socially inclined concept of survival, the result was social Darwinism, a gripping theory about competition for survival among human races and social classes.<br /><br />During Galton’s era—the Victorian Age in Britain—eugenics and social Darwinism seemed reasonable. Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.tinkbell13https://www.blogger.com/profile/03322413631736929191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-3918789315613441282009-12-04T05:44:19.629-08:002009-12-04T05:44:19.629-08:00'Sup Godzilla
I like your attitude. I would l...'Sup Godzilla<br /><br />I like your attitude. I would love to write that book. Problem is after 2 or 3 paragraphs of typing, I'm pooped. <br /><br />Your premise to me is perfect. But here's where the insanity lies, there are Atheists who feel that Christians should have their kids taken away for "indoctrinating" them with harmful beliefs. And then we have some psycho hardcore Christians who somehow feel the Bible makes it OK for them to be hatin'.<br /><br />I do think for the most part Atheists and Christians probably do get along. We are probably getting a taste of the most crazies on both sides when on the internet?<br /><br />Whew, I'm spent, later, feenofeenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483769284197614547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-91604077378052233032009-12-04T01:11:24.484-08:002009-12-04T01:11:24.484-08:00This all explains rather eloquently where many of ...This all explains rather eloquently where many of the 'talking points' that Christians use against atheism come from. The overwhelming amount of misinformation, fear, and primitive superstition ... well, it's also characteristic of their learning style in general. <br /><br />However, it's not all bad. Today I found four separate instances of religious types and atheists behaving decently toward one another, and it was quite refreshing. <br /><br />Are there any Christian authors who present a case for living in harmony with others who do not share their beliefs? Because they should be supported, there should be more written about peaceful coexistence. <br /><br />I've no problem with being an outspoken atheist and standing up against the lunacy of the far fringes, but I also hope we can work towards increasing mutual tolerance.dotlizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01491824200108290676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-59208727222088559192009-12-03T23:50:05.898-08:002009-12-03T23:50:05.898-08:00Thank you. I was compelled to write it when two mo...Thank you. I was compelled to write it when two more Christians referred the book to me. I thought I would do an critique of it sense I really don't think it's a book which need to be referred at all. Not that I hate it or anything, it's just the longest opinion piece I've ever read, and it gets redundant repeating devotional creeds without ever making much of a point. Mediocre is the word I'd use to describe such a book.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6045470200571732417.post-67477978158149443572009-12-03T13:35:07.106-08:002009-12-03T13:35:07.106-08:00Astute analysis.Astute analysis.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.com