PDA

View Full Version : Materialists: Contradictions and Hypocrisy



Jorge
12-17-2014, 03:27 AM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.

Jorge

seer
12-17-2014, 03:34 AM
“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

Jorge

This is so true. A while back I asked why what the Europeans did to the American Indians was objectively wrong. It seems to me that that was a very successful evolutionary strategy.

Boxing Pythagoras
12-17-2014, 04:16 AM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.Why should a Materialist need to tie their ethics to natural biological processes? What is contradictory or hypocritical about differentiating that which we know about biology from that which we claim about ethics? You might as well claim that Materialists are hypocrites for not tying their ethics to Gravitational Theory or the Pythagorean Theorem. It seems a complete non-sequitur.

seer
12-17-2014, 04:58 AM
Why should a Materialist need to tie their ethics to natural biological processes? What is contradictory or hypocritical about differentiating that which we know about biology from that which we claim about ethics?

How could there be anything but the "natural biological process" if materialism is true?

Boxing Pythagoras
12-17-2014, 05:07 AM
How could there be anything but the "natural biological process" if materialism is true?Allow me to clarify:

Why should a Materialist need to tie their ethics to natural biological processes which explain the diversity of organic life? What is contradictory or hypocritical about differentiating that which we know about biological diversity from that which we claim about ethics?

seer
12-17-2014, 05:28 AM
Allow me to clarify:

Why should a Materialist need to tie their ethics to natural biological processes which explain the diversity of organic life? What is contradictory or hypocritical about differentiating that which we know about biological diversity from that which we claim about ethics?

But isn't keeping the weak and infirmed alive detrimental to the species as a whole, especially if they reproduce? Dawkins is correct - it is very anti-Darwinian. And to the materialist what is more important than the survival of the species?

Boxing Pythagoras
12-17-2014, 05:46 AM
But isn't keeping the weak and infirmed alive detrimental to the species as a whole, especially if they reproduce? Dawkins is correct - it is very anti-Darwinian. And to the materialist what is more important than the survival of the species?Lots of things can be more important to the materialist than the survival of the species. It depends on the materialist, in question.

Furthermore "weak" is a particularly relative term. Even if a materialist were to tie his ethics to the welfare of the species, as a whole, biological fitness is not necessarily a function of physical strength. For example, it could quite easily be argued that 135-pound medical researcher with Cystic Fibrosis provides a greater boon to the fitness of the human species than does a 220-pound professional bodybuilder. However, more to the point, naturalist philosophers can quite easily argue that the sense of human worth engendered by the protection of the physically weak or infirm provides a survival benefit which can quite easily outweigh the negatives-- as evidenced by the fact that the human population has septupled in the past 200 years, when care for the "weak" has been greater than at any other time in human history.

birdan
12-17-2014, 05:55 AM
This is so true. A while back I asked why what the Europeans did to the American Indians was objectively wrong. It seems to me that that was a very successful evolutionary strategy.

Three points:

First, conservatives often state that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. And it was these "Christian founding fathers" who perpetrated the decimation of the native American tribes. So much for "absolute morality" being found in the bible. Rather, this "absolute morality" is just a reflection of the morality of the society at large at the time.

Second, biological evolutioinary theory is descriptive and not prescriptive. It (like all other scientific theories) describes a naturalistic process and (like all other scientific theories) does not dictate morals or ethics.

Third, there is a biological basis for behavioral characteristics such as reciprocity and altruism which is found in animals that form social groups. These behaviors actually promote the biological success of the group and thus are a successful "Darwinian" strategy.


If that quote is given in its full context, then I'd have to disagree with Dawkins on all counts.

firstfloor
12-17-2014, 06:06 AM
He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body.There is no hypocrisy. All societies including religious societies are artificial constructs created by human beings in accordance with natural laws. God’s law is also artificially constructed by men because God is a sock puppet. Religious folks are people who do not see the human manipulation of the sock puppet God. It is as simple as that but millions are taken in by it.

seer
12-17-2014, 06:15 AM
Lots of things can be more important to the materialist than the survival of the species. It depends on the materialist, in question.

Furthermore "weak" is a particularly relative term. Even if a materialist were to tie his ethics to the welfare of the species, as a whole, biological fitness is not necessarily a function of physical strength. For example, it could quite easily be argued that 135-pound medical researcher with Cystic Fibrosis provides a greater boon to the fitness of the human species than does a 220-pound professional bodybuilder. However, more to the point, naturalist philosophers can quite easily argue that the sense of human worth engendered by the protection of the physically weak or infirm provides a survival benefit which can quite easily outweigh the negatives-- as evidenced by the fact that the human population has septupled in the past 200 years, when care for the "weak" has been greater than at any other time in human history.

Ok, that makes sense. I wonder why Dawkins doesn't see it that way.

Boxing Pythagoras
12-17-2014, 06:22 AM
Ok, that makes sense. I wonder why Dawkins doesn't see it that way.Dawkins is a respected and credentialed biologist, but he has no qualifications in and little comprehension of philosophy.

seer
12-17-2014, 07:44 AM
Dawkins is a respected and credentialed biologist, but he has no qualifications in and little comprehension of philosophy.

Yes, but your points are pretty straight forward. Historical and somewhat self-evident.

Boxing Pythagoras
12-17-2014, 07:53 AM
Yes, but your points are pretty straight forward. Historical and somewhat self-evident.Yep. I agree that it's fairly strange that someone might overlook so obvious and natural an answer to the question, but as I said, Dawkins' comprehension of philosophy is rather poor.

klaus54
12-17-2014, 10:02 AM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.

Jorge

Ah, I see One Note Nellie is back at it.

K54

rwatts
12-17-2014, 10:39 AM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.

Jorge

Beaten on the science for all these years, you don't have much left beyond farting and darting, do you Jorge.

jordanriver
12-17-2014, 11:33 AM
Lots of things can be more important to the materialist than the survival of the species. It depends on the materialist, in question.

Furthermore "weak" is a particularly relative term. Even if a materialist were to tie his ethics to the welfare of the species, as a whole, biological fitness is not necessarily a function of physical strength. For example, it could quite easily be argued that 135-pound medical researcher with Cystic Fibrosis provides a greater boon to the fitness of the human species than does a 220-pound professional bodybuilder. However, more to the point, naturalist philosophers can quite easily argue that the sense of human worth engendered by the protection of the physically weak or infirm provides a survival benefit which can quite easily outweigh the negatives-- as evidenced by the fact that the human population has septupled in the past 200 years, when care for the "weak" has been greater than at any other time in human history.there is advantage in keeping a medical researcher alive.
Are individuals justified acting according to their advantage.

Roy
12-17-2014, 11:41 AM
There is nothing hypocritical about observing the way the world is and trying to change it to something better.

Roy

Roy
12-17-2014, 11:43 AM
And to the materialist what is more important than the survival of the species?Right now? Dinner and entertainment.

Roy

Truthseeker
12-17-2014, 03:15 PM
Even if everyone agrees (or would agree) that the world can be made better, it's plausible everyone will have his own opinion of what would be a better world.

phank
12-17-2014, 03:30 PM
Yep. I agree that it's fairly strange that someone might overlook so obvious and natural an answer to the question, but as I said, Dawkins' comprehension of philosophy is rather poor.

I would say Dawkins was trying to make the rather simple point that the public conception of the Darwinian world (pure competition, dog eat dog) is a really lousy model for the success of ANY society, and Dawkins uses human society as an illustration. But in fact, competition and cooperation both occur at all levels in nature.

Dawkins must be understood in context here. If he is viewed as a proponent of undermining, backstabbing, and unenlightened selfishness because that's what people were taught that Darwin wrote, we can see that he is explaining that he doesn't believe what he is accused of believing. Dawkins is here answering the Jorges of the world.

Seriously, if you read Dawkins you will find that his ideas are subtle, complex, and nuanced. But the the seer and Jorge types do not DO nuance. And as many here have pointed out, not needing a lot of words to say so, Jorge's "hypocrisy" accusation is an illusion arising from using boneheaded misconceptions as his postulates.

klaus54
12-17-2014, 07:26 PM
Even if everyone agrees (or would agree) that the world can be made better, it's plausible everyone will have his own opinion of what would be a better world.

What is the content? Blah, blah, blah,... blah.

K54

klaus54
12-17-2014, 07:27 PM
there is advantage in keeping a medical researcher alive.
Are individuals justified acting according to their advantage.

???

rogue06
12-17-2014, 07:39 PM
Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

Had no idea that Dawkins was at KSU last month which is a mile from my place (as the crow flies) and where I went to college.

Truthseeker
12-17-2014, 07:43 PM
What is the content? Blah, blah, blah,... blah.Have you forgotten this post?
There is nothing hypocritical about observing the way the world is and trying to change it to something better.

Roy

rogue06
12-17-2014, 07:46 PM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.

Jorge
Interesting that in the Descent of Man Darwin spoke directly about a "society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed.":

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.



So Darwin thought that a society that wasn't altruistic, that wasn't compassionate for those less fortunate, was overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature."

Jorge
12-18-2014, 03:33 AM
Had no idea that Dawkins was at KSU last month which is a mile from my place (as the crow flies) and where I went to college.

So you missed your chance to bow down before one of your Darwin Prophets. :bow: :brandalf:


Or perhaps you would have used your pom-poms for a ROOT FOR DARWIN chant. :cath:


Bwahahahaha!!! :lmbo:

Jorge

seer
12-18-2014, 04:40 AM
So Darwin thought that a society that wasn't altruistic, that wasn't compassionate for those less fortunate, was overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature."

Well that is a relative moral judgement on his part. Which, in my mind, makes it rather meaningless.

seer
12-18-2014, 04:41 AM
Right now? Dinner and entertainment.

Roy

Which is impossible unless you survive to dinner time.

Jorge
12-18-2014, 05:27 AM
Interesting that in the Descent of Man Darwin spoke directly about a "society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed.":

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.



So Darwin thought that a society that wasn't altruistic, that wasn't compassionate for those less fortunate, was overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature."

Tell me truthfully, R06, is it that the concept of reading comprehension eludes you?

The PRECISE title of of this thread contains the words "Contradictions and Hypocrisy". My point - clear to anyone that is sober and normal - was that the Materialist/Darwinist CANNOT live his/her life consistently within their main principles.

A sick, old, feeble, unable to reproduce individual is w-o-r-t-h-l-e-s-s in a Darwinian world. (S)he is "unfit", "unable to compete", "disadvantaged" ... etc ... in that Darwinian world. ONLY by invoking something OUTSIDE of that Darwinian universe - i.e., a universe where the unfit are not discarded - can such an individual expect to receive care and thus survive. THAT'S the contradiction and hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

Maybe you'll try harder in 2015.

Jorge

phank
12-18-2014, 05:59 AM
Tell me truthfully, R06, is it that the concept of reading comprehension eludes you?

The PRECISE title of of this thread contains the words "Contradictions and Hypocrisy". My point - clear to anyone that is sober and normal - was that the Materialist/Darwinist CANNOT live his/her life consistently within their main principles. I think people understood your words, but also understood that you have violently misrepresented the "main principles". I doubt anyone would disagree that if your misrepresentation were in fact correct, your conclusion would be correct.


A sick, old, feeble, unable to reproduce individual is w-o-r-t-h-l-e-s-s in a Darwinian world. (S)he is "unfit", "unable to compete", "disadvantaged" ... etc ... in that Darwinian world.Except of course Darwin argued quite the reverse, as would anyone. What you are describing is NOT a Darwinian principle. It's an astoundingly ignorant caricature of a small part of what Darwin said.


ONLY by invoking something OUTSIDE of that Darwinian universe - i.e., a universe where the unfit are not discarded - can such an individual expect to receive care and thus survive. THAT'S the contradiction and hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

Maybe you'll try harder in 2015.And as I wrote earlier, you will find cooperation of all kinds at all levels in life. Individuals within a species cooperate, different species cooperate with one another, animals cooperate with plants. Cooperation WORKS, which is why it has been selected for.

Your claim that a Materialist is someone who cannot see (or can't understand) cooperation is simply stupid.

HMS_Beagle
12-18-2014, 06:20 AM
Tell me truthfully, R06, is it that the concept of reading comprehension eludes you?

The PRECISE title of of this thread contains the words "Contradictions and Hypocrisy". My point - clear to anyone that is sober and normal - was that the Materialist/Darwinist CANNOT live his/her life consistently within their main principles.

A sick, old, feeble, unable to reproduce individual is w-o-r-t-h-l-e-s-s in a Darwinian world. (S)he is "unfit", "unable to compete", "disadvantaged" ... etc ... in that Darwinian world.

:chicken:

Poor :chicken:. Still too stupid to get that in a social species like humans one can still contribute to the overall reproductive success of the population without reproducing yourself. Being the selfish turd that he is :chicken: doesn't understand altruism. His :chicken: brain has never considered the idea that those past reproductive age can still help with the children, or with food gathering / preparation. Wise elders may also pass on a lifetime's accumulated knowledge to the younger generations to help them better survive.

Thankfully reality isn't constrained by :chicken:'s inability to understand it.

TheLurch
12-18-2014, 07:39 AM
The PRECISE title of of this thread contains the words "Contradictions and Hypocrisy". My point - clear to anyone that is sober and normal - was that the Materialist/Darwinist CANNOT live his/her life consistently within their main principles.
Where's it written that ethical principles must derive from scientific knowledge?

Boxing Pythagoras
12-18-2014, 07:44 AM
Where's it written that ethical principles must derive from scientific knowledge?I asked this same question, back in the third post of the thread. I haven't really gotten a clear response, yet.

rogue06
12-18-2014, 09:35 AM
So you missed your chance to bow down before one of your Darwin Prophets. :bow: :brandalf:


Or perhaps you would have used your pom-poms for a ROOT FOR DARWIN chant. :cath:


Bwahahahaha!!! :lmbo:

Jorge
Never been a big fan of Dawkins. I was just surprised that I didn't hear about it. Went with a few friends in the early 80s and heard Stephen Jay Gould give a talk at KSU. A good friend of mine, who only recently abandoned the YEC position, and I still argue over what he said :lol:

klaus54
12-18-2014, 01:38 PM
Have you forgotten this post?

No, I haven't. Apparent YOU have because the JorMeister is slinging the same old hash. And it gets more greasy each time.

K54

rwatts
12-18-2014, 09:06 PM
A sick, old, feeble, unable to reproduce individual is w-o-r-t-h-l-e-s-s in a Darwinian world. (S)he is "unfit", "unable to compete", "disadvantaged" ... etc ... in that Darwinian world. ONLY by invoking something OUTSIDE of that Darwinian universe - i.e., a universe where the unfit are not discarded - can such an individual expect to receive care and thus survive. THAT'S the contradiction and hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

Why is that the Darwinian world Jorge?

This must the the Biblical Creationist world:-

Snuff out about 10 million Americans before Christmas (http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/arizona-pastor-wants-all-gay-people-killed-‘aids-free-christmas’041214)

Male gynecologists are perverts (http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/gynecologists.html)

Send the evil wife back to her abusive husband (http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-alexandra.html)

This surely is what happens when you obey the Bible to the letter?

David Hayward
12-19-2014, 12:48 AM
I have long maintained that Materialists (this includes Atheists, Humanists and certain Theistic Evolutionists) absolutely cannot live their in a consistent fashion. In other words, they will preach one set of Materialistic "principles" (such as Darwinism) while living their lives - or at least wanting to live their lives - according to a different set that contradicts Materialism/Darwinism.

In a nutshell, the primary reason for this contradiction/hypocrisy is that the world that Materialists preach isn't one that any sane human being would want to live in. Give them some credit, Materialists may be a lot of bad things but they aren't totally stupid!

Once again I found the guy who is certainly amongst the most well-known Materialists in the world today - Richard Dawkins - supporting my point and then some. Here's what ol' Richard said:

“What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society… in the sense that we don’t wish to live in a society where the weakest go to the wall, where the strongest suppress the weak, and even kill the weak. We — I, at least — do not wish to live in that kind of society. I want to live in the sort of society where we take care of the sick, where we take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed, which is a very anti-Darwinian society.” Richard Dawkins Lecture at Kennesaw State University, November 21, 2014.

As I said, Dawkins may be many bad things - a hypocrite that lives and promotes a contradiction being just one - but he is not totally clueless. He wants his Materialistic world, free to do as he pleases without any restraints, but when the chips are down and the illnesses and troubles of old age begin to take their toll on his wretched body, he then wants a CHRISTIAN world firmly in place to care for him. His own Materialistic world would summarily shove him into a ditch for being a "useless eater", weak and sick, unable to compete, unable to produce offspring, unfit for the Darwinian struggle for life.

Darwinian Hypocrite!!! And in this he is far, very far, from being alone.

Jorge

I'll agree very broadly with this OP, but quibble on a specific: if you look at the sources of the coloured quotation, to find its context, you should find that Dawkins is warning against what is known as "Social Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism)"; this has nothing to do with Darwinism, or with Dawkins' Neo-Darwinism, except by analogy, and (almost) nobody supports it nowadays; it had already been thoroughly discredited by Dawkins' childhood. There has been no indication that Dawkins has ever given the slightest credence or support to Social Darwinism, and the coloured quotation shows Dawkins is highly critical of it.

The sources I have found for the quotation -- these seem to have not yet been linked, perhaps I overlooked the links -- are: Inquisitr (http://www.inquisitr.com/1668807/richard-dawkins-what-we-need-is-a-truly-anti-darwinian-society/) and Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/richard-dawkins-on-the-mens-rights-movement-really-thats-a-thing/).

I see that Dawkins (and a few other prominent atheists likewise) briefly states his general values here (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/27/famous-atheists-believe-values-richard-dawkins_n_6231968.html).