Chuchulainn vs. the Wishful Thinkers, err, Atheists
18 Oct 2007, 1:47 am
Astreja wrote:
Thanks, Yog-Sothoth! I'm an agnostic heiðinn of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, and am quite familiar with the tragic Christianization of my ancestors' lands.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
Well I wasnt there or anything, but I had heard that Viking raids started in opposition to the forced christian conversion, so I am upholding their legacy the best way I can, being vehemently opposed to christianity. Olaf went to parts of Norway and forced people to convert to christianity, and those who werent were tortured or killed, Charlemagne decapitated over 4,000 people who were caught practicing their old beliefs after converting, the rise of christianity through their brutal regime is what caused the end of the Vikings, but thats still probably not as bad as what happened to the Native Americans. With that "manifest destiny" crap, the natives were practically wiped out in the name of God. The legacy of christianity is bloody and reeks of death, lets not forget the Crusades! But apparently "Atheism and evolution has caused more deaths than any ideology".
ARE YOU INSANE???
You are passing down the beliefs that are responsible for the deaths of thousands of my ancestor's people and probably even your own Chuchulainn, don't you DARE try to weasel out of it with that crap. You are no better than a Nazi, your beliefs are ignorant and intolerant and so are you.
18 Oct 2007, 3:51 am
Astreja wrote:
Thanks, Yog-Sothoth! I'm an agnostic heiðinn of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, and am quite familiar with the tragic Christianization of my ancestors' lands.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
The Viking Age began in 793, when Vikings from Norway arrived in England. Olaf ("Óláfr Haraldsson") was the first christian king in Norway, and did not murder many people. Olaf became a christian after he visited Normandie, since France already was a christian country. I'd say the norse mythology is much more violent than christianity. You could only come to Valhalla if you died in a battle, if you died because of natural causes, you went to Nivlheim (which was controlled by Hel, daughter of Loke). Of course, only men came to Valhalla.
Olaf was not a baptist, but a catholic, by the way. He reunited Norway as a kingdom after the country had been split after the battle of Svolder. He also helped the anglo-saxon king Adalred II reconquer London from the danes.
Christianity was introduced in Norway in 1023, the viking age ended in 1050. The introduction of christianity in Norway banned slavery, killing of newborn children and bigamy. It also stated that noble men were no more worth than farmers. Olaf did not torture people because of religion, but because they refused to accept the new laws.
18 Oct 2007, 6:53 am
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
Find me a nation that is wholly aethist, and that has slaughtered billions of people, and I might believe you.
One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.
All religions have their black sheep. Islam had Saddam Hussein, christianity has George W. Bush and so on. These people did what they did because they were psycopaths, not because they were religious.
Actually, the Nazis sent the atheists to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. the Nazis might not have had great love for christianity, but they didn't persecute it. saying Hitler was an atheist is a blatant lie.
Let's compare the peacefulness of say, modern, secular Scandinavia with the fundamentalist country of your choice. Or, if you want to look at examples of religious genocide, let's consider Spain in the New World. In Mexico alone, millions were killed in the name of saving their souls; murderous Aztec tyranny was replaced by even more murderous Spanish tyranny, and both justified their atrocities in the name of religion. If you sum up all the Spanish colonies, medieval, fundamentalist Spain was more murderous than either the Nazis or the Soviets, without the convenience of modern technology.
18 Oct 2007, 7:24 am
pbcoll wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
Find me a nation that is wholly aethist, and that has slaughtered billions of people, and I might believe you.
One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.
All religions have their black sheep. Islam had Saddam Hussein, christianity has George W. Bush and so on. These people did what they did because they were psycopaths, not because they were religious.
Actually, the Nazis sent the atheists to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. the Nazis might not have had great love for christianity, but they didn't persecute it. saying Hitler was an atheist is a blatant lie.
Let's compare the peacefulness of say, modern, secular Scandinavia with the fundamentalist country of your choice. Or, if you want to look at examples of religious genocide, let's consider Spain in the New World. In Mexico alone, millions were killed in the name of saving their souls; murderous Aztec tyranny was replaced by even more murderous Spanish tyranny, and both justified their atrocities in the name of religion. If you sum up all the Spanish colonies, medieval, fundamentalist Spain was more murderous than either the Nazis or the Soviets, without the convenience of modern technology.
Hitler was against religious persecutions, and did not send people to consentration camps only because of their religious views (unless they were jewish, that is). People were often sent to concentration camps because they said their opnions against national socialism. Some of these were atheists, others were christians. Hitler used christianity to gain sympathy from the people, but he didn't believe in it.
Some quotes from our beloved "führer" behind closed doors:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...."
He also said much more against christianity, and this proves that he probably was an atheist.
The tyranns from Spain murdered the aztecs so that they could take their gold. They would have done the same if they were muslim, jewish or atheists. Mao alone killed more people than the spanish tyranny in South America. If you ad Slobodan Milosevic, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu, Nero and a couple of other self-proclaimed atheists to that list, you get more murders than all organized religions put together.
I've got nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty sick of people claiming that atheists are perfect and religious people are barbarians.
18 Oct 2007, 8:10 am
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
pbcoll wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
Find me a nation that is wholly aethist, and that has slaughtered billions of people, and I might believe you.
One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.
All religions have their black sheep. Islam had Saddam Hussein, christianity has George W. Bush and so on. These people did what they did because they were psycopaths, not because they were religious.
Actually, the Nazis sent the atheists to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. the Nazis might not have had great love for christianity, but they didn't persecute it. saying Hitler was an atheist is a blatant lie.
Let's compare the peacefulness of say, modern, secular Scandinavia with the fundamentalist country of your choice. Or, if you want to look at examples of religious genocide, let's consider Spain in the New World. In Mexico alone, millions were killed in the name of saving their souls; murderous Aztec tyranny was replaced by even more murderous Spanish tyranny, and both justified their atrocities in the name of religion. If you sum up all the Spanish colonies, medieval, fundamentalist Spain was more murderous than either the Nazis or the Soviets, without the convenience of modern technology.
Hitler was against religious persecutions, and did not send people to consentration camps only because of their religious views (unless they were jewish, that is). People were often sent to concentration camps because they said their opnions against national socialism. Some of these were atheists, others were christians. Hitler used christianity to gain sympathy from the people, but he didn't believe in it.
Some quotes from our beloved "führer" behind closed doors:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...."
He also said much more against christianity, and this proves that he probably was an atheist.
The tyranns from Spain murdered the aztecs so that they could take their gold. They would have done the same if they were muslim, jewish or atheists. Mao alone killed more people than the spanish tyranny in South America. If you ad Slobodan Milosevic, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu, Nero and a couple of other self-proclaimed atheists to that list, you get more murders than all organized religions put together.
I've got nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty sick of people claiming that atheists are perfect and religious people are barbarians.
There seems to be some confusion here. Surely Nero was not atheist, simply a follower of older gods?
Also note that whatever the stance of the head of state, that is no clear indicator that the rest of the nation are also atheist.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
18 Oct 2007, 8:21 am
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Astreja wrote:
Thanks, Yog-Sothoth! I'm an agnostic heiðinn of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, and am quite familiar with the tragic Christianization of my ancestors' lands.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
The Viking Age began in 793, when Vikings from Norway arrived in England. Olaf ("Óláfr Haraldsson") was the first christian king in Norway, and did not murder many people. Olaf became a christian after he visited Normandie, since France already was a christian country. I'd say the norse mythology is much more violent than christianity. You could only come to Valhalla if you died in a battle, if you died because of natural causes, you went to Nivlheim (which was controlled by Hel, daughter of Loke). Of course, only men came to Valhalla.
Olaf was not a baptist, but a catholic, by the way. He reunited Norway as a kingdom after the country had been split after the battle of Svolder. He also helped the anglo-saxon king Adalred II reconquer London from the danes.
Christianity was introduced in Norway in 1023, the viking age ended in 1050. The introduction of christianity in Norway banned slavery, killing of newborn children and bigamy. It also stated that noble men were no more worth than farmers. Olaf did not torture people because of religion, but because they refused to accept the new laws.
I know more about Norse mythology than you do, and I know it is violent, but you have no idea how much of a violent time that was. The Vikings were nothing extraordinary in terms of violence, and most of their violence was provoked by forced christian conversion anyway.
What the hell are you talking about Olaf never killed anybody? You are right about killing and torturing people who wouldn't accept the new laws, because the new laws were "convert or die".
Dont paint Olaf out to be a great guy just because he was christian.
18 Oct 2007, 8:42 am
Yog-Sothoth wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Astreja wrote:
Thanks, Yog-Sothoth! I'm an agnostic heiðinn of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, and am quite familiar with the tragic Christianization of my ancestors' lands.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.
I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.
The Viking Age began in 793, when Vikings from Norway arrived in England. Olaf ("Óláfr Haraldsson") was the first christian king in Norway, and did not murder many people. Olaf became a christian after he visited Normandie, since France already was a christian country. I'd say the norse mythology is much more violent than christianity. You could only come to Valhalla if you died in a battle, if you died because of natural causes, you went to Nivlheim (which was controlled by Hel, daughter of Loke). Of course, only men came to Valhalla.
Olaf was not a baptist, but a catholic, by the way. He reunited Norway as a kingdom after the country had been split after the battle of Svolder. He also helped the anglo-saxon king Adalred II reconquer London from the danes.
Christianity was introduced in Norway in 1023, the viking age ended in 1050. The introduction of christianity in Norway banned slavery, killing of newborn children and bigamy. It also stated that noble men were no more worth than farmers. Olaf did not torture people because of religion, but because they refused to accept the new laws.
I know more about Norse mythology than you do, and I know it is violent, but you have no idea how much of a violent time that was. The Vikings were nothing extraordinary in terms of violence, and most of their violence was provoked by forced christian conversion anyway.
What the hell are you talking about Olaf never killed anybody? You are right about killing and torturing people who wouldn't accept the new laws, because the new laws were "convert or die".
Dont paint Olaf out to be a great guy just because he was christian.
Compared to other kings Olaf was a great guy. Like I said: He banned both slavery and killing of infants. Before he became a king, Norway was ruled by greedy noble men. He rarely killed, usually he took the land from people who didn't accept the new laws instead. He also achieved peace with Sweden ("Svearike"). Allthough little is known about Olaf, it seems like the only stupid thing he did was to not make peace with Knut the Great. If he was a violent psycopath, then he wouldn't be a saint.
There were also some christian sects in Norway long before Olaf's time. This was a violent time because most countries didn't have decent laws. Christianity contributed to many new laws, whether you like it or not.
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
18 Oct 2007, 8:50 am
Quote:
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
You had to be a warrior to get into Valhalla. Being a warrior does not equate to being violent, any more than being violent equates to being a warrior.
Besides; Valhalla is/was only one of many "good" places to go when you die.
_________________
You are my reason to despise the world!
18 Oct 2007, 8:52 am
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Compared to other kings Olaf was a great guy. Like I said: He banned both slavery and killing of infants. Before he became a king, Norway was ruled by greedy noble men. He rarely killed, usually he took the land from people who didn't accept the new laws instead. He also achieved peace with Sweden ("Svearike"). Allthough little is known about Olaf, it seems like the only stupid thing he did was to not make peace with Knut the Great. If he was a violent psycopath, then he wouldn't be a saint.
There were also some christian sects in Norway long before Olaf's time. This was a violent time because most countries didn't have decent laws. Christianity contributed to many new laws, whether you like it or not.
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
There were also some christian sects in Norway long before Olaf's time. This was a violent time because most countries didn't have decent laws. Christianity contributed to many new laws, whether you like it or not.
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
I am confident I know more about Norse mythology than you because I know more about it than most people today, I read Norse myths a lot and the meaning behind them and stuff. I told you that most of the Viking's violence was provoked by the christians, and Valhalla was just a myth that they made up, just like the bible, and who are you to say they didn't make that myth after the christians started forcing them to convert? Well maybe it was written before then, I'm not an expert on the time lines and stuff. But anyway, just because christians made new laws, did not give them the right to kill all who didn't accept them and their way of life, like the Native Americans. Do you think Native Americans were bloodthirsty, barbaric people who were better off after the so-called manifest destiny? World War 2 was responsible for great innovations in engineering, but does that make it ok for Germany to have started that war?
18 Oct 2007, 9:13 am
Yog-Sothoth wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Compared to other kings Olaf was a great guy. Like I said: He banned both slavery and killing of infants. Before he became a king, Norway was ruled by greedy noble men. He rarely killed, usually he took the land from people who didn't accept the new laws instead. He also achieved peace with Sweden ("Svearike"). Allthough little is known about Olaf, it seems like the only stupid thing he did was to not make peace with Knut the Great. If he was a violent psycopath, then he wouldn't be a saint.
There were also some christian sects in Norway long before Olaf's time. This was a violent time because most countries didn't have decent laws. Christianity contributed to many new laws, whether you like it or not.
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
There were also some christian sects in Norway long before Olaf's time. This was a violent time because most countries didn't have decent laws. Christianity contributed to many new laws, whether you like it or not.
What makes you think you know more about norse mythology than me? The fact that you HAD to be violent to come to Valhalla explains a lot of the vikings behaviour.
I am confident I know more about Norse mythology than you because I know more about it than most people today, I read Norse myths a lot and the meaning behind them and stuff. I told you that most of the Viking's violence was provoked by the christians, and Valhalla was just a myth that they made up, just like the bible, and who are you to say they didn't make that myth after the christians started forcing them to convert? Well maybe it was written before then, I'm not an expert on the time lines and stuff. But anyway, just because christians made new laws, did not give them the right to kill all who didn't accept them and their way of life, like the Native Americans. Do you think Native Americans were bloodthirsty, barbaric people who were better off after the so-called manifest destiny? World War 2 was responsible for great innovations in engineering, but does that make it ok for Germany to have started that war?
We're tought about norse mythology here in Norway already in elementary school. The violence of some vikings (take for instance the invasion of Normandie) were provoked by greed. The french people didn't come to Norway and Sweden to convert the people in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, there weren't many christian missionaries in Scandinavia during the viking age.
I have not in any way defended the murders linked to christianity, but you're exaggerating very much. The only murders directly linked to christian faith (i.e. not greed or anything similar) were the witch burnings in Europe during the dark ages. The english people killed the native americans because they wanted their land, not because of their faith.
Comparing christianity to WWII is stupid. Christianity usually brought peace and justice (compared to the way it was before), while WWII made everything worse. Most of the innovations popularized during WWII (like the radar or the diesel engine) was invented before it started.
18 Oct 2007, 9:34 am
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
We're tought about norse mythology here in Norway already in elementary school. The violence of some vikings (take for instance the invasion of Normandie) were provoked by greed. The french people didn't come to Norway and Sweden to convert the people in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, there weren't many christian missionaries in Scandinavia during the viking age.
I have not in any way defended the murders linked to christianity, but you're exaggerating very much. The only murders directly linked to christian faith (i.e. not greed or anything similar) were the witch burnings in Europe during the dark ages. The english people killed the native americans because they wanted their land, not because of their faith.
Comparing christianity to WWII is stupid. Christianity usually brought peace and justice (compared to the way it was before), while WWII made everything worse. Most of the innovations popularized during WWII (like the radar or the diesel engine) was invented before it started.
I have not in any way defended the murders linked to christianity, but you're exaggerating very much. The only murders directly linked to christian faith (i.e. not greed or anything similar) were the witch burnings in Europe during the dark ages. The english people killed the native americans because they wanted their land, not because of their faith.
Comparing christianity to WWII is stupid. Christianity usually brought peace and justice (compared to the way it was before), while WWII made everything worse. Most of the innovations popularized during WWII (like the radar or the diesel engine) was invented before it started.
Killing somebody because they wouldn't convert, or for practicing their pagan beliefs after being forced to convert, like Charlemagne did, IS directly linked to the christian faith! The English people killed the native Americans because it was god's will to take their land and force out those godless pagan savages. I'm not saying that god was the only reason, but it fueled them. I only brought up WW2 because I am showing that something good can come out of something horrible, like new laws through bloodshed or engineering renovations through war. WW2 DID NOT make everything worse, besides so many people dying. I wasn't talking about radar or diesel engines, I was talking about things like how they started using plastic as a substitute for metal. There was more stuff, but I haven't studied the subject in years.
I'd like to hear how the Crusades or the Dark Ages made the world a better place, and look at the middle east, maybe its not christianity but its the same damn god, all the slightly different sects of the muslum religion (I forget what its called) are killing each other because they are slightly different, and that has been going on for years!
18 Oct 2007, 12:00 pm
Sedaka wrote:
Angelus-Mortis wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
RadiantAspie wrote:
Angelus-Mortis wrote:
Natural selection is just a means to explain how that kind of death occurs, but on a more significant level, how organisms survive, and how some don't.
Well, not exactly. Natural selection is a process by which organisms adapt and survive in relation to their environments. For example, take some species of snakes like pythons. Because it is cold blooded it is well adapted to live in swampy regions or jungles where there is warm and humid climate. That combined with their ability to detect IR and their rather efficient killing techniques, it is very likely to survive and retain an edge in that environment and thus they will procreate. However, take it to the Arctic where there are few prey animals and very cold climate, they will not survive or procreate.
It is through this that animals and humans have evolved.
you're suggesting that evolution occurs @ the lvl of the individual. it does not.
did that snake wriggle is tongue and instantly aquire those advantageous traits or did they slowly arise through selective breeding (aka many deaths and non-breeding[effective death]from unsucsessful individuals)
you have a good grasp on one aspect of natural selection but you have to realize that a lot of death was involved
but i think you two are on same page
Well, we already know that the organisms are going to die, seeing that their cells can't keep multiplying themselves forever because the mechanism for duplicating DNA makes errors, and the mutations that don't get fixed will eventually accumulate, or the properties of the cells in the organism don't stay the same, and change as well, etc. It's only a matter of explaining how that happens, and how much offspring an organism might produce before it dies--but does the fact that natural selection says that certain organisms survive better and produce more fit offspring before they die, while others simply die because they can't survive means we should blame natural selection for death? I cannot see that correlation.
i never said that.... that was what the OP was suggesting...
you're talking more about fitness, which is an aspect of NS but only when you have a specific event to focus on... i mena evolution doesnt have a sepecific route to get to its desitination... so how can you determine fitness apriori? NS is culling based on random chance events or conditions... you could balme the specific events or conditions for the deaths (random virus for example)...
but i dont think you're going there... you're taking more about the cellular process of death (nothing to do with NS, really) and fitness... which more often results in genetic-death (no offspring)... so if you wanna lump that with "death" then go ahead
edit: all im saying is NS is a set of rules applied to a game. the cause of the deaths are not the rules (NS) but the designer of the game (the random constraints on survival that set up NS).... im still lost as to why you're talking about how cells actually die.... cause that has nothing significantly direct (most times) to direct NS.
it's more like the reverse... blame death for NS.
A cellular death might occur because the organism fails to survive. Natural selection might explain why it dies, although I suppose it's not always old age or cellular death; it could be the organism was eaten by a predator, starved to death because it couldn't adapt to its environment, or was sterile and died with no offspring, or failed to find a mate, and also died with no offspring, etc. If we assume we're all going to die anyways, that natural selection explains how we die is not something worth blaming. Of course, the fact that natural selection explains all this does not change the fact that that organism died. If the concept of natural selection were not discovered, it does not change the fact that the organism would still die.
_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html
Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.
Ignorationi est non medicina.
18 Oct 2007, 12:59 pm
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
pbcoll wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
Find me a nation that is wholly aethist, and that has slaughtered billions of people, and I might believe you.
One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.
All religions have their black sheep. Islam had Saddam Hussein, christianity has George W. Bush and so on. These people did what they did because they were psycopaths, not because they were religious.
Actually, the Nazis sent the atheists to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. the Nazis might not have had great love for christianity, but they didn't persecute it. saying Hitler was an atheist is a blatant lie.
Let's compare the peacefulness of say, modern, secular Scandinavia with the fundamentalist country of your choice. Or, if you want to look at examples of religious genocide, let's consider Spain in the New World. In Mexico alone, millions were killed in the name of saving their souls; murderous Aztec tyranny was replaced by even more murderous Spanish tyranny, and both justified their atrocities in the name of religion. If you sum up all the Spanish colonies, medieval, fundamentalist Spain was more murderous than either the Nazis or the Soviets, without the convenience of modern technology.
Hitler was against religious persecutions, and did not send people to consentration camps only because of their religious views (unless they were jewish, that is). People were often sent to concentration camps because they said their opnions against national socialism. Some of these were atheists, others were christians. Hitler used christianity to gain sympathy from the people, but he didn't believe in it.
Some quotes from our beloved "führer" behind closed doors:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...."
He also said much more against christianity, and this proves that he probably was an atheist.
The tyranns from Spain murdered the aztecs so that they could take their gold. They would have done the same if they were muslim, jewish or atheists. Mao alone killed more people than the spanish tyranny in South America. If you ad Slobodan Milosevic, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu, Nero and a couple of other self-proclaimed atheists to that list, you get more murders than all organized religions put together.
I've got nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty sick of people claiming that atheists are perfect and religious people are barbarians.
Actually, being an atheist was enough to get you to a concentration camp under the Nazis, even if you did not fit any other category of 'undesirables' - atheists were a category of 'undesirables', separate from Communists for example, or from other political opponents. The facts of the case are that the Nazis persecuted atheists and Jews (in general, not just opponents or critics of Nazism) but mostly left Christians alone (pastors in fact had relative immunity from persecution, as exemplified by the Niemoller case). And it seems blatantly obvious that religious people have killed far more than atheists have. Just take the case of Europe: the many Protestant-Catholic wars, the colonialism justified in the name of religion, the persecution of Jews, Muslims and heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, European-born jihadists, etc. The rest of the world has been no better. As you point out, in many cases there were motives other than ideology - which is also true of many of the crimes committed by atheists; you cannot have it both ways, excusing religion because other interests were at stake but not applying that logic to atheists. Yes, it's ridiculous to think that religious people in general are barbarians like the Taliban, but it is no less ridiculous to think atheists are generally like Mao, and many of us are sick and tired of being accused of being closet Pol Pots.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
18 Oct 2007, 1:23 pm
Angelus-Mortis wrote:
A cellular death might occur because the organism fails to survive. Natural selection might explain why it dies, although I suppose it's not always old age or cellular death; it could be the organism was eaten by a predator, starved to death because it couldn't adapt to its environment, or was sterile and died with no offspring, or failed to find a mate, and also died with no offspring, etc. If we assume we're all going to die anyways, that natural selection explains how we die is not something worth blaming. Of course, the fact that natural selection explains all this does not change the fact that that organism died. If the concept of natural selection were not discovered, it does not change the fact that the organism would still die.
you're going in circles and are trying to apply NS to all of evolution and are mixing up that the traits being selected for were doneso over many generations (lots of collective deaths) yet are putting too much emphasis on the cost of one individual dying... like you're assuming all death is NS related... which you could argue for or against... but your "for" arguments aren't linking NS to explaining death.
i still dont know where you are trying to do.
i only brought up NS/evo cause the OP said it (evolution) had caused a lot of death... and it's silly no not acknowledge that death plays a very important role in evolution though it's in no way comparible to deaths caused by human ideations (like aethism, like OP said... im not touching that one)
but evolution doesnt cause deaths... deaths cause evolution... like pruning
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
18 Oct 2007, 2:42 pm
pbcoll wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
pbcoll wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
Find me a nation that is wholly aethist, and that has slaughtered billions of people, and I might believe you.
One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.
All religions have their black sheep. Islam had Saddam Hussein, christianity has George W. Bush and so on. These people did what they did because they were psycopaths, not because they were religious.
Actually, the Nazis sent the atheists to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. the Nazis might not have had great love for christianity, but they didn't persecute it. saying Hitler was an atheist is a blatant lie.
Let's compare the peacefulness of say, modern, secular Scandinavia with the fundamentalist country of your choice. Or, if you want to look at examples of religious genocide, let's consider Spain in the New World. In Mexico alone, millions were killed in the name of saving their souls; murderous Aztec tyranny was replaced by even more murderous Spanish tyranny, and both justified their atrocities in the name of religion. If you sum up all the Spanish colonies, medieval, fundamentalist Spain was more murderous than either the Nazis or the Soviets, without the convenience of modern technology.
Hitler was against religious persecutions, and did not send people to consentration camps only because of their religious views (unless they were jewish, that is). People were often sent to concentration camps because they said their opnions against national socialism. Some of these were atheists, others were christians. Hitler used christianity to gain sympathy from the people, but he didn't believe in it.
Some quotes from our beloved "führer" behind closed doors:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity...."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...."
He also said much more against christianity, and this proves that he probably was an atheist.
The tyranns from Spain murdered the aztecs so that they could take their gold. They would have done the same if they were muslim, jewish or atheists. Mao alone killed more people than the spanish tyranny in South America. If you ad Slobodan Milosevic, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Nicolae Ceausescu, Nero and a couple of other self-proclaimed atheists to that list, you get more murders than all organized religions put together.
I've got nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty sick of people claiming that atheists are perfect and religious people are barbarians.
Actually, being an atheist was enough to get you to a concentration camp under the Nazis, even if you did not fit any other category of 'undesirables' - atheists were a category of 'undesirables', separate from Communists for example, or from other political opponents. The facts of the case are that the Nazis persecuted atheists and Jews (in general, not just opponents or critics of Nazism) but mostly left Christians alone (pastors in fact had relative immunity from persecution, as exemplified by the Niemoller case). And it seems blatantly obvious that religious people have killed far more than atheists have. Just take the case of Europe: the many Protestant-Catholic wars, the colonialism justified in the name of religion, the persecution of Jews, Muslims and heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, European-born jihadists, etc. The rest of the world has been no better. As you point out, in many cases there were motives other than ideology - which is also true of many of the crimes committed by atheists; you cannot have it both ways, excusing religion because other interests were at stake but not applying that logic to atheists. Yes, it's ridiculous to think that religious people in general are barbarians like the Taliban, but it is no less ridiculous to think atheists are generally like Mao, and many of us are sick and tired of being accused of being closet Pol Pots.
I haven't said that all atheists were like Mao. My point was that there is absolutely no correlation between religion and violence. Bin Laden and his friends wouldn't be less racistic if they were christians, jewish or atheists, by the way.
I have never heard of anyone being sent to concentration camp because they were atheists. George Rockwell, founder of the american nazi party, even officially claimed to be an atheist.
