WTF does evolution have to do with communism?

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
WTF does evolution have to do with communism?

Could someone please shed some light on this? I've read fundamentalist ramblings about evolution is a communist plot. I don't understand the connection... to me, they are apples and oranges. Maybe an atheist who has debates a fundy such as this could enlighten me....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ramblings?

 

 

               Fundies consider everything a 'commie plot' , it's like Sen. Joe McCarthy never died.  It's also the same kind of paranoid personality disorder that gives us 'birthers' and 'tea partiers' and  creation = science ideology.

 

 

                Even mainstream religions get irritated  by these nuts.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
probably because

probably because fundamentalists want evolution to be a plot and the only thing they know to pin the plot on is "communism."  the vast majority of such fundies (and also many conservatives) have no clue what the various meanings of "communism" are and have no knowledge of it beyond the fear-mongering rhetoric of their cold war-era high school social studies teachers.

"communism" is just a vague bogey to pin whatever you like on.  simple as that.  many communists have embraced evolution, just as many fascists, anarchists, socialists, social democrats, etc., have.  i know that both lenin and hirohito kept sculptures in honor of darwin on their desks.  hitler expressed admiration for him too.  it has no direct correlation with communism or marxism.  marx and darwin were more or less contemporaries, but as far as i know they never met and had no significant comments about each other.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I've seen attempts at

I've seen attempts at connecting evolution and eugenics i.e. the fallacious argument that if you "follow" natural selection, then you should advocate "selecting" for the "strongest."

I don't know of anything connecting evolution and communism. I think that's just an assertion born from out-group homogeneity bias.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Marx, Darwin and Feuerbach

Marx, Darwin and Feuerbach were Neo-Hegelians contemporaries. There were left wing and right wing Hegelians. The right wing interpreted Hegel as compatible with CHristianity. The left wing interpreted Hegel as atheistic. Feuerbach wre the Essence of Christianity in which god was really a construct that we projected of man's greater attributes. Darwin well evolution. Marx read Fuerbach and Darwin which influenced many of his views.  Hegel was a dialectic spiritualist. Marx turned  Hegel on his head and developed dialectic materialism.   It is likely that the conservative wing viewed the entire left wing of Hegelianism as communists at lest the begininng of stero-typing began at thAT TIME IN THE MID TO LATE 1800'S 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Marx, Darwin

TGBaker wrote:

Marx, Darwin and Feuerbach were Neo-Hegelians contemporaries. There were left wing and right wing Hegelians. The right wing interpreted Hegel as compatible with CHristianity. The left wing interpreted Hegel as atheistic. Feuerbach wre the Essence of Christianity in which god was really a construct that we projected of man's greater attributes. Darwin well evolution. Marx read Fuerbach and Darwin which influenced many of his views.  Hegel was a dialectic spiritualist. Marx turned  Hegel on his head and developed dialectic materialism.   It is likely that the conservative wing viewed the entire left wing of Hegelianism as communists at lest the begininng of stero-typing began at thAT TIME IN THE MID TO LATE 1800'S 

So basically, they were pitching it as a political false dichotomy or something?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Marx turned 

TGBaker wrote:

Marx turned  Hegel on his head and developed dialectic materialism.  

historical materialism.  neither marx nor engels used the term "dialectical materialism."  dialectical materialism was lenin's philosophical view (the few times he even bothered with philosophy), further developed by trotsky and then adulterated by stalin.  it was frequently put into marx's mouth by soviet theorists.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:TGBaker

iwbiek wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Marx turned  Hegel on his head and developed dialectic materialism.  

historical materialism.  neither marx nor engels used the term "dialectical materialism."  dialectical materialism was lenin's philosophical view (the few times he even bothered with philosophy), further developed by trotsky and then adulterated by stalin.  it was frequently put into marx's mouth by soviet theorists.

Agreed. It was employed when I was in high school more as a term to categorize philosophy of politics.  I think the term does allow a comparision of Marx's uniqueness from Hegel though.  If one were to look at liberal vs. conservativism in the USA as based of size of government one would have a spectrum like this:

 

LIBERAL                                                                      Moderate                         Conservative                      

Totalitarianism  Dictatorship  Facism   Socialism    Demoncrats   Moderate   Conservative    Communism

Most communist movements have moved toward the liberal direction in attempts to get control of a government to meet its  completed agenda. There they get stuck as the leaders are corrupted by power. While communism is an ideal conservatism.  It is the people who produce, labor and control the results. As iwbiek pointed out this is a philosophical view rather than  sa socialogical view of Marx.  Marx and Engels admired Darwin's work but could nontheless take issue with  some of its contents and methods. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:Could someone

Wowzers1 wrote:

Could someone please shed some light on this? I've read fundamentalist ramblings about evolution is a communist plot. I don't understand the connection... to me, they are apples and oranges. Maybe an atheist who has debates a fundy such as this could enlighten me....

It is funny how on the one hand you attempt to defend religion and completely ignore the damage it does. THIS is the damage it does.

People get sucked into it so bad that any challenge to it becomes a giant conspiracy.

If the bible had never been written there would be no one to read it and use it as an excuse to defend myth in the face of real science.

It always takes science to drag humanity into the future kicking and screaming. And it always is religion that clings to the past. It is religion that kept us in the dark ages. It is religion that keeps the Middle East in it's current dark ages and it is why people still today think adults can magically pop out of dirt.

Evolution is a plot like gravity is a plot.

Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not knowing. Science demands that you test everything you know to insure quality of data.

One is comic book mind junk food. The other is HOW we got to the moon and WHY we know what DNA is now.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Some species such as ants

Some species such as ants seem to have a 'communist' type of society. The members will completely sacrifice themselves for the good the nest.

Humans on the other hand seem to be much more individualistic and competitive. Only cooperating when we see an advantage. But we have a sense of morality to cause socially beneficial behavior.

Seems like only if humans could evolve to cooperate instead of compete could communism work. I think this would require a re engineering of human biology.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is funny

Brian37 wrote:

It is funny how on the one hand you attempt to defend religion and completely ignore the damage it does. THIS is the damage it does.

I never said that religion does not do damage or ignore it... Where did that come from?

Brian37 wrote:

People get sucked into it so bad that any challenge to it becomes a giant conspiracy.

Conspiracy theory? You think religion is a conspiracy theory?

Brian37 wrote:

If the bible had never been written there would be no one to read it and use it as an excuse to defend myth in the face of real science.

So...what does this have to do with communism and evolution?

Brian37 wrote:

It always takes science to drag humanity into the future kicking and screaming. And it always is religion that clings to the past. It is religion that kept us in the dark ages. It is religion that keeps the Middle East in it's current dark ages and it is why people still today think adults can magically pop out of dirt.

You pitching science as if it were the polar opposite of religion... That'd be a false dichotomy

Brian37 wrote:

Evolution is a plot like gravity is a plot.

Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not knowing. Science demands that you test everything you know to insure quality of data.

You're telling me that that my religion teaches me to be satisfied with not knowing? You're either assuming something that is not true about my religion or you're making a hasty generalization. Either way, this is not true...

Brian37 wrote:

One is comic book mind junk food. The other is HOW we got to the moon and WHY we know what DNA is now.

Okay...so you do think they are a polar opposites then?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is interesting that

It is interesting that during the reign of Lenin and Stalin, they favored Lysenko's ideas on 'evolution', based on Lamarck's 'inheritance of acquired characteristics', which was basically opposed to Darwin's ideas, because it fitted into their ideology better.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is interesting that during the reign of Lenin and Stalin, they favored Lysenko's ideas on 'evolution', based on Lamarck's 'inheritance of acquired characteristics', which was basically opposed to Darwin's ideas, because it fitted into their ideology better.

i wasn't aware of lenin supporting these ideas.

it was lenin who had the "darwin" ape sculpture on his desk.

also, i object to the word "reign" being used with lenin.  while he was definitely prima inter pares, one can hardly call him a dictator after even a cursory examination of his political career.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3641
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  A type of Christian

  A type of Christian communism ? 

   Acts 4:32    "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. "

    verse 34     "There were no needy persons among them.  From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the      sales

    verse 35       and put it at the apostle's feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

 

 

 

 

  ( sorry, the f**king post won't follow the format as I type it 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  A

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  A type of Christian communism ? 

   Acts 4:32    "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. "

    verse 34     "There were no needy persons among them.  From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the      sales

    verse 35       and put it at the apostle's feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

 

 

 

 

  ( sorry, the f**king post won't follow the format as I type it 

i recall fidel castro in his autobiography mentioning the parable where jesus talks about workers arriving at a field at various times during the day, some earlier and some later, and yet all getting the same wage.  he said that this was a very communist notion.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i recall fidel

iwbiek wrote:

i recall fidel castro in his autobiography mentioning the parable where jesus talks about workers arriving at a field at various times during the day, some earlier and some later, and yet all getting the same wage.  he said that this was a very communist notion.

The parable of the talents would seem an endorsement of capitalism. Did Fidel comment on that one?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Cosmx
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Right-Wing Atheists?

 

After many discussions here in Australia it seems that Atheism has become or is becoming synonymous socialism and the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" rights movement, the "Al-Gore-Global-Warming" brigade and the "George Bush caused 9/11".

Say anything negative about Government controlled Socialism, or
suggest that we should hear more from Scientists who descent on popular Global Warming ideas or
Say that you personally feel more comfortable with heterosexual friends and that while gays and lesbians should not be hindered nor harassed and everyone. swinging and polyamory included, should be allowed to do whatever in private, it is just not your problem.

Say anything in this direction at a dinner party with "New Atheists" and one is immediatly branded a "tea-party-Sarah Palin-nutter"

I do tend to wonder at many "New-Atheists", people who were god-fearing Christians all of their lives until recently and now have suddenly had a conversion, much like a reversed version of the Saul-Paul thing in the bible when he "saw the light" Maybe when it happens the other way the convert sees darkness rather than the light? Maybe that is why the background of this website is black, (for those without a sense of humour, - that is a joke!!!)

From a little child I found the story Abraham agreeing to knife his son to death abhorrent, as I did the story about Jesus chasing 2000 pigs into the lake to drown and vandalising a fig tree because it was not fig season. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell one that these stories are a lot of B-S. Although, from what I understand, there are a few Rocket Scientists in NASA who do believe all this nonsense. Not many fortunately.

 

So, to get back to the subject: Are there any people, other than myself, out there who could be called "Milton Friedman Atheists"?

 

 

(may I say that I find your website difficult to read being reversed white on black. Not good for anyone with a sight problem)

 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3349
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cosmx wrote: So, to get

Cosmx wrote:

 

So, to get back to the subject: Are there any people, other than myself, out there who could be called "Milton Friedman Atheists"?

yes, there are at least 2 on this site.

as for me, i was a marxist even as a theist.  my marxism had no direct connection to my spiritual views or lack thereof.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Cosmx wrote:So, to get back

Cosmx wrote:

So, to get back to the subject: Are there any people, other than myself, out there who could be called "Milton Friedman Atheists"?

 

Can't fix the colors for you as I am not a mod.  You might be able to do something with your browser, depending on which browser you are using.

I read Free to Choose.  It changed my mind about being an ardent free capitalist.  Review the chapter on Hong Kong.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cosmx

iwbiek wrote:

Cosmx wrote:

 

So, to get back to the subject: Are there any people, other than myself, out there who could be called "Milton Friedman Atheists"?

yes, there are at least 2 on this site.

as for me, i was a marxist even as a theist.  my marxism had no direct connection to my spiritual views or lack thereof.

I think that Marxism would work based upon a resource rather than a consumer economy. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cosmx wrote:(may I say that

Cosmx wrote:
(may I say that I find your website difficult to read being reversed white on black. Not good for anyone with a sight problem)

Welcome to the forum.

On your account page, go to the "Edit" tab. You can change the background there.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:You pitching science

Quote:
You pitching science as if it were the polar opposite of religion... That'd be a false dichotomy

IT IS, I am sorry you don't want to face that. That is your problem, not mine.

First off, your mistake is trying to say "Some scientists believe in a god".

No, scientists are people, scientific method is the TOOL people use.

You can misuse a hammer, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a hammer.

The hammer cannot care about HOW humans use it to build a house. If you misuse the hammer you will build a crappy house.

Here is the difference between scientific method vs religion, and WHY they ARE polar opposites.

 

Scientific method goes like this:

Prior established data=established formula=projected outcome followed by independent peer review.

 

Religion goes like this;

Naked assertion based on prior tradition<=apologetics including pseudo science<=desired outcome, no independent peer review.

 

Scientific method is the demand of quality control of data. Religion is about protecting established tradition, no testing required to do that.

YOU suffer from the same thing the Ancient Egyptians suffered from for 3,000 years in falsely believing the sun was a thinking being. They were a smart culture and master builders and used science to build, but their smartness did not make the sun a god.

Newton's science is still used today, but as smart as he was, he also postulated the absurdity of Alchemy which was NOT valid.

So what if some scientists believe in a god. I am sure you can find Muslims with PHDs but you don't believe in Allah. I am sure you can find Jews with PHDs too, but you don't believe in Yahweh. I am sure you can find Hindus with PHDs, but you don't believe in vishnu.

What no one has ever proven empirically is a thought ocurring outside a material process, much less an invisible brian with magical super powers, BY ANY NAME, past or present, monotheist or polytheist.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:IT IS, I am

Brian37 wrote:

IT IS, I am sorry you don't want to face that. That is your problem, not mine.

A fallacy on your part is not my problem...

Brian37 wrote:

First off, your mistake is trying to say "Some scientists believe in a god".

No, scientists are people, scientific method is the TOOL people use.

You can misuse a hammer, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a hammer.

The hammer cannot care about HOW humans use it to build a house. If you misuse the hammer you will build a crappy house.

Here is the difference between scientific method vs religion, and WHY they ARE polar opposites.

If science is a "tool", then to make a comparison between religion and science religion would have to be a "tool" as well.

Brian37 wrote:

Scientific method goes like this:

Prior established data=established formula=projected outcome followed by independent peer review.

Actually, it looks more like this: observation => hypothesis => Tests => Conclusion => Implication, retests, further observation, further hypothesis....

Brian37 wrote:

Religion goes like this;

Naked assertion based on prior tradition<=apologetics including pseudo science<=desired outcome, no independent peer review.

You are creating a straw man out of religion, and thus why you have a false dichotomy...

Many theists think scientifically... arguably, science rose out of monotheistic traditions, particularly Christianity because of this.

And you'd do well to read about historical methods too.

Brian37 wrote:

Scientific method is the demand of quality control of data. Religion is about protecting established tradition, no testing required to do that.

YOU suffer from the same thing the Ancient Egyptians suffered from for 3,000 years in falsely believing the sun was a thinking being. They were a smart culture and master builders and used science to build, but their smartness did not make the sun a god.

Newton's science is still used today, but as smart as he was, he also postulated the absurdity of Alchemy which was NOT valid.

So what if some scientists believe in a god. I am sure you can find Muslims with PHDs but you don't believe in Allah. I am sure you can find Jews with PHDs too, but you don't believe in Yahweh. I am sure you can find Hindus with PHDs, but you don't believe in vishnu.

What no one has ever proven empirically is a thought ocurring outside a material process, much less an invisible brian with magical super powers, BY ANY NAME, past or present, monotheist or polytheist.

You've given me no reason to think that religion is the polar opposite, rather you used a fallacy to prop another -- your straw man of religion is necessary to prop up your false dichotomy.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal