We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4188
Latest Activity: Sep 14

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Neanderthals, Denisovans and ancestor X

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 7. 3 Replies

The evolution of work

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 12. 61 Replies

Has man evolved?

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 18. 5 Replies

The Probability Of Being

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 11. 4 Replies

Johns Hopkins Receives $125,000,000 to Fight Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 1. 2 Replies

A new theory explaining the origins of life?

Started by Donald L. Engel. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 31. 5 Replies

Map of Archaic Ancestry

Started by Qiana-Maieev. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 29. 5 Replies

Homo Erectus food processing

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 19. 1 Reply

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Claudiu Mihael Terenche on April 8, 2012 at 3:50pm

David Philip Norris 

Hitler didn't used Nietzschean philosophy. Do not mistake arianism with ideology of Superhuman. Those are two different things. Do you really read Nietzsche that you come with that conclusion, or you heard from others and repeated by yourself?

Comment by Wyatt on April 8, 2012 at 3:21pm

"Posting a few of my thoughts on related issues."

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 3:20pm

Denise, there is a difference between patronising someone and asking them to be reasonable. If you are unable or refuse to tell the difference, then I have no interest in engaging with you.

In all due respect, you people are the reason that atheism isn't advancing in the world. By raising straw men like Hitler to attack, you are promoting atheism as a negative worldview and stunting its growth and proliferation by not standing for anything. It's one thing to crusade against the negative influence of religion in the world, but another entirely to become so mired in trying to cast religion as the archvillain that our movement fails to gain critical mass or direction. Religion is still alive and strong in the world, and we are failing to do anything about it. The best we can come up with apparently is snide and snarky remarks.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 3:05pm

Denise: Calm down. Yours is only one way of looking at the facts. There are other interpretations to be made that are just as valid.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 2:54pm

Tim: Perhaps he started a Catholic, but later it's well-documented that he was into pagan Nordic occultism. He was already a friend of Dietrich Eckhart's when he wrote Mein Kampf (to whom he dedicated the book), and it's clear from Eckhart's letters to friends that Hitler already held beliefs counter to the teaching of the Church. But it was expedient for him to use the Church to bolster his authority. Again, I think the facts as a whole suggest that he was a sociopath.

Comment by Tim L on April 8, 2012 at 2:43pm

Actually Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He talked about his Christian faith in Mien Kampf and later expanded in speeches saying things like, "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 2:34pm

Hmmm. From what I've read/understand, Hitler was no more a Christian than he was an evolutionist. (I believe he later acknowledged being an atheist, and I'm not 100% sure about what he knew about evolution.) Rather, I think he was a textbook sociopath who knew an opportunity when he saw it. It was politically expedient to combine Nietzschean philosophy with "cutting edge" eugenics and use economic conditions to incite blood lust against the Jews.

Comment by Marc Draco on April 8, 2012 at 2:22pm

Darwinist? Although Dicky Dawkins has used the phrase, it's more often a sleight against science-based thinking. Same for evolutionist.

Hitler was more into eugenics which, while inheritance based, is a design paradigm. Evolution allows the best adapted to survive - it lives in the right now; what works best now survives.

Big Bang theory has progressed a lot in recent years, Chris, you might try to familiarise yourself with Brane (membrane) theory a little more. 

Comment by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 2:21pm

"Hitler was a Christian but also a Darwinist"

Darwinist? So says The Discovery Institute (creationists), Glenn Beck and Ray Comfort but, …not exactly true. The Christian thing is a bit of a stretch as well, born a Catholic …but later a Nordic Pagan-ish kind of thing with himself as a being to be worshipped.

Comment by Joseph P on April 8, 2012 at 1:07pm

So if we vote for Darwinism we support the logic for a hierarchy of life forms, which is used to support the cast system, euthanasia of lesser beings, and differences in the treatment of different races. Pretty well what we have at the moment.

Creationists on the other hand recognize the equality of all humans.

I believe in both and that we are not alone in the universe. When you believe that, I think that you leave the door open for free thought.


There's so much wrong with that crap.  First off, Evolution (calling it Darwinism is kind of stupid; we've come a long way since Darwin's initial theory) does not form a hierarchy or a caste system.  We're no more nor less evolved than an earthworm.  Both species are equally evolved to fit within their niche in the environment.

Second, it doesn't matter what kind of philosophical statements someone may wish to draw from a hypothesis or theory (Evolution is a theory and Creationism is a failed hypothesis).  It has nothing to do with the validity of the initial premise.

Creationism is not scientific.  It's religious dogma.  When you suggest leaving your mind open to unscientific dogma, you sound like a god-bot.  The last thing I would call it is free-thought.


Members (4185)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service