ShahdagMountains
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2012
- 13,437
- 15,371
- 2,278
You mean you’re all a load of lizards wandering around the place?
Come to think of it, some of them are sort of reptilian.
Zone1 The original lie in the Garden of Eden
- Thread starter Votto
- Start date
You mean you’re all a load of lizards wandering around the place?
Come to think of it, some of them are sort of reptilian.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #203
So, you believe space aliens put man here?
As for the assumption that the Sumerian version of the Garden of Eden came before the Hebrew version, that is all based upon when it was the first version when in reality we don't know and never will for sure. Archeologically speaking, just because the first written account may be older does not mean that was the first. What is certain is that both versions were passed down orally for God only knows how long, and mirror each other showing a connection between the two.
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,652
- 11,441
- 2,128
You have no idea what the bible is. Its 5 separate books and they are all different. Genesis is an allegory that describes mans beginning and moral development. Its beautiful story that Christians turned into a dark evil portrayal of mankind. There is no devil fall of man or original sin. Its about gods empowerment of man. You make mans fear of god, god as mans controller, obey or go to hell.
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,652
- 11,441
- 2,128
Stick to the New Testament
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #207
As I thought, you literally have nothing here, do you?
What is odd here, is that I seem to know the OT better than you seem to.
For example, it says in your own OT that the beginning of wisdom is to hate wickedness/evil. In fact, to say otherwise is akin to being a fool. But from your altered philosophy, sin should be cultivated to facilitate the moral evolution of society.
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,652
- 11,441
- 2,128
The early Christians were violent. Sin is the mean to control people. The message of Genesis is freedom. Christians made it about sin and control. They slaughtered the Gnostics and persecuted Jews for thousands of years. They gave is the Crusades. It seems you didnt get your own message.
As I thought, you literally have nothing here, do you?
What is odd here, is that I seem to know the OT better than you seem to.
For example, it says in your own OT that the beginning of wisdom is to hate wickedness/evil. In fact, to say otherwise is akin to being a fool. But from your altered philosophy, sin should be cultivated to facilitate the moral evolution of society.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #209
I don't recall any Christians muddying up the world during the Great Flood.
Would you care to explain what that was all about?
As for the early Christians, are you referring to the hundreds of thousands that were thrown to the lions for hundreds of years before the Catholic church came to be, or was it the Christians rounded up for genocide in Armenia during WW1, or was it the Christian Sudanese rounded up for genocide in Southern Sudan by Muslims, or was it just Constantine and company that hijacked to religion for his own political ambitions?
Please clarify.
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,652
- 11,441
- 2,128
Hundreds of thousands so the persecutors are playing the victim. How about that Spanish Inquisition. Thats was a moral high point.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #211
You are still unable to answer my questions.
Ok, we will move on to the Spanish Inquisition then.
From my vantage point as a Christian, Christ was very clear about the state of the world, and that is, his kingdom was not of this world.
We have several examples of this, along with the example of his entire life where he never ran for office or commanded an army for political power.
First, we see Jesus perform the miracle of loaves of bread and fishes, feeding the multitude. Guess what, Jesus that day was a smashing success!! In fact, they wanted to make him their earthy king on the spot, but he inexplicably left at that very moment, thus declining their offer. Why?
Then we have Jesus being interrogated by Pilate as to whether or not he is a king right before going to the cross. Again, Jesus stated he was but not of this world, for if he was of this world then his disciples would form weapons to come and try to free him.
In fact, in your own OT we see the example of the Hebrew people clamoring for an earthly king in 1 Samuel 8. God then sends the prophet Samuel in telling them that God did not approve, but would not prevent them so long as they were warned beforehand of the never ending abuses that would be inflicted on them if they chose a sinful man to be their king rather than God himself. But they would not listen, and the next thing they knew they had king Saul. It was only 2 kings later that their entire empire was split in two which later was absorbed by both Assyria and Babylon, and the next thing they knew they were in the ovens of Nazi Germany.
So, what is the message here? The message is that man has a SIN nature and that power corrupts, power that man was reserved for only God himself, something you flat out reject. In fact, I bet you are still looking for the perfect wordily leader to pop into existence to save us all, aren't you.
Once Christianity was hijacked by theocracy, it was doomed to failure because the righteousness of God cannot come about via the sinful political ambitions of men.
Christianity has learned this lesson the hard way, but Islam has only just begun this journey..............................
It then stands to reason that the theocracy of Christianity treats Jews the same way that the theocracies of Islam treat Jews. In fact, the Left is kind of a secular religion all their own and they seem to hate Jews as well as they fight for political power.
Notice a pattern?
Last edited:
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 2,828
- 1,459
- 918
People actually believe this??
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 2,828
- 1,459
- 918
Darwinism says that religion is just a phase in the history of man.Darwin done it.
Paradoxical#1
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2025
- 2,828
- 1,459
- 918
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #217
Educate yourself.
The Dark Side of Darwinism
Posted on November 16, 2016 by Austin AndersonCharles Darwin, nineteenth century English naturalist, is known as one of the most brilliant minds in history. He was a curious intellectual and a brave adventurer, well-liked by those who knew him personally and greatly revered in the scientific community. His 1859 and 1871 books, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, enlightened the world with a transformative understanding of life that became the foundation of modern biological thought. But there’s a darker side of Darwin, a side that perhaps calls into question his prized intellect and cherished legacy. Darwin’s writing was racist, and discriminatory beliefs and practices follow directly from his theories. If you’re a lover of evolution or biology major like I am, you may be tempted to reject that claim. But hear me out: Support for the idea that Darwin’s theories are racist may come from where you least expect it.
I’d only heard of Darwin’s dark side in passing, and I’d always assumed that Darwin’s critics were driven by ignorance or ulterior motives. But as I scrolled by debates online about Darwin’s theories, I noticed something peculiar: Darwin’s defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwin’s text itself. I’m familiar with Darwin’s theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwin’s theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory.
Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. He begins with animals: “No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,—what is death or what is life, and so forth” (62). His remarks soon expand to humans. “How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence” (62). Darwin writes that Australians are incapable of complex thought, and insinuates that they are akin to lower animals: His perspective on non-European races is incredibly prejudiced and absurd. Modern evolutionary scholars and teachers tend to ignore or omit that component of Darwin’s theory, but it hasn’t gone completely unnoticed. For example, Rutledge Dennis examined Darwin’s role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwin’s world view, “talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans” (243). White supremacy is clearly embedded in The Descent of Man, regardless of Darwin’s brilliance or the accuracy of the rest of his theory.
Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. “From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations” (160). Darwin’s theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwin’s evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, “From Darwin to Hitler,” may not be as alarmist as they seem.
Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.
The text of The Descent of Man clearly contains a racist and white supremacist ideology, but not everyone who reads Darwin’s theory believes that the text tells the entire story. Adrian Desmond and James Moore argue against the idea that Darwin’s theories are racist in their 2009 book, Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution. As the title suggests, Desmond and Moore claim that Darwin’s intent in studying evolution was actually to bolster the abolitionist cause. “Darwin’s starting point was the abolitionist belief in blood kinship, a ‘common descent’” (xvii). In response to Darwin’s defectors, they say that “the real problem is that no one understands Darwin’s core project. … No one has appreciated the source of that moral fire that fueled his strange, out-of-character obsession with human origins” (xix). How can Desmond and Moore claim to know Darwin’s intent? They reached their conclusions after an exhaustive search through “a wealth of unpublished family letters and a massive amount of manuscript material,” and use “Darwin’s notes, cryptic marginalia (where key clues lie) and even ships’ logs and lists of books read by Darwin. His published notebooks and correspondence (some 15,000 letters are now known) are an invaluable source” (xx). Using these sources, Desmond and Moore attempt to make a substantial case against the idea that Darwin was racist, citing evidence such as the diary that Darwin kept during his Beagle voyage. Darwin writes of slavery, “It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty” (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 183). Darwin often wrote thoughts that don’t quite align with the ideas in The Descent of Man. In his theory, Darwin suggests that it is natural for more successful races to dominate over others, and speaks comfortably of white Europeans exterminating other races. However, he wrote in his diary that “the white Man … has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black” (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 115). Desmond and Moore view Darwin’s later contradictions of his racist ideas in The Descent of Man as reason to interpret the text of Darwin’s theory cautiously.
Desmond and Moore also offer details of Darwin’s life that they claim are incongruent with his purported racism. Darwin came from a family that fought to emancipate Britain’s slaves, and many of his friends and readers were abolitionists as well. As a young man, Darwin took lessons in bird-stuffing from a local African American servant. Desmond and Moore write, “Evidently the sixteen-going-on-seventeen year old saw nothing untoward in paying money to apprentice himself to a Negro, and the forty or so hour-long sessions which he had with the ‘blackamoor’ through that frosty winter clearly made an impact” (18). Desmond and Moore see Darwin’s willingness to associate with African Americans as evidence that he was not prejudiced. Finally, the authors bring up a story that is actually mentioned in The Descent of Man. When Darwin writes of similarities he has noticed between savages and himself, he mentions “a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate” (232). Again, Desmond and Moore see Darwin’s personal experiences with colored people as evidence that he is not biased against them; further, they believe this information should influence our interpretation of The Descent of Man.
A final argument made in favor of Darwin blames the time period in which he wrote. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education writes that “Darwin, like [Abraham] Lincoln, believed in white supremacy, but he was far more enlightened and sympathetic to blacks than most white men of his time” (39). In this view, The Descent of Man must be considered within the context of its conception, namely a period and location in which white supremacy was the norm.
The external information supplied by Darwin’s personal notes, experiences, context, etc. adds to our understanding of Darwin himself, but it cannot change our understanding of his theories. The question of whether Darwin was a racist man is separate from the question of whether his theory was racist, and the answer to the former question has no bearing on the latter. The text of The Descent of Man is undeniably racist, and readers only engage with the presented text: They don’t know what Darwin wrote in his diary, whether his family supported abolition, or how much he interacted with African Americans, nor should a reader have to know these things in order to correctly interpret the text. The Descent of Man exists separate from its author and context. Claims that readers should not take the racism in Darwin’s theory literally in light of external information reject the nature of literature. As Roland Barthes says, “a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted” (148). Barthes’ argument is especially salient in this case because The Descent of Man was written so long ago, and Charles Darwin is long dead. Darwin and the context in which he wrote his theory have long passed, but the text lives on and will continue to exist as an independent entity that deserves to be interpreted as such.
Thus, the value of considering contextual details depends on which question we are asking. When wondering about Darwin himself, a full range of sources is applicable. However, when determining whether Darwin’s theories contain dangerous racial ideology, the alarming text of his theories cannot be at all softened or explained away with outside information. Now I understand why I’ve never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwin’s theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwin’s gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” In Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath. Hill and Wang, 1978.
“Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles Darwin’s Dethronement of Mankind.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, vol 21. CH II Publishers, Autumn 1998. USA.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. John Murray, 1871. Albemarle Street, London.
Dennis, Rutledge M. “Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and the metaphysics of race.” The Journal of Negro Education, 64:3. Howard University Press, 1995. USA.
Desmond, Adrian and Moore, James. Darwin’s Sacred Cause. Penguin Group, 2009. London.
This entry was posted in Essay 2, Uncategorized by Austin Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.
Proudly powered by WordPress
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #218
To the defense of Darwin, this was the common scientific assumption of his day, and that is, the Black race was inferior, and would even go so far as to describe the differences in skull sizes and shapes of the nose to drive home their point in comparison to their white counterparts.
In fact, eugenics in general was huge during that time, with scientists speculating that they could breed out the bad genes of human beings like they did animals breed by farmers.
Here is what Darwin said about harming those with inferior genetics or preventing them from reproducing, however.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
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, if so urged by 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 a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
It is odd that Darwin talks about "nobility" stopping scientists from removing the genetically inferior from society rather giving a scientific reason for not doing so. Nobility has nothing to do with science. Hitler simply ignored the nobility talk and went into hospitals and took the genetically inferior to the basements of hospitals never to be seen again. That way he could breed for success like those in Agricutlure do with cows and sheep.
After all, if man is merely a glorified ape, why not? Do you question science?
Margeret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, targeted black folk for family planning so that they would not have as many genetically damaged children as she frequented KKK groups for lectures.
In fact, eugenics in general was huge during that time, with scientists speculating that they could breed out the bad genes of human beings like they did animals breed by farmers.
Here is what Darwin said about harming those with inferior genetics or preventing them from reproducing, however.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
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, if so urged by 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 a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
It is odd that Darwin talks about "nobility" stopping scientists from removing the genetically inferior from society rather giving a scientific reason for not doing so. Nobility has nothing to do with science. Hitler simply ignored the nobility talk and went into hospitals and took the genetically inferior to the basements of hospitals never to be seen again. That way he could breed for success like those in Agricutlure do with cows and sheep.
After all, if man is merely a glorified ape, why not? Do you question science?
Margeret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, targeted black folk for family planning so that they would not have as many genetically damaged children as she frequented KKK groups for lectures.
Last edited:
Mr Natural
Diamond Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 25,327
- 12,996
- 1,415
Talking snakes.
Utter nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 68,739
- 77,348
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #220
If dogs can talk, snakes can talk too.
So this rancher has his buddy visit him as they strike up a conversation.
Friend: "Mind if I talk to your dog?"
Rancher: "Talk to my dog? You talk to dogs?"
Friend: "Sure do, don't believe me?"
Rancher: "Ok, go talk to my dog"
Friend: "Is he treating you OK?"
Dog: "Sure, he feeds me and takes me on walks.
Rancher: "Unbelievable! Why does he never talk to me?"
Friend: "Maybe you should try talking to him". "Mind if I talk to your horse?"
Rancher: "This is pure insanity! OK, go talk to my horse"
Friend: "Is he treating you OK?
Horse: "Sure, he feeds me, grooms me, and treats me like a king"
Rancher: "I must be dreaming! Incidentally, don't go near the sheep. They are all a bunch of damned liars!"
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
-
Mamdani's wife Rama Duwaji Used N Word, Celebrated palestine Terrorists, Claimed White People "created" Al Qaeda
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 3
-
