Beating the dead horse of Darwinism - Second half of Ian Juby's Dark Side of Darwin.
An exchange of comments and then the second video farther down the on the page. While I was not planning on looking at the foundations of Darwinism and Christianity and comparing them, Ian's videos are quite clear representations of the arguments and therefore I chose to present them. We do still have Buck v. Bell as law in the USA and of course Roe v. Wade is in place, so Eugenics is alive and well in the USA, which means millions of innocent babies are not. Hmmmmmm.
The first-person account of life for a girl in Nazi Germany and how Hitler declared Sunday "National Youth Day" to take the kids away from parents and church and insure that they would be properly indoctrinated. Hitler was an Atheopath!
The Nazis were absolutely devoted Darwinists but Germans before Hitler were much the same.
Darwinism and Eugenics - the diseased worldview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon W said...
5:38 AM 
radar said...
9:46 AM
Jon W said...
10:17 AM
radar said...
10:32 AM
Anonymous said...
5:58 PM
radar said...
6:05 PM
The first-person account of life for a girl in Nazi Germany and how Hitler declared Sunday "National Youth Day" to take the kids away from parents and church and insure that they would be properly indoctrinated. Hitler was an Atheopath!
The Nazis were absolutely devoted Darwinists but Germans before Hitler were much the same.
Darwinism and Eugenics - the diseased worldview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the exact same logic, one can dismiss the entire religion of Christianity out of hand because of the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and the Catholic Church religious-abuse scandals.
I don't accept that reasoning. Why do you?
I don't accept that reasoning. Why do you?
I expected that one! The Catholic Church at that time was not really Christian at all, they were a set of rulers intent on keeping the people ignorant and paying indulgences while terrorizing those who resisted. They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality. There was one Pope who raped whatever virgins he desired and one who was actually a woman! At that time the Catholic Church was joined at the hip with the royals, just as the Jewish leaders of the time of Christ were leeching off of and afraid to offend Rome. Jesus Christ had harsh words for them and would have lambasted the Spanish Inquisition in no uncertain terms as well. Witch burnings were even less common than Wild West fast-draw gunfights, idiotic superstitious unbiblical behavior!
Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows in which they display their "power with God" or preaching prosperity via sending THEM money!!! Normal Christians cringe at the Benny Hinns and Robert Tiltons, charlatans who convince people to enrich them, fly in private jets, have millions of dollars and are about as Christian as Lenin or Hitler!
Even Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwinian philosophy would make for terrible government and morality at different times.
Jesus said that the two primary points of Christianity were to:
1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Love God with all that is in you
Darwinism is based on:
1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak
So when we look at the foundational morality of Christianity versus Darwinism, we see opposing positions. The United States was built on Christian principles. Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union were built on Darwinist foundations.
Of course a Darwinist can be a great neighbor and fine fellow and of course a Christian can be a deceptive and selfish person. In both cases they are not acting in accordance with the underlying philosophy of their worldviews. It remains true that the Darwinist worldview is fundamental to Fascism/Socialism/Communism and certainly Machiavellian dictatorship. It remains true that the USA was founded upon Christian principles and we are destroying ourselves by accepting Socialist and Darwinist concepts.
Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows in which they display their "power with God" or preaching prosperity via sending THEM money!!! Normal Christians cringe at the Benny Hinns and Robert Tiltons, charlatans who convince people to enrich them, fly in private jets, have millions of dollars and are about as Christian as Lenin or Hitler!
Even Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwinian philosophy would make for terrible government and morality at different times.
Jesus said that the two primary points of Christianity were to:
1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Love God with all that is in you
Darwinism is based on:
1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak
So when we look at the foundational morality of Christianity versus Darwinism, we see opposing positions. The United States was built on Christian principles. Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union were built on Darwinist foundations.
Of course a Darwinist can be a great neighbor and fine fellow and of course a Christian can be a deceptive and selfish person. In both cases they are not acting in accordance with the underlying philosophy of their worldviews. It remains true that the Darwinist worldview is fundamental to Fascism/Socialism/Communism and certainly Machiavellian dictatorship. It remains true that the USA was founded upon Christian principles and we are destroying ourselves by accepting Socialist and Darwinist concepts.
"They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality."
Exactly. And Stalin, Hitler, and the others you listed were going against the theory of evolution as Darwin stated it.
"Darwinism is based on:
1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak"
Half right. Yes, evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," but what that means depends on how fitness is defined. Darwin himself argued strongly that for a highly social species such as Homo sapiens, cooperation and mutual support is a better path than competition and conflict. In other words, he argued that for humankind, the strong should support and aid the weak, not that the strong should overpower the weak.
Exactly. And Stalin, Hitler, and the others you listed were going against the theory of evolution as Darwin stated it.
"Darwinism is based on:
1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak"
Half right. Yes, evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," but what that means depends on how fitness is defined. Darwin himself argued strongly that for a highly social species such as Homo sapiens, cooperation and mutual support is a better path than competition and conflict. In other words, he argued that for humankind, the strong should support and aid the weak, not that the strong should overpower the weak.
Darwin was a very depressed individual in his later days. He was conflicted over what the results of his hypotheses would be. It is no surprise that he argued against applying the Darwinist morality to humankind although you know as well as I that he did see the conundrum there.
An English gentleman, Darwin would not be in favor of uncouth behavior because of his training. I have a lot of, I don't know, pity, for the guy. He was raised in a home where so-called Christianity was just a ritual to make them acceptable to society. He lost his favorite daughter and considered God to be unjust. His grandfather was a devoted Atheopath. Darwin would never accept what the moral implications of his works meant.
But his cousin Francis Galton certainly did, as did his contemporaries Karl Marx and Thomas Huxley. Social change in a tyrannical and murderous direction was in part due to Darwin's claims and this cannot be disputed. The very words of Marx, Engels and Hitler confirm it. The Socialist Party still maintains Darwin's evolution is a part of their fundamental philosophy.
What evolution claims to be is survival of the fittest and that mutation drives natural selection to change organisms on an upward path. This is not observed but rather organisms are on a downward path - extinctions, mutations, loss of genetic information. I would also say that Darwinism has led to the downward spiral of human morality in the Western world. Depravity and murdering of babies and a frontal assault on Christianity can be laid at Darwin's feet.
An English gentleman, Darwin would not be in favor of uncouth behavior because of his training. I have a lot of, I don't know, pity, for the guy. He was raised in a home where so-called Christianity was just a ritual to make them acceptable to society. He lost his favorite daughter and considered God to be unjust. His grandfather was a devoted Atheopath. Darwin would never accept what the moral implications of his works meant.
But his cousin Francis Galton certainly did, as did his contemporaries Karl Marx and Thomas Huxley. Social change in a tyrannical and murderous direction was in part due to Darwin's claims and this cannot be disputed. The very words of Marx, Engels and Hitler confirm it. The Socialist Party still maintains Darwin's evolution is a part of their fundamental philosophy.
What evolution claims to be is survival of the fittest and that mutation drives natural selection to change organisms on an upward path. This is not observed but rather organisms are on a downward path - extinctions, mutations, loss of genetic information. I would also say that Darwinism has led to the downward spiral of human morality in the Western world. Depravity and murdering of babies and a frontal assault on Christianity can be laid at Darwin's feet.
"Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows"
Seems to me you missed the essential point of Jon's first post. Should the "so-called preachers" be taken as justification to dismiss the entire Christianity package in its entirety?
I would think not. And I don't think you'd agree with that sentiment either.
But that is exactly the kind of argument you're presenting in posts like these.
Seems to me you missed the essential point of Jon's first post. Should the "so-called preachers" be taken as justification to dismiss the entire Christianity package in its entirety?
I would think not. And I don't think you'd agree with that sentiment either.
But that is exactly the kind of argument you're presenting in posts like these.
No I am NOT making that same argument. Jon is talking about how some Christians (in name only or otherwise) act against their basic foundational belief system. I am not arguing about merely the actions of some individuals. I am pointing out what the fundamental belief system of the two worldviews are and where it leads if obeyed.