How can you say he wasn’t a racist when literally in his book he talks about sub human species and refers to the Africans and South Americans as sub humans. Hitler as well used evolutionary ideas to promote nazism.
Should we care? They’re dead, and you trying to use todays perspective on race and culture to view them, in their time period, is comparing apples and oranges. What does this have to do with anything about atheism? You just want to throw stones at old statues? Again you are trying to tear other people down instead of actually arguing why your ideas and way is better. Mud slinging is a weak tactic of wannabe strongmen. This smells of a weak argument to try to undercut the credibility of evolution. So please cut to the chase here.
Well you believe the same thing as they did which in turn would make you complicent with racism.
So by that logic, that makes you a sexist, since you read and follow a book written by people who hate and want to control woman then. Your logic is supremely flawed. You want to explain to me how racism has anything to do with atheism, or will you just keep name calling and dodging our questions?
And the Pope is a Catholic leader that condones the protection of pedophile clergy within his ranks. What’s your point?
@sprinterforchrist, there may very well be things we agree about. However, it’s been demonstrated that we do not agree about everything. How is this different from accepting Darwin’s thoughts on speciation and rejecting his alleged racism?
Oh, by the way… For the record, I don’t give a drop of rat’s piss about Darwin. (@rat_spit No offense, Ratty. ) Like it or not, Darwin has nothing to do with the reason I’m an atheist. The entire evolution theory could be turned upside down and proven wrong tomorrow, and I would STILL be an atheist. So, by all means, please feel free to bash Darwin all you want if that’s what makes you happy. Hell, I’ll even help you come up with a few good jokes about him. Could be fun.
So, with that out of the way, would you be interested in knowing the primary reason I am an atheist? I’ll give you a hint… It starts with a “B” and ends with an “ible”. I know that was a bit vague, so take your time figuring it out. I’ll wait…
Presumably there are millions of racists out there that believe today is Monday. I believe today is Monday. Why day do you recommend I believe it is instead; so I’m not “complicent[sic] with racism”?
@sprinterforchrist has been placed in the penalty box for one week.
Uh, the real question, I think, is are you complicit in your complacence, or complacent in your complicity? Actually, it is Tuesday where our simian poo thrower lives…
Edit to compile complaints
Pointing out that Darwin was a racist is an example of the ad hominen fallacy.
Benjamin Franklin owned slaves when he was younger . . . but this doesn’t mean that his lightning rod doesn’t work.
P.S. I’m being literal . . . I wasn’t using a euphemism when I referred to his lightning rod.
That has to be one of the dumbest fucking things I’ve ever heard.
I’ve been a metal head for over 40 years, and I’m a huge fan of black/death metal music. Does this automatically make a Satanist?
False equivalence fallacy, racism is wrong, but not everything claimed by racists are therefore wrong. Also you’re ignoring context, and I suspect this nonsense is trolling, since by any contemporary standard Darwin was not racist, Jesus on the other hand according to bible upheld laws that were blatantly racist.
Hitler was a theist, by your risible rationale, this would make theists fascists and or Nazis? Or somehow make theism wrong by association, the irony is palpable.
This is poor stuff, even for you. Here are some facts for you:
“The Reichskonkordat is the most controversial of several concordats that the Vatican negotiated during the pontificate of Pius XI. It is frequently discussed in works that deal with the rise of Hitler in the early 1930s and the Holocaust. The concordat has been described by some as giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired quasi-dictatorial powers through the Enabling Act of 1933, an Act itself facilitated through the support of the Catholic Centre Party.”
For his time, Darwin was actually substantially less racist than his contemporaries. Not that it excuses him.
Darwin famously had debates with Captain Fitzroy , a staunch fundamentalist Christian, during the voyage of The Beagle. Where Fitzroy, a Christian (just to make it clear) defended race based slavery, and Darwin debated against it.
William Shockley, the main inventor of the transistor, was extremely racist. He advocated for eugenics.
Does that mean we should give up using all transistor based devices, lest we be considered racists?
Fact based discoveries or inventions, are true, independent of the personal foibles of the scientist who makes the discovery or invention.
Now that you’ve been corrected on your flawed logic of your posts by many people here, will you correct your thinking? Let’s see if you can be one of the few intellectually honest theists that post here.
In other words, even jerks can be creative and intelligent.
Of course some things are of such a magnitude as to deny ignoring or acknowledging, but more often there is much more nuance involved. If we were to dismiss everyone who has or has had objectionable behaviors, beliefs, or associations, we would have missed out on some very important ideas and applications, much to the detriment of society as a whole. The idea of expecting anyone to be above reproach because of a significant positive contribution is a childish notion. Obviously context is of utmost importance.
That said, very few contributions are of such significance as to compel compliance with abhorrent practices or beliefs.
Edit shopping list: Pol Pot egg rolls, Stalin Vodka, Vlad Dracul knife set, Goering vitamins, Berdella steak sauce, BTK twine,
GW Bush good job brownies, Joseph Smith dice, Oppenheimer snap and pops
First of all. it’s a matter of public record, that Darwin was engaged in a furious argument with Captain Fitzroy aboard HMS Beagle, in which he made his view of slavery as anathema vigorously known. Oh wait, guess what, mythology fanboy? It just so happens that pretty much all of Darwin’s correspondence, as well as his books and papers, not only survive, but have been made publicly available online, so that we can fact check assertions by your ilk directly. When we visit that site, what do we find? First, let’s take a look at that account of the furious row with Captain Fitzroy
There are other vignettes pointing to Darwin’s abhorrence of slavery, such as this from here:
Indeed, Darwin made serveral pertinent observations about the hideous practices made possible by institutionalised slavery in Brazil during his visit, all of which he condemned.
Oh, and by the way, don’t bother quote mining any of his works, because that resource provides us with an easy means of discovering the usual quote mines we see from duplicitous propagandists for mythology. Indeed, so prevalent are quote mines among creationists in particular, that the Talk Origins website devotes a special section to creationist quote mines, and indeed, has a special section on creationist lies involving quote mining the work of Darwin.
Indeed, one of the quote mines covered in that section, is the “Darwin was racist” quote mine, viz:
However, when we see the full text in its proper context, an entirely different view emerges, viz:
Oh wait, trhat phrase was quote mined from a discussion on the nature of extinction, and how it affects the observational evidence for family trees in living organisms.. Unfortunately for you and your lies, I’ve been dealing with creationist mendacity for 14 years, and I can reel off a good many of the instances of discoursive duplicity peddled by creationists in my sleep, indeed, you’ll find I dealt with a whole brace of creationist lies in the document I presented in this thread. However, let’s move on, and deal with THIS blatant lie of yours:
Oh dear, channeling the creationist liar for doctrine known as Richard Weikart does you NO favours here, not least because I’ve already dealt with them elsewhere, and was dealing with these lies a decade ago. I’ll refer directly to my searchable electronic copy of the Unexpurgated Edition of Mein Kampf, which is freely downloadable from the Gutenberg Project website, courtesy of this link.
First of all, let’s perform a little experiment. Let’s see if Darwin is mentioned anywhere in Mein Kampf, shall we? What do I find when I perform the requisite text search? I find this:
Number of occurrences of “Darwin” : ZERO
Number of occurrences of “God” : 37
Number of occurrences of “Almighty” : 6
Number of occurrences of “Creator” : 8
Hmm, starting to look as though once again, real world data is destroying your bullshit with thermonuclear ordnance. But, even better, is this passage, from pages 245 to 246 of Mein Kampf, viz:
Oh look, that passage is practically a canonical version of the creationist “kinds” nonsense.
In short, Hitler’s view of biology was closer to creationism than to evolutionary biology.
Meanwhile, the Nazis’ real attitude to evolution was demonstrated during their book burning episode. Courtesy of the documentation thereof presented on this website by the University of Arizona. If we click on the link taking us to the lists of banned books under the Nazi régime, what do we find? We find the following set of guidelines from Die Bücherei, the handbook of works deemed seditious by the Nazis, and hence to be removed from public libraries and universities to be destroyed:
Which translates as:
- Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
In other words, the Nazis removed evolutionary textbooks from schools, universities and libraries, and destroyed them.
Looks like your lies are busted, mythology fanboy.
Thank you. Astute, as usual.
Erwin Schrödinger was a child molester. Should we stop using his famous equation?
Was he? Don’t recall hearing this on any of my usual grapevines … ???