• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Social consequences of the Theory of Evolution

rationalist

Member
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Social consequences of the Theory of Evolution

1. The social consequence of the theory of evolution
2. Evolution leads to atheism
3. Evolution gave rise to ideologic foundations of totalitarian regimes
4. Evolution removes objective moral values
5. Evolution promotes racism
6. Evolution & Eugenics


1. The social consequence of the theory of evolution
A much more unfavorable result of Darwinism was Social Darwinism, where the concept of natural selection was applied to the human population to justify racism. While this has now been identified as pseudoscientific and been discredited, it caused immense pain as it was used to justify injustices such as eugenics and the outlawing of interracial marriage. 10
Racism, discrimination, and prejudice can be seen all over today's society. See the recent unrests because of George Floyd's brutal murder. Why? One of the reasons is because racism is based on evolutionary thinking. The consequences of racism on a personal and social level are huge. Social Darwinism provided ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole and led to claims that social inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism were justified 8 & 9

2. Evolution leads to atheism
We surveyed 1081 college biology students at one university about their religiosity and evolution acceptance and asked what religious ideas someone would have to reject if that person were to accept evolution. Approximately half of students wrote that a person cannot believe in God/religion and accept evolution, indicating that these students may have atheistic perceptions of evolution. In study 2, we collected data from 1898 students in eight states in the United States using a closed-ended survey. We found that 56.5% of students perceived that evolution is atheistic even when they were given the option to choose an agnostic perception of evolution. 11
Darwinism’s impact on religion can be summarized by saying that it undermined religious beliefs, and was one of the major influences in encouraging agnosticism. 15

3. Totalitarian regimes basing their ideologies on the Theory of Evolution

Darwinism influenced Communism

The theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview.

Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said:
we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.

Nazism is based on Theosophy. And theosophy has its thoughts from evolution.
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought
By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism. 2

Evolution influenced Theosophy
Blavatsky integrated the idea of evolution with the venerable idea of the universal hierarchy of being. Thus stated, the hierarchical principle is no longer rigid; it has become the working principle of a dynamic process involving all levels of being, "a progressive development toward a higher life." 3

Theosophy influenced Nazism
The Ariosophists, initially active in Vienna before the First World War, combined german nationalism and racism with occult notions borrowed from the theosophy of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, in order to prophesy and vindicate a coming era of German world rule. . The Darwinist idea of evolution through struggle was also taken up in order to prove that the superior pure races would prevail over the mixed inferior ones. Racial thinking facilitated the rise of political anti-Semitism, itself so closely linked to the strains of modernization. 5

4. Morality
In the Descent of Man, Darwin describes the process by which morals evolve, just like animal bodies. The Soviet state was an experiment in applied Darwinism. 7
One of the reasons why people prefer a naturalistic worldview justified through evolution over one where there is a God is that anything goes. If naturalism is true, people can think they are free and can and can do what they want with their lives and pursue their personal preferences. and there is no consequence as long as you don't get caught. No sin, no God to worry about.

For Darwin, morality evolved from “social qualities” acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral. 1

Jeffrey Dahmer:
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?,” "That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.”

The problem is not only that this isn't true. The real consequence of a worldview without God is hopelessness, destructive behavior, racism, religious hatred and self serving and selfish living which bring loneliness, unhappiness, depression, mental disease and suicidal tendencies. This lifestyle brings relational hurts and all in all a miserable life.

5. How Evolution was used to Support Scientific Racism
Race is not a biological concept. It is merely a social construction that was established in order to justify the subordination and subjugation that aligned with imperialist policies. . Scientific principles, such as social Darwinism, the eugenics movement, and the creation of intelligence testing were utilized to support racist beliefs in a time when rapidly advancing scientific knowledge was regarded as prestigious, truthful, and irrefutable. 12
Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.” 13

6. Evolution & Eugenics
The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. 14

Evolution & naturalism vs Creationism & Theism

Christian thought presupposes that God made the created world ready, and very good, did fall through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and requires the redeeming power of the creator to return to a state of goodness, and, yes, even perfection: A state of harmony, happiness ( heaven), an eternal Creator/creature dependency. Man is impotent to improve himself, lost in his sinful nature, and impotent, without redemptive power ( Romans 3). Like black and white, the opposite thought is that man can explain his existence without referencing God, his origin and existence is autonomous, and naturalistic reductionism suffices to explains our emergence and existence. in a direction of self-improvement from a lower state of being, self-organization, gradually, goes from the simple to the complex. from atoms to subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, and biosphere 4
Evolutionary thought can be observed as well in man giving meaning to his existence autonomously, referencing the evolution of moral values by social consensus, and self-improvement. World religions base their theological concepts always in the capacity of man of self-redemption. They promote the idea of reincarnation, where man in several life-cycles arrives at nirvana. Other religions like Catholicism, Muslims, etc. teach that man has to improve himself and work progressively to evolve a higher moral standard in order to be accepted by God. These ideas are basically in opposition, and diametrically contrary to Biblical thought of mans dependence on grace, and salvation by faith.

Presuppositionalism
Naturalism cannot ground fundamentally anything. That is: 1. Existence itself 2. The meaning of life 3. The value of human life 4. Moral values 5. Knowing what is objectively ( ontologically) true in regards to reality
6. Sound reasoning 7. Logic 8. Intelligibility 9. His mind and consciousness 10. Uniformity in nature.

To be forgiven by God and given a new life worth living brings, peace of mind and a new beginning.

1. https://www.discovery.org/a/1122/
2. https://www.csustan.edu/sites/defau.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf
3. https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/1671-thinking-aloud-blavatsky-on-evolution
4. https://opentextbc.ca/anatomyandphy...er/structural-organization-of-the-human-body/
5. THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology, page 15
6. https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism/
7. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/karl-marx-at-200-darwinism-communism/
8. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity]In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity
http://library.lol/main/CC559C87F3515D9C520E953738CB5EF6
9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socia..._relation_to_Social_Darwinism_and_Imperialism
10. http://web.colby.edu/continuingrevolutions/2016/11/28/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/
11. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0106
12. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=trinitypapers
13. https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/did-darwin-promote-racism/
14. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/#:~:text=The%20word%20"eugenics"%20was%20coined,the%20social%20Darwinian%20fit%20and
15. https://fountainmagazine.com/1999/i...999/social-impacts-of-the-theory-of-evolution
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
The Social Consequences of Christianity

Adolf Hitler - 1st Munich Speech
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. 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. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

Christians murdering people of other religions sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians murdering predominantly women as 'witches' sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians persecuting Jews (which was the prejudice Hitler tapped into) sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians clubbing together for their enchanting little murder sprees

Christians heading out into an entirely new continent to rape, pillage and murder in the name of God

Or should we look at the centuries of oppression of other peoples done in the name of Christianity?



But then, what do you expect from a book that includes such barbaric ideals as:

How to murder babies most efficiently and with the most pleasure:

Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.


How to score yourself a female child to fuck

Numbers 137:9-10
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.



Let's leave the mountains and mountains of corpses murdered in the name of Christianity and address one of the litany of bullshit claims you made in your wet wankery of an OP.

And this is something you were educated about years ago which shows what a thick lowlife liar you are...

Here's some actual historical facts - yes, run along and look up that last word you lying scum....


In factual reality rather than the semen soaked stain of a demented wet dream you inhabit, Hitler outright banned Darwinism

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

This is the details of books which were banned in Nazi Germany in 1935

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German.

2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic.

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German People, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the People, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud.

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.

7. Books that advocate "art" which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist.

8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race.

9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of "Asphalt and Civilization" literati!

10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.

11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.

12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature.

So, despite your asinine assertions copied and pasted from your vanity site and carefully cherrypicked prior to that, Darwinism (evolution) and all books about evolution were BANNED from Nazi Germany. Yet here you are telling us that this BANNED concept was central to Naziism.

I will tell you a book that WAS NOT banned in Nazi Germany - the fucking Bible.

Gott mit uns

 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Remind me again liar - in the Bible, which one's the dude that's all about deceit, manipulation, and bearing false witness?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Imagine, Otangelo, if you took all this time you waste on disseminating bullshit via ideological hostility, and instead invested it into making people happy, spreading a little kindness, or doing something that benefits others. You know, something of worth.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Evolution was i think also banned by Stalin.

Darwin was not speaking about human species in his book, well not in a way we use the word back in his time the word had other meaning.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
The Social Consequences of Christianity

Adolf Hitler - 1st Munich Speech


Christians murdering people of other religions sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians murdering predominantly women as 'witches' sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians persecuting Jews (which was the prejudice Hitler tapped into) sanctioned by the highest Christian authority

Christians clubbing together for their enchanting little murder sprees

Christians heading out into an entirely new continent to rape, pillage and murder in the name of God

Or should we look at the centuries of oppression of other peoples done in the name of Christianity?



But then, what do you expect from a book that includes such barbaric ideals as:

How to murder babies most efficiently and with the most pleasure:

Psalm 137:9



How to score yourself a female child to fuck

Numbers 137:9-10




Let's leave the mountains and mountains of corpses murdered in the name of Christianity and address one of the litany of bullshit claims you made in your wet wankery of an OP.

And this is something you were educated about years ago which shows what a thick lowlife liar you are...

Here's some actual historical facts - yes, run along and look up that last word you lying scum....


In factual reality rather than the semen soaked stain of a demented wet dream you inhabit, Hitler outright banned Darwinism

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

This is the details of books which were banned in Nazi Germany in 1935



So, despite your asinine assertions copied and pasted from your vanity site and carefully cherrypicked prior to that, Darwinism (evolution) and all books about evolution were BANNED from Nazi Germany. Yet here you are telling us that this BANNED concept was central to Naziism.

I will tell you a book that WAS NOT banned in Nazi Germany - the fucking Bible.

Gott mit uns

Was Hitler a Christian ?

Richard Weikart: Hitlers religion:
Why do some people, even today, insist that Hitler was a Christian? Primarily because he said so himself. Hitler publicly professed Christianity on numerous occasions during his political career. In public speeches, he claimed to be upholding a “positive Christianity.” He once called Jesus his Lord and Savior and often praised Jesus as a great Aryan. Far more frequently, he invoked God, Providence, and the Lord. Since he had already identified himself as an adherent to “positive Christianity,” many assumed —and some still assume—that whenever he mentioned God, he must have had the Christian one in mind.

One of his earliest public statements about Christianity came in the Twenty-Five Point Program of the fledgling National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Hitler had only been a member of the party for five months when he unveiled the program to a Munich audience in February 1920

We insist upon freedom for all religious confessions in the state, providing they do not endanger its existence or offend the German race’s sense of decency and morality. The Party as such stands for a positive Christianity, without binding itself denominationally to a particular confession. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and believes that any lasting recovery of our people must be based on the spiritual principle: the welfare of the community comes before that of the individual.

Most historians today agree that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. Neil Gregor, for instance, warns that Hitler’s “superficial deployment of elements of Christian discourse” should not mislead people to think that Hitler shared the views of “established religion.”4 Michael Burleigh argues that Nazism was anticlerical and despised Christianity. He recognizes that Hitler was not an atheist, but “Hitler’s God was not the Christian God, as conventionally understood.”5 In his withering but sober analysis of the complicity of the Christian churches in Nazi Germany, Robert Ericksen depicts Hitler as duplicitous when he presented himself publicly as a Christian.

After warning his followers in the first volume of Mein Kampf against offending people’s religious tastes, he threw caution to the wind in the second volume by sharply criticizing Christianity. After calling Christianity fanatically intolerant for destroying other religions, Hitler explained that Nazism would have to be just as intolerant to supplant Christianity:

A philosophy filled with infernal intolerance will only be broken by a new idea, driven forward by the same spirit, championed by the same mighty will, and at the same time pure and absolutely genuine in itself. The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered in to the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created

Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiment shines through clearly here, as he called Christianity a “spiritual terror” that has “afflicted” the world. Earlier in the passage, he also argued Christian intolerance was a manifestation of a Jewish mentality, once again connecting Christianity with the people he most hated. Even more ominously, he called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Even though several times later in life, especially before 1934, Hitler would try to portray himself as a pious Christian, he had already blown his cover.

Was Hitler a Christian ?  Hitler10
Original photo of Hitler leaving the Marienkirche in Bremerhaven, from Hoffmann’s 1935
edition of Hitler wie ihn keiner kennt.
Hitler leaving Marienkirche, Bremerhaven (1935 edition). From Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler wie ihn
keiner kennt (1935).
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Was Hitler a Christian ?

For the most part, satisfying how most people identify as Christian, then yes he was unarguably Christian. Raised Catholic, he went to church, he knew the Bible well, and had a good relationship with the German church.

However, over the years his public;y expressed sentiment towards Christianity changed from highly favourable in the early part of his political life - with numerous and frequent comments supporting Christianity and referring to Christian dogma with respect to providing justification for his own actions - to dissatisfaction when facing criticism and resistance from church authorities and saw the role of the Church more as useful as an idea to counter Bolshevism. Of Christianity itself, the belief, it's clear he was a believing Christian mentioning many times and in detail about his belief in 'the Almighty'.

What is even more clear, though, is Hitler's sentiments towards atheists and atheism which were consistently hostile, and those sentiments were recorded both in public (many times) and in private.

So your spiel is busted beyond credibility. You're blathering hostile ignorance at people for ideological reasons. The primary difference between your mentality and Hitler's is solely that he had power and you're pathetic. A demented, obsessive fellow like you with power would undoubtedly be a far worse tyrant with even less shred of humanity about him.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
And, of course, we only need look at Hitler's words:

All from Mein Kampf

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.

(referring back to Martin Luther, the German Protestant Leader closely tied into Nazi mythologizing of the German Reich.
... the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily toward a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of God's grace.


Public Speech April 1922

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. 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... Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

Völkischer Beobachter, February 1929

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...

Public speech from 15 February 1933

And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.

Public speech in March 1933

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society.


Radio address in 1933

For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion.


Public speech from 1936

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work.


Public speech from 26 June 1934

The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today


The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Oxford University Press, 1942

Today Christians stand at the head of [Germany]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality...


In exchanges with Cardinal con Faulhaber

Man cannot exist without belief in God.


Letter to Engels 1941

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.


Radio address January 1945

God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work.



You can certainly find ample criticism of the Church authorities by Hitler, and you can find criticism of previous interpretations of Christian dogma, but you can't find any quotes from Hitler denying the existence of a god, nor can you find any examples of Hitler expressing atheistic belief or supporting the promotion of atheism. To Hitler, atheism & bolshevism were linked, and bolshevism was the greatest threat to his plan.

So really, we're down to another topic you're just uncritically regurgitating biasedly-selected snippets to attempt to promote an argument that not only shows you're braindead, but also doesn't have any fucking meaning at all even were it all true.

The idea that one can define something as false because of its hypothetical (or in this case, febrilely imagined) consequences is literally the definition of a fallacy - a fault conception, flawed thinking.


Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.[1] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

Your same delusional and vapid argument could be made about pretty much anything.

Social consequences of the mastery of fire

180,000 people die every year from fire related injuries resulting from humanity's discovery and use of fire.

On top of human deaths, fire causes massive damage to the ecosystem - wiping out flora and fauna, killing huge numbers of defenseless animals, and sending harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.

Think of how scary it would be if your house was on fire.

Now think about a baby. Babies can't run. Babies are particularly susceptible to the social consequences of the mastery of fire. Won't somebody think of the little babies?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Isn't it funny how someone's not interested in the 'social consequences' of Christianity, like the murderous pogroms, the depraved sexual torture of women as 'witches', the barbaric slaughtering of people due to their non-Christian beliefs. How many people have been brutally murdered in the name of Christianity? Wanna bet Otangelo suddenly discovers some skepticism? :D
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
He's just trying to get banned. Again. It's obnoxiously obvious at this point, he'd like to run back to which ever cess-pool circlejerk he usually frequents to tell them all about how we are "Censoring the truth of God" or some other flavour of obvious camel shit.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
I am still surprise he has not been in quarantined like in the before times.

Can be done but setting this up takes to long and i do not have time for it.

P.s. @*SD* when you think enough is enough send him on a long long vacation. Every time he copy and paste from his little site ban him and double it so 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 16 weeks etc etc.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I think one more instance of excessive copy/paste and it's holiday time. Otangelo, you can consider this an official warning, therefore if you do it again it will be YOUR fault you'll forfeit your ability to post for at least a week, NOT LoR administration fault. You can discuss and argue any point you like, with whoever you like, but NO MORE COPY PASTE.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
Oh boy, we are having this argument again...sigh...

TL DR
Since evolutionary theory is purely DEscriptive (an IS), it does not proclaim anything that is PREscriptive (an OUGHT). For example, the fact that my cute dog sitting on my lap would probably die in the wild, especially compared to the grey wolf. That is the IS. But the IS does NOT mean that my dog OUGHT to die or is "inferior" to the wolf.

Fascism and racism are destructive attitudes/ideologies that have no basis in fact. Of course, that doesn't stop fascists and racists trying to find justification for their bigotry, however they can. That's why I don't like typical response from atheists saying "oh well, those racists like Hitler were actually Christians" as if to say that racism is the fault of religion/Christianity instead of evolution/atheism. It's neither. Racism/fascism is not a representative of any belief system except for itself. Fascists/racists have tried and continue to gain power by exploiting influential institution (both religion and science) and perverting it to their own benefit.

[Having said that, the many claims that the Nazis and Stalin's Russia abused Darwinian evolution don't even hold water. For the details, read further]

So if the argument is that evolution gives a rational justification for racism, it doesn't...see back to first paragraph.
If the argument is that racists have abused evolution to bolster their bigotry, I agree, but it is just as trivial to say that they have exploited religion as well (look no further than the KKK)...see back to second paragraph.

1. The social consequence of the theory of evolution
A much more unfavorable result of Darwinism was Social Darwinism, where the concept of natural selection was applied to the human population to justify racism. While this has now been identified as pseudoscientific and been discredited, it caused immense pain as it was used to justify injustices such as eugenics and the outlawing of interracial marriage. 10
This paragraph gets several things wrong about what "social Darwnism" is...well...actually, it can be argued that it's not even a coherent concept. Generally, "social darwinism" is the defined as the adoption of "darwinism" to support a socio-economic ideology or view point. What kind of socio-economic ideology? That depends (and has depended on) the person in question. Indeed, Darwin's work has been used to support widely different and often opposite ideologies. More on that later, for now I will look at what is "typically" referred to as "social darwinism".

The term "Social Darwinism" was first popularized by Richard Hofstadter in his book from 1944, which he applied the socioeconomic doctrine formulated (mainly) by Herbert Spencer. As an oversimplification, Spencers views can be described as “Do no interfere with nature. Let it take its course”. Although it is not like Spencer was arguing for humanity to go back, living as hunter gathers (without modern technology or medicine) where everyone would be tested for individual survival, such that nature could sort out the fittest. Instead, Spencer thought nature inherently leads to progress. And therefore, human society should operate on the same principles that govern nature in order to promote the progress of humanity.

Based on that, Spencer argued that the government shouldn’t interfere with the natural progression of society with things like universal health care, nor social welfare programs to address poverty. Although he did favor private charity, he mainly promoted laissez-faire, free market, capitalism as the driving force for the self-improvement of humanity. He justified the outcome of economic inequality as the consequence of his system as having an important purpose. Inequality would come about as people are sorted within the hierarchy where they "deserved" to be, with the successful ones rising at the top, worthy of the wealth and power they received. Those at the bottom were entirely responsible for their own suffering. Their poor living standards should not be taken as an excuse to help them in any systematic way. Especially not by punishing the rich for their success with taxes (although taxes should be used to fund the military). Instead, these conditions should be used to motivate the poor for personal self-improvement. If you don't want to be poor, just work harder!

Basically modern right-wing conservatism in a nutshell, which is ironic since many creationists decrying "social darwinism" tend to be very conservative holding similar socio-economic viewpoints as Spencer.

Despite the name for it having Darwin’s name in it, most of Spencer’s doctrine was in fact based on Lamarckian evolution and the work of Thomas Malthus, who promoted very similar ideas before him. Spencer formulated most of his ideas in the book “Progress: Its Law and Cause” two years before Darwin published his book “On the origins of species”. The only thing that Spencer later incorporated from Darwin was a narrow interpretation of natural selection, which Spencer called “survival of the fittest” where he only looked at the competitive aspect of evolution. However, apart from just that, Spencer was a leading defender of Lamarckism. Not Darwinism. So referring to Spencer's views as “Social Darwinism” is rather odd to say the least.
6. Evolution & Eugenics
The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit. 14
Social darwinism is often intertwined with eugenics, but the two are distinct from each other. (although, again, since "social darwinism is so ambiguous, it can include eugenics depending on the person). Instead of “letting nature take its course”, eugenics attempts to direct human "progress" (emphasis on the quotes) towards a desired outcome via selective breeding. Eugenics was actually promoted and practiced in one form or another for a long time throughout human history. The most famous or rather infamous example was the ancient Greek society of Sparta, wherein every newborn was inspected by the elders for any physical deficiencies. If they were deemed unfit to serve Spartan society, they were left exposed to the elements to die (one of the things that was actually accurate in that one movie).

The modern concept of eugenics was formulated by none other than Darwin’s half cousin, Francis Galton. Unlike Spencer, Galton was opposed to Lamarckian evolution and his view on eugenics was largely inspired by Darwin’s theory. In his work, Galton measured and analyzed numerous variable traits of humans. He wanted to provide evidence for the idea that such traits, particularly intelligence, was hereditary. If it was, eugenics could be promoted to increase the average intelligence of the population. In order to provide the evidence, Galton and his protege, Karl Pearson, more less gave rise to the mathematical field of statistics.

That’s right, the motive behind the field of statistics was to validate eugenics, yet - for some reason - you don’t see many creationists going complaining about the REAL connection between statistics and eugenics.

I should also note a distinction between "positive" and "negative" eugenics. Galton only promoted "positive" eugenic programmes, positive meaning to promote procreation of those with favorable features, such as the encouragement of the healthy and intelligent to bear more offspring. Whereas, negative eugenics acted by reducing the procreation of those deemed "undesirable", through sterilization or plain genocide. Galton did NOT promote "getting rid of the undesirables" nor "discouraging the procreation of the unfit". Here is an example of someone promoting negative eugenics:



Anyway, eugenics (both positive and negative) is highly flawed for both ethical and scientific reasons. Yes, there are both ethical and scientific reasons for why it doesn’t work. Although the ethical reasons should be quite obvious. Eugenics is flawed since whether traits are deemed “favorable” or superior is very often entirely subjective, such as those of race supremacists, which were among those who promoted eugenics. There is also the danger that the application of eugenics to improve the human condition would actually have the opposite effect. Trying to create “purebred” humans with “favorable” traits would likely cause a reduction of genetic diversity, and lead to inbreeding depression. We see this problem with kennel-club purebred dogs, which are less healthy or “fit” than mutts. This was similarly the case with European royal families, who were trying to maintain a "pure" royal bloodline (and/or maintain influence with royal families of different kingdoms by in-law). As a result, they became a literal breeding ground for recessive genetic disorders.

Lastly, despite the fact that Galton based his scheme on the work of his cousin, Darwin noted various problems in Galton’s program to improve the humans via eugenics, some of which are the same ones that I mentioned previously (emphasis mine).
I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society would have awfully laborious work, & I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is there is much concealment of insanity & wickedness in families; & there wd. be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals & intellect; & how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; & these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much & forming a caste. [...] Is it not probable that the inhabitants of malarious countries owe their degraded & miserable appearance to the bad atmosphere, though this does not kill them; rather than to “economy of structure”? I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one. That is a fine simile (p. 419) about the chip of a statue: but surely nature does not more carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I have misunderstood what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races & species which have become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that nature cares only for the superior individuals & thus makes her new & better races. But we ought both to shudder in using so freely the word “nature” after what Decandolle has said.
- Darwin; letter to Galton, 4th January 1873
So Darwin didn’t promote eugenics (neither "positive" nor "negative").
Racism, discrimination, and prejudice can be seen all over today's society. See the recent unrests because of George Floyd's brutal murder. Why?
In America, police brutality often doesn't get called out by fellow cops, cops are largely immune to independent investigation and justice systems often don't inform any consequences to their actions. This not only gives a free pass to plain awful behavior in general from otherwise normal people (causing problems to all people), it also makes the institution of the police very powerful, thus very attractive to racists.
One of the reasons is because racism is based on evolutionary thinking.
No citation provided, of course. I highly doubt the police officers who killed Floyd were thinking about evolution during the act.
2. Evolution leads to atheism
We surveyed 1081 college biology students at one university about their religiosity and evolution acceptance and asked what religious ideas someone would have to reject if that person were to accept evolution. Approximately half of students wrote that a person cannot believe in God/religion and accept evolution, indicating that these students may have atheistic perceptions of evolution.
A perception that is perpetuated by young earth christian creationists. Although, to be fair, there are some atheists who think evolution is incompatible with theism, (which I don't agree with) but to a far lesser extent.
In study 2, we collected data from 1898 students in eight states in the United States using a closed-ended survey. We found that 56.5% of students perceived that evolution is atheistic even when they were given the option to choose an agnostic perception of evolution. 11
Again, note that none of this supports the statement that "evolution leads to atheism". It just means that students have the perception that "evolution is atheistic", which is a false notion. This is also what the study points out:
Considering the bounded nature of science and characterizing evolutionary theory as agnostic rather than atheistic clarifies that a Christian student who believes in God can indeed accept evolution. From our perspective, as well as that of many others, a student who is atheist, agnostic, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist can accept evolution (Smith, 1994; Scott, 2005; Southerland and Scharmann, 2013). If evolution is by nature agnostic, then what characterizes a student’s acceptance of evolution is not whether they believe in God, but whether they accept the scientific consensus on evolution in which species change through time and life on Earth shares a common ancestor. However, many students may not be aware of the bounded nature of science, and they may perceive that evolution is atheistic rather than agnostic.
Hence, it is not evolution that leads people away from theism, it is the false perception of incompatibility that leads to atheism. Also, this goes both ways, since the false perception also motivates some people reject evolution in order to maintain their faith.

3. Totalitarian regimes basing their ideologies on the Theory of Evolution
Darwinism influenced Communism

The theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview.
This is definitely not true regarding Stalin's totalitarian Russia, whose regime rejected the modern synthesis at the time (Darwinian evolution and Mendalian Genetics) as "Bourgeois Science". Instead, they embraced a form of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism and locked up many opposing scientists that accepted Darwinian evolution and genetics, including my personal hero Nikolai Vavilov.

The only communists who I am aware off that actually embraced Darwinian evoluton and tried to incorporate it into a communist framework is the anarcho-communist Pyoter Kropotkin. In contrast to Herbert Spencer, he interpreted the notion of “survival of the fittest” quite differently. In his book “Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution” Kropotkin argued that Darwin’s theory of natural selection supported the importance of altruism and cooperation, rather than competition as Spencer did.

here is Noam Chomsky Contrasting Spencer's and Kropotkin's opposing adoptions of Darwin's work, but both really didn't make any case that Darwinism supports one view of the other.


Just to reiterate the previous point to why the term "social darwinism" is essentially meaningless, this again shows that Darwin's work can be - and has been - appropriated to support practically any socio-economic and political ideology by picking and chosen what aspects of the theory the particular person happens to like. Does Darwin's theory support competitive laissez-faire capitalism (per Spencer) or cooporative anarcho communism (per Kropotkin)? It does neither, but aspects can be cherry picked and adopted in both world views, but that doesn't say anything about the evolutoinary theory in and of its self. It certainly does not mean that it forms a rational basis of totalitarian regimes. This would be true, even IF Stalin (or Hitler see next) actually accepted evolution and abused it to bolster their views (again, see IS and OUGHT distinction in the first paragraphs).
Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said:
we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.
Note that he does not even say that he appropriates this into his own communist doctrine. It only says he just appreciated Darwin for furthering our understanding of nature. Whether Marx appropriated Darwin's work into communism like Kropotkin somewhere else, I do not know, nor do I care that much for the same reasons previously explained.
Nazism is based on Theosophy. And theosophy has its thoughts from evolution.
Neither statement is true. Nor are they even relevant, even if they were true.
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought
By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism. 2
This is plainly false, as Sparhafoc already pointed out. The nazis didn't endorse Darwinism. On the contrary, Darwin’s books, as well as anything that ridicule and belittle christianity and faith in God (although - again - this does not mean christianity had an inherent role in nazism) was included the list of banned writings in “Die Bücherei” of 1935.
“The following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries”
"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)"
“All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.”
What about Hitler specifically? None of his surviving speeches or writings contained any references to Darwin whatsoever, but they do contain many references to God as the Lord and creator and referred to himself as a christian. And the nazi “office of racial policy” publication “Informationsdienst” from 1938, contained Martin Luther’s advice on how to deal with Jews.
"... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught”
...sigh...although again...this does not mean christianity is the cause of his views. Sparhafoc made some good points about the distinction betwen Hitler's views of christianity and the church at different times:
For the most part, satisfying how most people identify as Christian, then yes he was unarguably Christian. Raised Catholic, he went to church, he knew the Bible well, and had a good relationship with the German church.

However, over the years his public;y expressed sentiment towards Christianity changed from highly favourable in the early part of his political life - with numerous and frequent comments supporting Christianity and referring to Christian dogma with respect to providing justification for his own actions - to dissatisfaction when facing criticism and resistance from church authorities and saw the role of the Church more as useful as an idea to counter Bolshevism. Of Christianity itself, the belief, it's clear he was a believing Christian mentioning many times and in detail about his belief in 'the Almighty'.

What is even more clear, though, is Hitler's sentiments towards atheists and atheism which were consistently hostile, and those sentiments were recorded both in public (many times) and in private.

So your spiel is busted beyond credibility. You're blathering hostile ignorance at people for ideological reasons. The primary difference between your mentality and Hitler's is solely that he had power and you're pathetic. A demented, obsessive fellow like you with power would undoubtedly be a far worse tyrant with even less shred of humanity about him.
But it should also be pointed out that Hitler's and the Nazi "brand" of Christianity, which is called "positive" christianity (which is anything but positive) would be unrecognizable by the typical christian. So, I second the point I made at the beginning of my post that fascists/racists exploits and perverts anything they can their hands on to bolster their bigotry. Hence, "positive christianity" is just a perversion of christianity by the nazis. So, in a valid way...yes...the nazis were not true christians (but they were definitly not atheists, but that is a different matter.)

Moving on, though Hitler never mentioned Darwin, he oddly enough referenced Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in relation to the Germ Theory of disease, which he compared with his campaigns against the Jews to describe it as an act of “national disinfection”. (Just to again prove my point that fascists/racist try to pervert literally anything, even something as seemingly random as germ theory, to bolster their bigotry.)
Adolf Hitler, July 19, 1941:
I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and fermenting agent of all social decomposition.​
Adolf Hitler, February 22, 1942:
This is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.​

Then again, just like the connection between eugenics and statistics, you don’t see many creationists arguing against the germ theory of disease despite Hitler apparently being bolstered by it. Oh well.

What about the claim that the "evolved" Aryan Master race? Well, no. The term "Aryan" was adopted as a racial catagory by the French aristocrat Arthur de Gobineau, who believed himself to be a descendant form the Norse God Odin. Yeah, really. One of de Gobineau's friends was the composer Richard Wagner whom Hitler greatly admired, both for his music and anti-semetic views. Wagner’s son in law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, built upon de Gobeneau’s racist Aryan ideals and also utterly despised Darwinism, describing it as a “manifestly unsound system”. Chamberlain was also Hitler’s mentor and his most prominent supporter.

You might be thinking that the Nazi were indirectly connected to Darwin via his cousin Galton for his eugenics. But, again, Galton only promoted "positive eugenics". Nazi's promoted "negative" eugenics and they drew their inspiration from American eugenicists of the early 20th century, who were driven by fears of “racial degeneration”. One eugenicist in particular was Madison Grant, whose book “The Passing of the Great Race” was a highly influential tract of American scientific racism. It was so influential to the Nazis that it is one of only two books written by non-German authors that were allowed on the Nazi reading list for anthropology. Madison Grant also happened to have been a life-long friend of President Theodore Roosevelt, another famous proponent of eugenics.

The claim that nazis were directly (or indirectly) inspired by Darwinism is just plain false. Otangelo cites Richard Weikart, whose book "From Darwin to Hitler" has been pretty much skewered by scholars.
This preoccupation with Haeckel is taken a stage further by Richard Weikart, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading organization promoting and funding the dissemination of intelligent design. In his provocatively titled "From Darwin to Hitler": Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Weikart implicitly indicts Darwin and Haeckel for acts that occurred long after their deaths. In line with older creationist claims, we are asked to reject modern scientific theories because of how older versions of these theories were misused.

Unlike the claims regarding Haeckel’s embryology, Weikart’s claims regarding a lineage from Darwin to Hitler via Haeckel have been examined by historians of science and indeed have generally been found lacking. Numerous reviews have accused Weikart of selectively viewing his rich primary material, ignoring political, social, psychological, and economic factors that may have played key roles in the post-Darwinian development of Nazi eugenics and racism. Since there is no clear and unique line from Darwinian naturalism to Nazi atrocities, useful causal relationships are difficult to infer; thus, as Robert J. Richards observes, “it can only be atendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis.”17
Evolution influenced Theosophy
Blavatsky integrated the idea of evolution with the venerable idea of the universal hierarchy of being. Thus stated, the hierarchical principle is no longer rigid; it has become the working principle of a dynamic process involving all levels of being, "a progressive development toward a higher life." 3
These concepts of "universal hierarchy of being" or "progressive development of higher life" have nothing to do with evolution (per Darwinian). This sounds like the term "evolution" has a different usage here, like how Pokemon uses the word "evolution", but it has a very different meaning such that it a totally unrelated concept. 

4. Morality
One of the reasons why people prefer a naturalistic worldview justified through evolution over one where there is a God is that anything goes. If naturalism is true, people can think they are free and can and can do what they want with their lives and pursue their personal preferences. and there is no consequence as long as you don't get caught. No sin, no God to worry about.
Utterly false. Evolution does not justify a naturalist world view, and a naturalistic world view does not dictate "anything goes". That is again committing the OUGHT/IS fallacy.
Jeffrey Dahmer:
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?,” "That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.” The problem is not only that this isn't true. The real consequence of a worldview without God is hopelessness, destructive behavior, racism, religious hatred and self serving and selfish living which bring loneliness, unhappiness, depression, mental disease and suicidal tendencies. This lifestyle brings relational hurts and all in all a miserable life.
This isn't relevant to evolution, since it is not incompatible with a belief in a deity. Putting that aside, you're not really making a good case for why theistic morality is superior by referencing a literal serial homicidal psychopath making a case for why he needs to belief in a God to be good. The argument is not about God grounding the fact of morality, it only focuses on the belief itself in God, arguing that it functions as a psychological leash that holds back the inner monster. It's like when some Christians say that if they didn't believe in god, they would steal, rape and kill...implying that they would enjoy doing those things and the only thing stopping them is their belief that God would punish them. That says more about them then it does about people like me who don’t believe in the existence of a deity. I don't go out killing raping and sealing, because, for one thing, I have many reasons to not do so, and secondly I wouldn't find any enjoyment out of it. I have more respect to most Christians who say that God has endowed humans with an innate sense of morality, such that atheists can also act good without having to believe in a deity.
5. How Evolution was used to Support Scientific Racism
Race is not a biological concept. It is merely a social construction that was established in order to justify the subordination and subjugation that aligned with imperialist policies. . Scientific principles, such as social Darwinism, the eugenics movement, and the creation of intelligence testing were utilized to support racist beliefs in a time when rapidly advancing scientific knowledge was regarded as prestigious, truthful, and irrefutable. 12
That’s true, they were abused to bolster scientific racism for the most part. Although, again, religion was also abused. At no point does this mean that either evolution nor religion is inherently racist. Just that racists have perverted both for their own use.
Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.” 13
This is from Answers in Genesis, and no sources was provided. This is the common strategy of creationist to drag Darwin's name to the mud, as if that would accomplish anything. Darwin could be the monster they want and it wouldn't change the status of evolution as a science, not even one bit.

But in any case, was Darwin racist? Racism was common during the Victorian era, especially among the aristocrats and the scientists. Even Louis Agassiz, a creationist and Darwin's peer, was no exception.
“It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type (genre) and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race ―to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such contact."
- Louis Agassiz in a letter to his mother (1846), quoted in “The Mismeasure of Man” (1981) p. 44-45

Yet you don’t see creationists relentlessly attacking Agassiz for that, well isn’t that strange?

So it wouldn't be surprising to see Darwin sharing many of the same flawed views. However, it's actually far from the case. I have not seen Darwin referring to other races as “degraded”. On the contrary, he often praised and gave his respect to the natives and people of other "races" that he met, both for their beauty and cognitive faculties.
We stayed two days at the Colorado; I had little to do, for the surrounding country was a swamp, which in summer (December), when the snow melts on the Cordillera, is overflowed by the river. My chief amusement was watching the Indian families as they came to buy little articles at the rancho where we stayed. It was supposed that General Rosas had about six hundred Indian allies. The men were a tall, fine race, yet it was afterwards easy to see in the Fuegian savage the same countenance rendered hideous by cold, want of food, and less civilisation. Some authors, in defining the primary races of mankind, have separated these Indians into two classes; but this is certainly incorrect. Among the young women or chinas, some deserve to be called even beautiful. Their hair was coarse, but bright and black; and they wore it in two plaits hanging down to the waist. They had a high colour, and eyes that glistened with brilliancy; their legs, feet, and arms were small and elegantly formed; their ankles, and sometimes their waists, were ornamented by broad bracelets of blue beads.
- Charles Darwin (1839) Voyage of the Beagle

I walked with the old man, and this demonstration of friendship was repeated several times; it was concluded by three hard slaps, which were given me on the breast and back at the same time. He then bared his bosom for me to return the compliment, which being done, he seemed highly pleased. The language of these people, according to our notions, scarcely deserves to be called articulate. Captain Cook has compared it to a man clearing his throat, but certainly no European ever cleared his throat with so many hoarse, guttural, and clicking sounds. They are excellent mimics: as often as we coughed or yawned, or made any odd motion, they immediately imitated us. Some of our party began to squint and look awry; but one of the young Fuegians (whose whole face was painted black, excepting a white band across his eyes) succeeded in making far more hideous grimaces. They could repeat with perfect correctness each word in any sentence we addressed them, and they remembered such words for some time. Yet we Europeans all know how difficult it is to distinguish apart the sounds in a foreign language. Which of us, for instance, could follow an American Indian through a sentence of more than three words? All savages appear to possess, to an uncommon degree, this power of mimicry. I was told, almost in the same words, of the same ludicrous habit among the Caffres; the Australians, likewise, have long been notorious for being able to imitate and describe the gait of any man, so that he may be recognised. How can this faculty be explained? is it a consequence of the more practised habits of perception and keener senses, common to all men in a savage state, as compared with those long civilised?
- Charles Darwin (1839) Voyage of the Beagle

“The house was situated at the base of a ridge between one and two hundred feet high -- a most remarkable feature in this country. This posta was commanded by a negro lieutenant, born in Africa: to his credit be it said, there was not a ranche between the Colorado and Buenos Ayres in nearly such neat order as his. He had a little room for strangers, and a small corral for the horses, all made of sticks and reeds; he had also dug a ditch round his house as a defence in case of being attacked. This would, however, have been of little avail, if the Indians had come; but his chief comfort seemed to rest in the thought of selling his life dearly. A short time before, a body of Indians had travelled past in the night; if they had been aware of the posta, our black friend and his four soldiers would assuredly have been slaughtered. I did not anywhere meet a more civil and obliging man than this negro; it was therefore the more painful to see that he would not sit down and eat with us.”
- Charles Darwin (1839) Voyage of the Beagle

“By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.”
- Charles Darwin, the Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882(1958), p.51
He also showed empathy towards them, condemning the emperialist acts of genocide that was commuted against indigenous tribes, finding it inhuman, and - of course - his staunch abolitionist position.
I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Hayti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
- Darwin, letter to Catherine (his sister), June 1833

“On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of;--nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil.”
- Darwin, The voyage of the Beagle, chapter 21

“This spot is notorious from having been, for a long time, the residence of some runaway slaves, who, by cultivating a little ground near the top, contrived to eke out a subsistence. At length they were discovered, and a party of soldiers being sent, the whole were seized with the exception of one old woman, who, sooner than again be led into slavery, dashed herself to pieces from the summit of the mountain. In a Roman matron this would have been called the noble love of freedom: in a poor negress it is mere brutal obstinacy.”
- Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary, page 53

“The Indians, men, women, and children, were about one hundred and ten in number, and they were nearly all taken or killed, for the soldiers sabre every man. The Indians are now so terrified that they offer no resistance in a body, but each flies, neglecting even his wife and children; but when overtaken, like wild animals, they fight against any number to the last moment. One dying Indian seized with his teeth the thumb of his adversary, and allowed his own eye to be forced out sooner than relinquish his hold. Another, who was wounded, feigned death, keeping a knife ready to strike one more fatal blow. My informer said, when he was pursuing an Indian, the man cried out for mercy, at the same time that he was covertly loosing the bolas from his waist, meaning to whirl it round his head and so strike his pursuer. "I however struck him with my sabre to the ground, and then got off my horse, and cut his throat with my knife." This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact, that all the women who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blood! When I exclaimed that this appeared rather inhuman, he answered, "Why, what can be done? they breed so!"
- Darwin “The voyage of the Beagle”, page 50
He did use the word “savage” as you can see in the previous quotes, but the way he used that word does not have the same negative connotation as it has today. Like, Darwin used the word “savage” like how we used the word “tribal” or “hunter gatherer”. He recognized that all humans, including those who were "civilized", like himself, undoubtedly descended from barbarian savages,who lived in a similar manner to the natives he met during his travels. A conclusion which he expected would be distasteful to many.
“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind--such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs--as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”
- Darwin “Descent of Man” page 398
He did use, in one often quoted passage, that some races were “lower” than others.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. 

— Charles Darwin (1871), Descent of Man
However, it should be made clear why he called the races “lower”. The terms of “higher” and “lower” life forms was the common vocabulary (sometimes used to this today unfortunately) in his time to describe different relationships between organisms, rooting back to the old Aristotle concept of the “great chain of being” that long predated evolution. It is also a concept that Darwin rejected in earlier works:
“It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another. We consider those, when the cerebral structure / intellectual faculties most developed, as highest. A bee doubtless would when the instincts were.”
— Charles Darwin (1837), notebook jottings

“Never use the words higher or lower.”
— Charles Darwin (c.1845), note written on the margin of his copy of Robert Chambers’ 1844 Vestiges of The Natural History of Creation

“With respect to ‘highness’ and ‘lowness’, my ideas are only eclectic and not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the articulata or mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom, I am inclined to think that ‘highest’ usually means that form, which has undergone most ‘morphological differentiation’ from the common embryo or archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has remarked) by ‘retrograde development’, i.e. the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialization of parts to different functions, or ‘the division of physiological labor’ of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren.”
— Charles Darwin (1854), “Letter to Joseph Hooker”, Jun 27
So, Darwin's views could not be fairly summarized by that one quote where he used the terms of “higher” and “lower” to races. Darwin’s views on race was way more progressive than that one quote implies. Darwin stated that if different races were descended from multiple species, as different as the orangutan is from the Gorilla, then evidence of this would still be observable in modern humans. Since that isn’t the case, Darwin accurately concluded that all races descended from the same source. He predicted that when evolution is accepted, the debate between the polygenists and monogenists would die an unobservable death.
The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much agitated by anthropologists, who are divided into two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species either as separate creations or as in some manner distinct entities; and they must decide what forms to rank as species by the analogy of other organic beings which are commonly thus received.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the greater number of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they think fit to designate them as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.

If the races of man were descended, as supposed by some naturalists, from two or more distinct species, which had differed as much, or nearly as much, from each other, as the orang differs from the gorilla, it can hardly be doubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones would still have been discoverable in man as he now exists. Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation is taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

So again it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the most appropriate. Finally, we may conclude that when the principles of evolution are generally accepted, as they surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death.
- Darwin “Descent of Man”, p. 228-235
But Darwin's ucharacteristically progressive position goes even further, as started to question the value of putting humans into different races. He points out that we judge different races on superficial aspects, and that it's actually difficult to objectively define human races to the point of being completely arbitrary, such that even the experts cannot agree to how many "races" of humans there are.
It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated. In determining whether two or more allied forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are practically guided by the following considerations; namely, the amount of difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few or many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological importance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by naturalists. Whenever it can be shewn, or rendered probable, that the forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this becomes an argument of much weight in favour of treating them as species. Even a slight degree of sterility between any two forms when first crossed, or in their offspring, is generally considered as a decisive test of their specific distinctness; and their continued persistence without blending within the same area, is usually accepted as sufficient evidence, either of some degree of mutual sterility, or in the case of animals of some mutual repugnance to pairing.
— Charles Darwin (1871), Descent of Man

if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man kept distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In Brazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese; in Chiloe and other parts of South America, he would behold the whole population consisting of Indians and Spaniards blended in various degrees. In many parts of the same continent he would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and Europeans; and such triple crosses afford the severest test, judging from the vegetable kingdom, of the mutual fertility of the parent-forms. In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population of mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Viti Archipelago a population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many analogous cases could be added, for instance, in South Africa. Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to co-exist without fusion; and this it is, which in all ordinary cases affords the usual test of specific distinctness. Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of every race of man were highly variable. This strikes every one when he first beholds the negro-slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has often been said.”
— Charles Darwin (1871), Descent of Man

Even the most distinct races of man, are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed; certain negro tribes must be excepted, whilst others, as Dr. Rohlfs writes to me, and as I have myself seen, have Caucasian features. This general similarity is well shewn by the French photographs in the Collection Anthropologique du Muséum of the men belonging to various races, the greater number of which, as many persons to whom I have shown them have remarked, might pass for Europeans. Nevertheless, these men if seen alive would undoubtedly appear very distinct, so that we are clearly much influenced in our judgment by the mere colour of the skin and hair, by slight differences in the features, and by expression.
— Charles Darwin (1871), Descent of Man

But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other organic being, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.17 This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive character between them.
— Charles Darwin (1871), Descent of Man
Darwin came very close to the realisation that the notion of human races is not biologically based, which was later pushed by Franz Boas who pioneered modern anthropology in large part by challenging the prevalent scientific racism of his time. Franz Boas even credited Darwin for the progress that was made for his own field.
1616333806820.png
That’s not to say that Darwin was perfect. There are lot’s of quotes you can pull from Darwin to see he had his prejudices that were common at the time. His particular views on gender roles of women was typical Victorian. However, that doesn’t leave out the fact that he was among the least racist compared to his peers, and was part of the trend among scientists that led to the abandonment of scientific racism.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Isn't it funny how someone's not interested in the 'social consequences' of Christianity,

What good has the christian faith brought to us

https://******************************/t1452-what-good-has-the-christian-faith-brought-to-us

What good has the christian faith brought to us

Development of the educational system through Christianity
Indeed it’s impossible to study history without seeing the extraordinary role Christianity has played not only in the development of rational thinking but also in the spreading of such thinking—that is, the creation of an educational system. Though education was important in the pagan world, it didn’t become institutionalized until Christianity began its march across the globe. The early Greeks and Romans had no public schools of higher learning. It was Christians who established those. When the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and other “barbarian” tribes overran what was left of the Roman Empire, it was the Christians who took the smashed European continent and imposed learning, order, and stability upon it. In the so-called Dark Ages, it was Christians again who painstakingly preserved, copied, and studied manuscripts from antiquity in order to pass them on to future generations. Christianity, therefore, was responsible for the Renaissance, or “rebirth,” of Greek and Roman culture. Now, if the Christian religion had really been so opposed to critical thinking, why in the world would it have acted so decisively to protect and preserve the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and other pagan philosophers? Why wouldn’t Christians have burned them in a big bonfire, as atheists claim they are so fond of doing to books that “contradict” the faith?

But there’s more. It was the monastery system of the church that maintained the intellectual culture of the West for hundreds of years and gave birth to the first universities and libraries. These great institutions spread throughout Europe and provided a systematic—as well as integrated—form of public education for the masses. For the first time in history, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included, without bias toward ethnicity or class. This contribution was revolutionary. Nor was it just the Catholic Church that was responsible for the development of education. The Protestant reformers, who wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible, introduced to the world the concept of compulsory education for boys and girls. This, again, was a radically new idea. With all this focus on learning, is it any surprise that, later on, all but one of the first 123 colleges in colonial America were founded as Christian institutions—including Harvard, Princeton, and Yale?

Religion, the enemy of art ?
And what of the criticism that religion is the enemy of art? Jack Huberman, in his book The Quotable Atheist, says: “Religious authority has always sought to . . . control and censor art and literature.” Likewise, Rob Boston writes in Church and State magazine: “The truth is, religiously based censorship [of the arts] by the government has a long history in Europe and the United States.”

Just as scientific inquiry was founded on the idea that God and his creation are rational, so, too, was religious art founded on the idea that God and his creation are beautiful, and that humankind, being made in the image and likeness of God, has the power and the responsibility to make beautiful things too. This is the philosophy that lies behind so much of the world’s greatest artistic expression. And yet atheists continue to claim that religion has always been the enemy of art. Amazing!

Religion & freedom
They also contend that religion destroys freedom. But again, an unbiased look at history shows the exact opposite to be true. The biblical concept that all people are created in the “image and likeness of God” is the foundation of universal human rights—including freedom. Before Christianity, human life on this planet was considered cheap. Infanticide was not only common but applauded. Newborn children were routinely abandoned on the hillside, left to starve or freeze to death. Or they were killed outright through drowning—especially if they were baby girls. Adults didn’t fare much better. Everyone has heard about Roman arenas like the Colosseum, in which whole families were bludgeoned to death, mauled by wild animals, or burned alive—just for sport. The greatest and most respected ancient writers and philosophers didn’t object in the slightest to these barbaric practices. It was Christians who finally banned them. Why? Because the religious belief that all men are created equal is not a self-evident truth, as Thomas Jefferson famously wrote. To pre-Christian cultures, equality was a totally foreign concept. When the people of antiquity looked around at the world, they saw inequality everywhere—in physical appearance, mental capacity, moral conduct, economic and material possessions, and political power. The idea that all human beings were equal would have seemed preposterous to them. It was the Christian religion, building on Jewish tradition before it, that introduced the bedrock principle that all human beings are equal—maybe not in physical traits or material possessions, but in dignity, in honor, in value, and in spirit. Most importantly, Christianity taught that human beings are equal because God created them and loves them equally and to an infinite degree. Therefore, each human life has equal and infinite value. This is a Christian insight—not a pagan, secular, or atheist idea. When people today proclaim that human beings have a universal right to express their opinions freely, to go wherever they choose, to buy and sell property, to live the way they want to live—they are expressing an idea that has a distinctively Christian origin.

Humans are moral agents
As Dinesh D’Souza says in What’s So Great About Christianity:
Christianity emphasizes the fact that we are moral agents. God has freely created us in His own image, and He has given us the power to take part in His sublime act of creation by being architects of our own lives. . . . John Stuart Mill’s influential doctrine of liberty, which so many of us take for granted, is a direct inheritance from Christianity. It is no use responding that Mill was a product of the Enlightenment understanding of human freedom and equality. That notion was itself a product of Christianity. Where else do you think the Enlightenment thinkers got it?

Human equality
The point that atheists refuse to grasp is that Christianity espoused a revolutionary philosophy of equality that set into motion an intellectual process that gradually changed everything. It was Christianity which rejected polygamy and adultery and exalted monogamous love—love geared toward the raising of children. This is the basis for the traditional family, and no matter how much secularists decry that institution today, there is still no other force more stabilizing and beneficial to civilization.

Equality of women
It was Christianity that dramatically elevated the status of women at a time when practically every other culture in the world oppressed them. Indeed, the ancient world treated women like animals. Read the Greek and Roman historians (such as Thucydides, Polybius, and Livy) to verify the truth of this! Women were the property of men, just barely higher than slaves. They had no rights at all. That’s why they were so frequently exposed to the elements as infants. Christianity changed that. Women had leadership roles in the early church. They were supported financially when their husbands died. They were given an education. Instead of being abused, they were sheltered and protected. The whole medieval concept of chivalry arose because Christian civilization considered women to be of a higher dignity than men. The indisputable fact is that the women’s rights movement of the last two hundred years has its roots not in pagan society, but in the principles of Christianity. The same can be said about slavery.

The Bible & slavery
Atheists are always claiming that because Christians owned slaves at various times in history, the whole Christian religion is hypocritical. But that’s nonsense. Slavery was practiced for centuries all over the world before Christianity came on the scene. No one ever criticized or opposed slavery in any systematic way—until Christianity. From its very beginning, Christians discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. And many early Christians purchased slaves for the sole purpose of setting them free. Because human dignity is at the heart of Christian doctrine, it was only a question of time before Christians began to realize that the very idea of “owning” another human being was contrary to their faith. By the Middle Ages, the institution of slavery—which provided the whole foundation for Greek, Roman, and Egyptian civilizations—was largely replaced by serfdom, a system which at least guaranteed basic human rights to all workers—such as the right to marry and to own property.

Later it was Christians who started the first antislavery movement in history. It wasn’t Democrats who did that. It wasn’t Republicans. It wasn’t politicians or unions or any other kind of socially conscious group. And it certainly wasn’t atheists. It was the church. Slavery came to an end in Europe mainly because of the work of Christian activists such as William Wilberforce, the famous British evangelical philanthropist. And the successful antislavery movement in England—made up overwhelmingly of religious groups—took the lead in the international campaign to end slavery as well. By the early 1800s, two-thirds of the members of the American abolition society were Christian ministers. We see this same positive influence in every area of social reform. Take economic freedom. The ancient world—built on the backs of slaves—had no real concept of the value of labor; yet Christianity—with its emphasis on human equality and dignity—revolutionized the workplace. The concept of private property, property rights, workers’ rights, and unionization all flow from the Judeo-Christian understanding of work and its proper relationship to social justice.

Politics
Take the world of politics. We’ve seen how the idea that all men are created equal has its origins in the Bible. Well, the whole idea of limited government comes from Judeo-Christian tradition too. The notion that there are certain God-given, unalienable, moral absolutes—such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that take precedence over any edict issued by a king, derives from Christianity. Is it any wonder that so many of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and at least fifty of the fifty-five signers of the US Constitution, were committed Christians? And what of the argument that Christianity is so concerned with getting people to heaven that it
neglects to care for them here and now? This is perhaps the most preposterous of all the atheist claims.

Social engagement & Charity
Before Christianity, there was virtually no institutional interest in helping the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, the disabled, the elderly, or the dying; but because of Christian teaching on the dignity of the human person, this societal callousness came to a screeching halt. In the year 369, Saint Basil of Caesarea founded a three-hundred-bed hospital—the first large-scale hospital for the sick and disabled in the world. Christian hospitals and hospices started springing up all over the European continent. These were civilization’s first voluntary charitable institutions, and they were built and paid for by the church. To this day, Christian influence permeates the health-care system. Just do an Internet search for Christian charities and see how many names appear. They are legion: missions to foreign countries, organizations to fight world hunger, inner-city soup kitchens, and ministries to assist those with every kind of infirmity. Think of the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Think of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity. Think of all the orders of nuns established to care for the diseased and dying. Think of all the Christian orphanages that have helped so many abandoned and destitute children over the centuries. Think of the thousands of religiously affiliated hospitals that are still in operation across the globe. There’s simply no end to the number of charities founded in the name of Christ.

The only plausible explanation is that, contrary to what so many feebleminded atheists believe, the Christian gospel is not just about getting people into heaven. It’s about improving conditions in this life too. And isn’t that logical? If human beings are really made in the image and likeness of God, and if they truly have infinite value, then of course it’s an obligation for us to be caring and compassionate—to help people everywhere, especially those who are least fortunate. And yet atheists insist that Christians have their heads in the clouds and are happy to sit back and twiddle their thumbs as they await the Second Coming. That’s not an easy thing to do. It takes a lot of effort to keep your eyes clamped shut in the face of so many facts. How can anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of history be so ignorant of all these social, intellectual, scientific, cultural, political, educational, institutional, and artistic gifts that Christianity has bestowed on civilization?

To me, its a difference like day and night. Adopting a theistic worldview, I can know God and experience his grace and love of a loving father. It's a joy to be able to witness to others about the greatness of God. In that way, I am making a difference in this world, and my life has also value for others. It means loving and being loved by others. Furthermore, I find meaning, self-worth, and ultimately it makes a difference, how I live, and who I am, and what I do today, has significance and consequences also in eternity. My life is not doomed when I die, rather I have the perspective of living eternally with God. So belief in God gives me hope for eternal life in heaven. Furthermore, I find peace with God through the forgiveness of my sins, through Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection. Without faith in God, there is no hope of deliverance of injustice and evil. Nor are there objective moral values. Everything becomes subjective and relative and depends entirely on each individual's standpoints. Ultimately, there is no good, and no evil. There are just different viewpoints and standards based on personal preferences. Furthermore, the existence of the universe and life makes sense and its existence is explained in a satisfying manner through a creator. In a broader sense,

Christianity has shaped western civilization in many ways for the better. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, music, and fine arts we enjoy today as its artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. The liberties and human rights of secular governments, freedom, and rights of the individual, and so the criminal and justice system are a direct consequence of the Bible, and so the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of social position, power and wealth. The education system, care of orphans and the elders, and hospitals goes back to the spread of monasteries, which were taking care of the general population. Science began to flourish in the western world, like Occam's razor in the twelfth century, and many science fathers, like Galilei, Newton, Volta, Ohm, Ampere, Kelvin, Faraday, etc. were all Christians. There are many other things, but this is just to name a few.

If you're talking about many of the first orphanages, all of our major Ivy League universities, in fact, all but one the first 123 colleges and universities in colonial America, almost every charitable organization i.e. the Red Cross, Nursing (Florence Nightingale), the abolition of slavery in both the Roman world and the European Slave Trade, ALL of the first sciences including the scientific method (as we know it today), Kepler, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Maxwell, Steno, Martel, etc; free enterprise and work ethic (ethics in general), wherever there are starving people, there are Christians feeding, wherever there are homeless, Christians are building shelters, in Rome during a plague Christians would not flee but tend to the sick and dying, the greatest contributions to music, literature, and art who brought them to music theory and even revolutionizing literature as we know it today are all contributed to Christians and Christianity.

"This is our culture's powerful emphasis on compassion, on helping the needy, and on alleviating distress even in distant places. If there is a huge famine or reports of genocide in Africa, most people in other cultures are unconcerned. As the Chinese proverb has it, 'the tears of strangers are only water.' But here in the West, we rush to help....Part of the reason why we do this is that of our Christian assumptions....The ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe this. They held a view quite commonly held in other cultures today: yes, that is a problem, but it is not our problem....However paradoxical it seems, people who believed most strongly in the next world did the most to improve the situation of people living in this one." -D'Souza

Objection: Religion and Christianity are responsible for many wars and suffering in the world.
Response: The false and bigoted narrative that Religion causes all the world’s problems, especially the most deaths is empirically false, willfully ignorant & purposefully dishonest. Biased & unbalanced as no credit given for the good religion has done (hospitals, care of needy, founding scientific method, abolishing slavery, etc). The facts of history show that only 7% of wars ever fought were for religious reasons. (Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars).

While millions (around 259+ million in the last 100 years) have been killed by Atheists regimes like Stalin, Mao, etc.). That’s not counting the 56 Million+ abortions per year secular humanism has done and expands to now killing babies even AFTER they are born now in some areas.

Gregory Koukl summarizes it well:
“It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.”

https://******************************/t1452-what-good-has-the-christian-faith-brought-to-us
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
And pogroms, murdered women, fiddled kiddies by Christian priests, forced conversions, slaying of heathen, psychological abuse... and so on, and so on.

Don't you find it shameful to engage in such obvious motivated reasoning in public? Or are you really this blind to what passes for thought in your own mind?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Oh and all your assertions are abject fucking bullshit by the way. Cock, actually; they're 'cock'.
 
arg-fallbackName="Collecemall"/>
What is the point of coming here and pasting a wall of inane bullshit? I've watched Otangelo do this for well over a decade now across dozens of venues. I can count the number of attempts he's made at good faith discourse in all that time on one hand and have enough fingers left to pick both nostrils. Said activity would produce similar value to his walls of text. Nobody cares. One might think after YEARS of doing it he'd figure out it's both ineffective and just plain fucking annoying.
 
Back
Top