Financial Times claims that there is a coming boom in honesty

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 8, 2019

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Well, actually, they are advertising a coming boom in “political incorrectness.”Here. But one can not get more information, it would seem, without paying.

Given that political correctness is organized lying (usually for control and profit), a boom in political incorrectness is a boom in honesty.

Will we ever be able to discuss the cultural effects of Darwinism honestly? One thing we don’t hear as much of as we used to, it is good to note, is someone with (apparently) sponge toffee for brains getting up and announcing that he is a Christian but he accepts Darwin.

So? You don’t have to be smart to be a Christian (though being smart definitely helps in the long term, for all sorts of reasons).

But honestly would be so useful in discussing so many issues around Darwinism. For example, there’s no question that modern racism was mainly informed by Darwinism. That was the religious perspective that caused many people to picture these who looked different from them as behind them in the Darwinian ascent of man.

If we could just talk about all that honestly, we could move on. Maybe it’s coming.

See also: Demand for a ban on teaching creationism in Welsh schools. Bot not on teaching Darwinism.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

You just got to love Atheistic Materialists trying to lecture Christian Theists on morality. Morality does not exist in Atheistic Materialism. Period! Full Stop! As Richard Dawkins succinctly put it,
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Nor, since Atheistic Materialists deny to existence of free will, is there any guilt or innocence to be had if someone did commit some moral transgression. The moral transgressor simply had no choice in the matter and therefore cannot realistically held to be morally culpable. According to Atheistic Materialism we are simply 'meat robots' with no more choice over the course of our actions that a leaf blowing in the wind has choice over the course of its fall.
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20
Thus, it is hilarious for Atheistic Materialists to try to lecture Christian Theists on morality. Atheistic Materialism simply is a non-starter in regards to providing a coherent foundation for morality and for providing a basis for moral culpability in general. And yet, time and time again, Atheistic Materialists act as if that not only do they have a basis for morality, but they pretend that their own particular brand of atheistic morality is so much better than the Christian's morality, that we should choose it over Christian morality. (If only we were able to choose to do so, I suppose), I seriously don't see how atheists make it through a single day without their heads exploding from the logical inconsistencies that they are forced to maintain in order to hold on to their atheism. Their worldview is insane! Of supplemental note, Darwin's view of races,
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 (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), 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
Now compare that to Wilberforce’s Christian view of slavery,
Wilberforce and the Roots of Freedom Excerpt: The son of a wealthy merchant, young Wilberforce led the hedonistic lifestyle of a college student at Cambridge. Bored with his father’s business, he entered Parliament at age 21 and made friends easily. Five years later, he had a conversion experience leading him to devote his life to freeing those in bondage. In 1791, his bill to abolish the slave trade failed by a wide margin but he persisted. In 1807, Wilberforce released A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade on the eve of Parliament’s overwhelming vote to end the trade in human beings—a remarkable change in fifteen years. In 1823, “God’s politician” began a ten-year campaign to end slavery entirely, releasing his Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies, in which he claimed that total and unqualified emancipation was a moral and ethical “duty before God.” Wilberforce died in 1833 just as Parliament abolished slavery. His friend John Newton, once one of the cruelest of slave traders, later in life went through a similar “born again” experience and wrote the famous song “Amazing Grace”—hence the title of the movie about Wilberforce’s awe-inspiring campaign against slavery. http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1929 “God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects: the supression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.” – William Wilberforce – (1759 –1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade – author of Real Christianity
As well Abraham Lincoln’s own view against slavery was based on Christian principles.
we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” – Lincoln https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
Verse and Quote
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” - Declaration of Independence
bornagain77_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Axel
I can’t quote chapter and verse, but I know for a certainty that Yahweh told the Israelites that they must not on any account make a slave of a member of their own people, as slavery was a thing He detested.
Yes, he said that it was OK to enslave people from neighbouring lands (not Israelites) and that these people could be enslaved for life and passed down from one generation to the next. This doesn't sound like a being that detests slavery.
In the NT, God would surely have commanded Christians to release any slaves they might have,...
I don't recall anything in the NT that says that slavery is wrong. However, I could be wrong. Cultured, erudite, well-to-do people tend to assume that they are God’s ‘default’ human, ideal human, even. I would argue that this is not limited to cultured, erudite, well-to-do people. I think that this is one of the pitfalls that religion and religious beliefs can and often do fall into.Brother Brian_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Cultured, erudite, well-to-do people tend to assume that they are God's 'default' human, ideal human, even. But it just ain't so. Worldly intelligence will count for little in the next life, indeed, only when it was based on the spiirtual wisdom, upon which the blue-collar types tend to have a much firmer grip.Axel_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

I can't quote chapter and verse, but I know for a certainty that Yahweh told the Israelites that they must not on any account make a slave of a member of their own people, as slavery was a thing He detested. Presumably, He consented to it at an earlier date and in relation to the pagans, on the basis that it was a normal practice of mankind at that time - grace building upon nature. And indeed he laid down laws limiting the harshness with which slaves could be treated, and punishments for breaches of the laws he had laid down. Bad Christians are always worse than bad pagans, having been given so much more. So, horrific as the chattel slavery of nominally-Christian Europeans was around the 16th century, it should not surprise us that it was so much worse than the slavery of defeated, pagan peoples in the ancient world. In the NT, God would surely have commanded Christians to release any slaves they might have, except that Christianity was not intended to bring about progress by violent revolution. I suspect that, too, might have been be rescinded in modern times, at least, by the Holy Spirit, since our dictators have been so atrociously wicked and cruel in their lust for power and their determination to hold on to it at all costs to others. I can only assume that, at the highest levels, my own Catholic church in particular, has had such an atrocious record in sole deference to Christ's parable about the tares, the darnel. However, surely, particularly with the passage of time, and the level of civilised governance shown by the Scandinavians' largely secular polity, in the interim, the Popes should have promoted the same streamlined, efficient central government in the secular world that the neoliberal socio/psychopaths deploy in pursuit of ever more abundant material riches for their already plutocratic class - at the very expense of the increasingly-immiserated, indeed often homeless, poor ; it is not a matter of a preferential option for the poor : it is the latter who, we are assured from the Magnificat onwards - indeed, throughout most of the Old Testament, it is they who are the True Israel, not a feckless fringe of wastrels. The Psalmists and the Prophets are constantly inveighing against 'the rich', who they see as the very exemplars of, greed, violence, fraud, all manner of wickedness. And the converse in relation to the poor.Axel_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Darwin thought that the different races of human would be classified as different species to someone who didn't know any better.ET_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Anthropic
MatSpirit 2, you seem to forget the full title of Darwin’s great opus: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
In Origin of Species, race refers to the different races (populations) of plants and animals. Although, it is true that he felt that his theory also applied to humans. As do I. One of the most famous quotes that is often used against him with respect to racism is the following:
At some future period, not very distant from as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world….
Aside from the fact that he had a Eurocentric Victorian perception of what civilized means, he was simply making a prediction, not a judgment or moral statement. And if you look at the fate of most indigenous populations in throughout the world, I think that his prediction has largely become true. Not that their lineage has been exterminated, but their cultures, for the most part, have.Brother Brian_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."ET_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

BR
The Bible actually requires the release of slaves after 7 years and was referred to as indentured servitude in the colonies that became the United States.
Mimus
Honest question: do you make this stuff as you go along, or is there some source for the erroneous claims you make?
Leviticus 24: 46
You can bequeath them [slaves] to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Mimus, I think that we know the answer to that question.Brother Brian_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

BobRyan,
It was Darwin that classified 4 distinct races, which was expanded on by the Eugenicists that soon followed
Honest question: do you make this stuff as you go along, or is there some source for the erroneous claims you make?Mimus_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit 2, you seem to forget the full title of Darwin's great opus: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. And yes, I've seen evolution cited as the reason why black people are supposedly inferior. They just aren't as evolved as whites, you know. No nonsense about all people being valuable because created in the image of God!anthropic_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

Leviticus 25:44-46critter_{September 9, 2019
September
09
Sep
9
09
2019
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

Darwin took his preexisting views that he was racially superior and codified them in his work. It was Darwin that classified 4 distinct races, which was expanded on by the Eugenicists that soon followed. Slavery has existed since prehistoric times and continues to this day. Instead of calling it slavery, they call it human trafficking. For Darwinists, they cannot call slavery wrong, since that would require a belief in absolute morality. The Bible actually requires the release of slaves after 7 years and was referred to as indentured servitude in the colonies that became the United States.BobRyan_{September 8, 2019
September
09
Sep
8
08
2019
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

News: For example, there’s no question that modern racism was mainly informed by Darwinism. Right on! Less than two years after Darwin published "Origins", the US was fighting a civil war to keep slavery and the Darwinists apparently manufactured a couple of centuries of "evidence" that we'd been kidnapping blacks from Africa, transporting then across the Atlantic (with a very high "shrinkage" rate on the way) and working them to death in America. Well, we COULDN'T have done any of that because we were a Christian nation back then and the Bible explicitly sort of ... actually allows slavery. But Darwin rewrote the Bible! It didn't use to allow slavery until Darwin came along!MatSpirit_{September 8, 2019
September
09
Sep
8
08
2019
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Let's remember that a politician is not supposed to represent himself, he is supposed to represent somebody else. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. Then there is the question of just who he represents. Well, he has to appear to represent whomever he is talking to at the moment. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. And while representing so many people, he does not need to meet any particular description, he only needs to avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as not meeting it. That is not dishonest, but it looks exactly the same. I forgot where I was going with this.SmartAZ_{September 8, 2019
September
09
Sep
8
08
2019
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply