OK - I’ll concede that you linked “various Christians” to Nazism, and not just Catholics.
You knew better. You had what I wrote in front of you.
But Catholics are Christians, you know.
If some Christians do something, that does not mean they all do it.
So I guess the slander includes even more people than I thought originally.
It’s not slander, if it’s true. Luther, for example, in "The Lies of the Jews, outlined much of the Wannsee Protocols.
No where do I see you pointing out that it is evil to connect Hitler with Christianity,
Actually, you were well aware that I did; I told you twice.
What you seem to be saying is that “hey, Christianity can be linked with Nazis as well as Darwin, so that gets Darwinism off the hook.”
No. I said it was just as evil to blame Christianity as it was to blame science for the Nazis. You thought up an argument for me, and demanded that I believe it.
Excuse me if that isn’t what you meant, but that’s how I interpreted it.
As everyone can see, the way you interpret things often isn’t within hailing distance of the truth.
Barbarian regarding the lie that he never admitted fault in Darwin:
On this forum, I pointed out that he, like other Europeans of his time, thought that Europeans were superior to others. You knew this.
Ah, yes, he was like other Europeans of his time. So his eugenics beliefs are therefore OK.
You’re consistent, at least. Another falsehood.
Again, Darwin is off the hook because everybody did it at the time.
Be honest with yourself, at least.
but the thrust of my original post was more on the ethics side.
I also mentioned Haeckel’s drawings which falsely enhanced similarities, so you still don’t have any excuse.
Barbarian:
I have on this forum, pointed out the stupidity of those who would try to apply evolution to values of any kind.
OK. But you still seem to deny that they ACTUALLY DID IT, even though you think it’s stupid.
So, because Christians ACTUALLY did use religion as a hammer to deny rights to people, that means Christianity is to blame? I don’t think so.
Barbarian observes:
Feel free to refer to my comments. As you can see, your “History professor” seems to be rather ignorant of the history and confabulated some stories to cover for it.
Barbarian the Biologist constantly chastises people for not listening to him with regard to his area of expertise. And when it comes to history, we are supposed to believe the opinions of Barbarian instead of a professional historian?
Facts are facts; your guy’s story doesn’t fit the facts. BTW, I was once stuck in a duty station in a cultural hole with nothing but extension courses and drinking as entertainment. So for several years, I studied history, mostly European and American. And I’m very good at it.
What proof do you have that this professor is ignorant of the history, and confabulated some stories to cover for it?
For starters, your prof seems completely unaware that by the 1920s, Darwinists had demonstrated mathematically that sterilization of “defectives” was not going to improve the gene pool. That’s a huge goof.
let’s try to agree on something constructive.
Great; stop making up ideas and attributing them to me. Work on putting an argument together. And don’t be so gullible when someone writes something you want to believe. That’s when you should be most skeptical.
The argument (wherever it came from) “that humans are not qualitatively different than animals” is morally wrong?
It’s just foolish. Morality is “human conduct so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.”
Humans have an immaterial soul, and all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.
Ricmat says: No, I do not agree with this.
If God chose to give us these senses through a natural process, why would that bother you? BTW, religion is received knowledge, so it can’t come from nature.
That the idea (where ever it originated) that if humans are the products of mindless evolution, that this leads to the idea that there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights.
Demonstrably wrong, since most people who believe the first, also believe there are objective human rights. The truth matters, and is superior to anyone’s reasoning. Evolution, like all natural processes, is “mindless.” However, a hammer is mindless, but you can still build things with it.
That the idea (where ever it originated) that the idea that there are many distinct human species, some “lower” and some “higher” is wrong?
As in the creationist idea of “inferior Hamites?” You should know that evolutionary theory has shown that there aren’t even biological human races today. There have been, in the past, a number of species of humans. But science isn’t about “superiority.” More of a creationist idea.
Do you believe that Darwin’s claim in The Descent of Man that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” is morally unacceptable.
The claim is merely an inference based on evidence. Europeans were busily killing off what they considered “inferior races.” Darwin was wrong in assuming that his opinion (that all men deserved freedom and dignity) would not prevail. He had every reason to think it wouldn’t.
But the extermination was immoral. You seem to have conflated the actual behavior, with the observation of it. The former is immoral; the latter is not.
