Do you agree with Napoleon that "religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich”?

First topic message reminder :

"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes“, wrote Karl Marx, which translates as "religion is the opium of the people" (and is sometimes referred to as "religion is the opiate of the masses”). He said: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Marx believed that all of history is the story of social classes and their struggles with each other over resources and wealth. One effect of opium (other than relieving physical pain) is to give you an extended period of relaxation, not the will to fight your oppressors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Even before Karl Marx had been born in Germany in 1818, Napoleon Bonaparte came out with this opinion: “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Nowadays we have computer games and dumbed-down television – the X Factor, Strictly Bruce Forsyth, fifth rate so-called celebrities eating maggots in the jungle – to keep people quiet. But is religion the only thing that stops the poor from committing murder and mayhem?

The idea is that religion encourages us to accept our lot and put up with inequalities and unfairness, because the next life will be better than this one, as long as we behave ourselves here. We’re supposed to be fobbed off with stories about how the rich will get their comeuppance in due course, because apparently it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the toffs to get to heaven. Of course, to be able to murder the rich, you need the ability to get close to them, weapons and a lack of fear of the possible consequences of your actions. Perhaps those factors do keep a lot of people “in their place”. As Einstein said: “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”

If conditions become so unbearable that people are starving and have nothing to lose, they are likely to take the law into their own hands eventually. Napoleon would have been well aware of what Parisians did in July 1789, when the price of bread reached an all-time high. The religious beliefs of most French people didn’t stop the mass slaughter of their rich; in any case, the Catholic Church was seen as a wealthy part of the establishment. In Russia in 1917, ice on the railway lines outside Petrograd prevented food supplies from reaching the city, and religion couldn’t have prevented the revolution that followed.

Could it be the welfare state, providing a safety net, which stops the poor from murdering the rich? Does social democracy modify sufficiently the worst excesses of capitalism to prevent the poor from rising and killing the rich and powerful? Research has shown that those societies which are the most equal are the least violent:-
http://classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

So do you agree with Napoleon? Some might argue that religion has never stopped the rich from murdering the poor, but maybe that’s another story…..

I'll believe something metaphysical exists when and only when the empirical evidence is published in worthy scientific journal, and is peer reviewed, and accepted as true by a scientific consensus.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I would believe it even then.

I think something as amorphous and ephemeral as a "metaphysical" experience would have to be experienced by me first hand in order for me to put 100% stock in it.

Oh so true shirina, the RC church is absolutely riddled with things that it certainly could improve, especially aswell the last pope hiding in the vatican,whilst they shred up all the evidence of child abuse within the roman catholic church. Instead he should be standing trial for his offences.

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote: To be Atheist really simply means to be anti Christian

This is a misapprehension held by Christians who know no better. Atheism, to an atheist, is lacking a belief in any god. It does not require antagonism towards any religion; obviously there are anti-Christian atheists but, even then, they tend to be opposed to all religions.

I suppose it is anti-Christian mostly because Atheism was a Western invention, and I know it has been around forever but the modern Atheism really began with Darwin, and it was a big conversion of Christian into the Atheism, and as said Atheism is compatible with Judaism and other religions are just not relevant to the Atheist, as the bitterness to other religions can be included as done for racial, social and economical reasons.

Link = At the core of "civil rights" is the God-ordained value of each individual.

Here in the USA the white American Christians started turning to Atheism when their power structure started to collapse as the African Americans used the Christianity in the Civil Rights movement, so that was a big motivator for American whites to give up the Christianity as the Atheism gave the whites their same old racist power structure to replace the Christianity.

I have heard tails about the UK, as in the main Christianity is State controlled so again there is a renewed power structure by being Atheist. And of course it was India under the Mahatma Gandhi who showed how true religion was stronger then the British Christian superiority complex.

Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved.

We talk of the uk religion or lack of it, and uk atheism/atheists. this will of course not fit in with your usa religion.

JP Cusick wrote:

Norm Deplume wrote:

JP Cusick wrote: To be Atheist really simply means to be anti Christian

This is a misapprehension held by Christians who know no better. Atheism, to an atheist, is lacking a belief in any god. It does not require antagonism towards any religion; obviously there are anti-Christian atheists but, even then, they tend to be opposed to all religions.

I suppose it is anti-Christian mostly because Atheism was a Western invention, and I know it has been around forever but the modern Atheism really began with Darwin, and it was a big conversion of Christian into the Atheism, and as said Atheism is compatible with Judaism and other religions are just not relevant to the Atheist, as the bitterness to other religions can be included as done for racial, social and economical reasons.

Link = At the core of "civil rights" is the God-ordained value of each individual.

Here in the USA the white American Christians started turning to Atheism when their power structure started to collapse as the African Americans used the Christianity in the Civil Rights movement, so that was a big motivator for American whites to give up the Christianity as the Atheism gave the whites their same old racist power structure to replace the Christianity.

I have heard tails about the UK, as in the main Christianity is State controlled so again there is a renewed power structure by being Atheist. And of course it was India under the Mahatma Gandhi who showed how true religion was stronger then the British Christian superiority complex.

Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved.

Hells bells, what utter drivel, atheism isn't an invention it quite palpably is a default position, theism is an invention, of the human imagination as it happens.

Ok, it's tales about the uk, not tails...nonetheless, India's fight for independence had nada to do with religious superiority, it was driven by the simple fact that people have the right to be free, and ultimately their independence was inevitable, though the world could have done without the disaster of partitioning and the creation of Pakistan, with the inevitable sectarian violence that has resulted.

You save the best drivel till last, "racist ideal of evolution" is absolute rubbish, how can evolution be racist, that's absurd. Only humans are racist, evolution as a mechanism for driving life on this planet would be entirely oblivious to race, the human race doesn't subdivide anyway. Evolution and genetics clearly show that the disparate nature of human appearance belies the fact genetically we're identical. Genes diversify as a species ages, and there is less diversity between the genome of any two humans than there would be between two gorillas living in the same forest, because gorillas are an older species. please do try and read up a little on evolution, as your willfully ignorant claims about it are painful to read.

JP Cusick wrote:Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved.

At no point does the Theory of Evolution by natural selection discriminate along human racial lines. Evolution doesn't have ideals. All extant life on Earth is equally as evolved. It has to be as evolution has been going on for exactly the same length of time for all life.

Like I SAID Sheldon, i've had to give up with him because he's driving me crazy. He has no religion, does not worship, yet still says that he is a christian? how I do not know lol 

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Hells bells, what utter drivel, atheism isn't an invention it quite palpably is a default position, theism is an invention, of the human imagination as it happens.

Ok, it's tales about the uk, not tails...nonetheless, India's fight for independence had nada to do with religious superiority, it was driven by the simple fact that people have the right to be free, and ultimately their independence was inevitable, though the world could have done without the disaster of partitioning and the creation of Pakistan, with the inevitable sectarian violence that has resulted.

You save the best drivel till last, "racist ideal of evolution" is absolute rubbish, how can evolution be racist, that's absurd. Only humans are racist, evolution as a mechanism for driving life on this planet would be entirely oblivious to race, the human race doesn't subdivide anyway. Evolution and genetics clearly show that the disparate nature of human appearance belies the fact genetically we're identical. Genes diversify as a species ages, and there is less diversity between the genome of any two humans than there would be between two gorillas living in the same forest, because gorillas are an older species. please do try and read up a little on evolution, as your willfully ignorant claims about it are painful to read.  

I stand by what I said as still being accurate and true.

This quote above is childish.


================================================

Sam Hunter wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved.

At no point does the Theory of Evolution by natural selection discriminate along human racial lines.   Evolution doesn't have ideals. All extant life on Earth is equally as evolved. It has to be as evolution has been going on for exactly the same length of time for all life.

The theory is not racist - of course not - it is the white superiority complex that is racist - as if that was not already said.

You both are driving that point home when you conveniently ignore what I said and then hide behind that unfitting denial.

I stand by what I said as still being accurate and true. This quote above is childish. wrote:JP Cusick

Hilarious, you were being ironic right? Did you stamp your foot when you typed that?

Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, wrote:JP Cusick

The theory is not racist - of course not, wrote:JP Cusick

Oh dear.....

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I stand by what I said as still being accurate and true. This quote above is childish. wrote:JP Cusick

Hilarious, you were being ironic right? Did you stamp your foot when you typed that?

Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, wrote:JP Cusick

The theory is not racist - of course not, wrote:JP Cusick

Oh dear.....

If you can not understand what is said then that is your own defect and not mine.

JP Cusick wrote:The theory is not racist - of course not - it is the white superiority complex that is racist - as if that was not already said.

What "white superiority complex" are you referring to with regards to the "racist ideals of evolution"?  You need to be clear about what you're talking about.

JP Cusick wrote:You both are driving that point home when you conveniently ignore what I said and then hide behind that unfitting denial.

I didn't ignore what you wrote, I corrected your misrepresentation of evolution. It wasn't an unfitting(?) denial, it was a recognition of an error, and I wasn't hiding behind anything. Were I to hide, you would tell by me not being here.
And that last line of yours could be taken as saying that I was driving home a racist point. It's lucky that I'm not easily offended.

So far your replies have had a slightly unfriendly tone to them. I'm not sure what I've done to warrant that except make polite points to you. Perhaps we could just go with the polite discussion option...

Cusick it seems is one of those wishy washy theists who makes their beliefs up as he goes along. Not surprising really given he seems to make everything up as he goes along. He has pointedly ignored every piece of evidence that is presented in refutation of the claims he's made, and makes no attempt to either answer that evidence or present cogent evidence for his own claims.

JP Cusick wrote:I suppose it is anti-Christian mostly because Atheism was a Western invention, and I know it has been around forever but the modern Atheism really began with Darwin, and it was a big conversion of Christian into the Atheism, and as said Atheism is compatible with Judaism and other religions are just not relevant to the Atheist, as the bitterness to other religions can be included as done for racial, social and economical reasons.

Here you are merely repeating your incorrect assumptions, albeit in a less direct manner.
Atheism is not 'anti-Christian': it is a position in which no gods are believed (or assumed) to exist. [Note that not believing in gods is not the same as believing that gods do not exist.]

As for 'bitterness to other religions', you are working from a false premise. Being opposed to (in the sense of holding enmity towards rather than simply disagreeing with the precepts of) a religion is not part of atheism no matter how much theists would like it to be.

Hi Sheldon - unfortunately that is the eventual fallback position of all Theists, because the bible (and other religious texts) was written a long time ago by people without the understanding of the world that we have today. It is full of contradictions, and primitive philosophies and simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny by anyone with a modern education and basic understanding of logic.

JP Cusick wrote:... I suppose it is anti-Christian mostly because Atheism was a Western invention, ...

The philosophy of Confucius is essentially atheistic humanism and dates from 500 BCE and predates western atheism by at least a few centuries. Even Epicurus (Greece ~300 BCE who disavowed godly intervention was not actually an atheist.

JP Cusick wrote:...and I know it has been around forever but the modern Atheism really began with Darwin...

The term was coined however came from France in the 16th century. However atheism has developed over a much longer period than you suggest. I would suggest looking at The History of Atheism to get a perspective.

As for Darwin, he was very conflicted about the impact of his book on religion (I lived near Down House for a number of years) and clearly, after the death of his young daughter, his religion weakened to the extent that he stopped going to church but he was never an atheist. He claimed to be an agnostic - rumours of his reconversion to christianity on his death bed were denied by the family.

You are mistaken if you think the the very loud and public argument between Huxley and Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce over evolution was in any way a start of modern atheism. It was merely the most public face of something that had been going on for quite some time. David Hume had been writing influential philosophical works 'debunking' much of religion some 100 years before.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

JP Cusick wrote: I stand by what I said as still being accurate and true.

Hilarious, you were being ironic right? Did you stamp your foot when you typed that?

JP Cusick wrote:
Particularly the racist ideals of evolution,

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:
The theory is not racist - of course not - it is the white superiority complex that is racist - as if that was not already said.

Oh dear.....

I figure that I need to follow-up on this one.

It just amazes me that you would call yourself as a "Dr." and a "PhD" and yet be so vacant and can not figure out such a simple thing for your self.

The theory of evolution is interpreted in evil and hateful and particularly in racist ways because the interpreters have malice intent.

We covered this before already, but in this case I am very pleased to explain it again.  

Many people do the same malice to the Bible, as their malice intent is infected into everything they view.

I really do not see that as having been too complicated to figure out - Doc.

==========================================

Sam Hunter wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The theory is not racist - of course not - it is the white superiority complex that is racist - as if that was not already said.

What "white superiority complex" are you referring to with regards to the "racist ideals of evolution"?  You need to be clear about what you're talking about.

Actually I really did already gave specific example of the racist ideals of evolution.

But fortunately I love to repeat things, and especially to repeat things like this, and so I will even use a direct copy-and-paste just to demonstrate.

As said before:
"Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved."
Link to that posting HERE.

So playing dumb seems rather foolish when the forum itself has a computerized record of everything said right here to see.

JP Cusick wrote:Here in the USA the white American Christians started turning to Atheism when their power structure started to collapse as the African Americans used the Christianity in the Civil Rights movement, so that was a big motivator for American whites to give up the Christianity as the Atheism gave the whites their same old racist power structure to replace the Christianity.

Hmm, you should know that this doesn't have any basis in reality, and it isn't too difficult to prove.

Atheism exists primarily in the northern states where the word "liberalism" isn't considered profane. In the north, slavery was prohibited almost before the ink on the Constitution was dry. That's not to say that there was no racism in the north, but it was far less than in the southern states.

Now ... what are many of the southern states known as? Yep ... the Bible Belt! Now why would former slave states be called the Bible Belt if white American Christians gave up their religion to embrace atheism? The truth is, they never did any such thing. The southern states - former slave states - are far more religious than the northern free states. Where did most of the Civil Rights confrontations take place? Oh right, the southern states. You know, like Selma, Alabama with the police standing there as attack dogs and fire hoses brought down those African Americans tired of having their vote denied. Or how about when Gov. Wallace of Alabama refused to allow black students to attend school with white students even after a federal law prohibited segregation in schools? Where were those horrible black Baptist church bombings? Yep ... Bible Belt states. Former slave states. States where racism is alive and well then and today. And where was Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated? Ahem, yeah, Tennessee -- yet another Bible Belt and former slave state. Then there were the Freedom Riders, usually white civil rights activists who traveled from the north down to the south to help the African American cause. Funny how these folks had to travel halfway across the country -- from the liberal, more atheistic north all the way to the conservative, more religious south -- in order to campaign against civil rights violations against blacks.

The bottom line is that you cannot even begin to claim that Christians gave up their religion because of the civil rights movement. That isn't even remotely historical. The former slave states always was, and still is, a religious bastion in this country. In truth, trying to associate racism with atheism is extremely disingenuous and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Cusick says:
"Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved."

Its seems to me that you are trying to blame evolution for racisim. Racists are racists, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. You cannot blame the manufacturing process of white cotton sheets for the behaviour of the KKK who wear those sheets. Evolution simmilarly has nothing to do with racism. If no one had worked out that evolution took place, racists would still be claiming that one race was better than another.

Bearman wrote:Evolution simmilarly has nothing to do with racism. If no one had worked out that evolution took place, racists would still be claiming that one race was better than another.

You are getting the point confused.

Evolution may not have anything to do with racism (which is debatable).

But racism has made itself to have something to do with the evolution.

Big distinction there.

The black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved, while every other race fits in between.

It just amazes me that you would call yourself as a \"Dr." and a "PhD" and yet be so vacant and can not figure out such a simple thing for your self. The theory of evolution is interpreted in evil and hateful and particularly in racist ways because the interpreters have malice intent. wrote:JP Cusick

My username is a nom de plume, it's a character from a sitcom, my avatar is a photo of that character, and it's an American sitcom, a multiple award winning American sitcom at that. Frankly I'm a little surprised you're ignorant of it, but given the ignorance you've displayed elsewhere not that surprised.

Now to your asinine assertions about evolution. Its an insentient process, and the scientific theory is a mechanism we use to understand how it works, it's not therefore racist, nor can it be, nor can it be interpreted as racist by anyone with even a passing understanding of evolution, so you see by stating what you did, and many other remarks you've confirmed that you know less than nothing about evolution. Oh and if you're going to insult peoples intelligence you'd best improve your literacy, as the phrase is malicious intent, not "malice intent".

Many people do the same malice to the Bible, as their malice intent is infected into everything they view. I really do not see that as having been too complicated to figure out - Doc. wrote:JP Cusick

Ignoring the semi literate grammar, we see you yet again make another tedious and unevidenced claim, what is it you think this achieves? Incidentally theologians, and philosophers have studied scripture and ontological arguments about the nature of knowledge for thousands of years to try and answer questions as to it's veracity, the fact you think it's not too complicated to figure out is telling everyone something about you, and no, it's not that you're a genius unequalled throughout human history.

Actually I really did already gave specific example of the racist ideals of evolution. wrote:JP Cusick

Yes you did, then recanted it, for the record it's still an asinine assertion, as evolution is insentient as you've been told, and are now being told again, so it can't be racist, racism is a human concept, you really are making yourself look silly. If people try to project their racism onto evolution, which I suspect is what you're trying but failing to say, then they, just like you, are merely showing their complete ignorance of evolution.

As said before: Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved. Link to that posting [url=https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t813p40-do-you-agree-with-napoleon-that-religion-is-what-keeps-the-poor-from-murdering-the-rich#44965]HERE[/url]. So playing dumb seems rather foolish when the forum itself has a computerized record of everything said right here to see. wrote:JP Cusick

A repetition of the same idiocy, and once more in the forlorn hope you'll be able to grasp the simple concept, evolution is insentient, and cannot therefore be racist, which is a human concept and requires a sentient mind. As for playing dumb, I sincerely hope you are being deliberately obtuse. I've already explained that if you tested the genome of any two humans, no matter how disparate in appearance, lets say an Eskimo and Aborigine, and then tested the genome of two gorillas from the same forest, you'd find more genetic diversity between the two Gorillas than the two humans. The idea of race is itself a bit of a misnomer as the human "race" does not subdivide, are you getting it yet?

JP Cusick wrote:

Bearman wrote:Evolution simmilarly has nothing to do with racism. If no one had worked out that evolution took place, racists would still be claiming that one race was better than another.

You are getting the point confused.

Evolution may not have anything to do with racism (which is debatable).

But racism has made itself to have something to do with the evolution.

Big distinction there.

The black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved, while every other race fits in between.

Hells bells, it's not debatable at all, and it's you who is confused, why on earth you want to make assertions about something you're clearly completely ignorant of, like evolution, is beyond me. This is beyond stupid, and I really can't dumb it down any more for you.  

JP Cusick wrote:The theory of evolution is interpreted in evil and hateful and particularly in racist ways because the interpreters have malice intent.

While I'm quite certain that one could visit a white supremecist's website and find a twisted interpretation of evolution, that would be an exceedingly biased interpretation that has no basis in science. In fact, science has pointed out that there is no real genetic difference between the so-called "races" of humanity. The differences are superficial at best. The scientific defintion of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with racism, and the scientific definition is the only one that matters as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately, Christian apologists love trotting out this argument, claiming that the teaching of evolution teaches us that we're animals, ergo, we'll all start acting like animals (of course, animals often behave better than humans do). They'll spew forth propaganda saying that evolution is all about "survival of the fittest" which gives us license to kill people weaker than ourselves. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Of course, none of that is true.

JP Cusick wrote:Many people do the same malice to the Bible, as their malice intent is infected into everything they view.

It's not at all the same. Evolution does not command one tribe to completely destroy another tribe. Evolution doesn't have a "god" at its head telling people to murder children and kidnap virgins. Evolution doesn't tell its adherents to be intolerant of other religions, telling its followers to go out and slay creationists wherever we find them.

Those who interpret evolution with malice are transposing racist ideals onto the theory that do not actually exist. In other words, evolution is not about human races nor does it try to claim that one race is better than the other. Evolution does not claim that it is okay to enslave or kill the inferior race. Pick up a science textbook and show me where such a thing is said?

The Bible, on the other hand, states in black and white the genocide, the infanticide, the murder, the conquest, and the oppression of other peoples -- namely non-Christians. Ever notice how the Bible always talks about non-Christians engaging in "evil" yet it never describes what this "evil" actually is? My supposition is that the big evil is simply not worshiping the right God. And that, my friend, is malice. It is an enraged God furious that this city or that culture isn't worshiping him.

We don't even need to "interpret" a passage that specifically says to kill everyone right down to the little ones. What is there to spin? What possible escape hatch can any Christian use to wheedle out of the cold blooded murder of children? Under what set of circumstances does murdering kids become acceptable, even moral? If God told me to kill kids, I would want to know why -- God or no God. Did the Israelites ever ask? No ... they must went out and mindlessly butchered in the name of their desert tribal god.

And you think I'm the one holding all of the malice?

We don't even need to \"interpret" a passage that specifically says to kill everyone right down to the little ones. What is there to spin? What possible escape hatch can any Christian use to wheedle out of the cold blooded murder of children? Under what set of circumstances does murdering kids become acceptable, even moral? If God told me to kill kids, I would want to know why -- God or no God. Did the Israelites ever ask? No ... they must went out and mindlessly butchered in the name of their desert tribal god. wrote:Shirina

It's also worth remembering that they traditionally claim their god to be omnipotent, so he could have freed the Israelites just by wishing it, he could have prevented them being slaves in the first place, but instead we're to believe that a god with both omniscience and omnipotence preferred to orchestrate a scenario where it murdered in cold blood tens of thousands of children.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:My username is a nom de plume, it's a character from a sitcom, my avatar is a photo of that character, and it's an American sitcom, a multiple award winning American sitcom at that. Frankly I'm a little surprised you're ignorant of it, but given the ignorance you've displayed elsewhere not that surprised.

I do not like sitcoms even though I have watched a few.

Thank you for telling about your user name as now I can take back all that negativity that I was thinking about you.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Now to your assertions about evolution. Its an insentient process, and the scientific theory is a mechanism we use to understand how it works, it's not therefore racist, nor can it be, nor can it be interpreted as racist by anyone with even a passing understanding of evolution,

It is a truth about evolution, and it is type of weapon that my fellow whites use here in the USA to promote the white superiority.

Evolution tells us that the 1st humans came out of Africa, and that means the 1st humans were African black people, and then later the people traveled over into Asia and others migrated into Europe and evolved into the white or Caucasian race. Thereby the whites are the upper evolved and the blacks are the lower evolved. So the evolution of today is no different then the mentality of the whites in the old slave Plantations.

I am not the one who made it interpreted that way, and in fact I dislike it immensely, especially since I see a lot of the theory of evolution is accurate - but not meant to be racist.

My white people misinterpret the Bible in similar racist and malicious ways too, and I do not like them doing that either.

JP Cusick wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:My username is a nom de plume, it's a character from a sitcom, my avatar is a photo of that character, and it's an American sitcom, a multiple award winning American sitcom at that. Frankly I'm a little surprised you're ignorant of it, but given the ignorance you've displayed elsewhere not that surprised.

I do not like sitcoms even though I have watched a few.

Thank you for telling about your user name as now I can take back all that negativity that I was thinking about you.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Now to your assertions about evolution. Its an insentient process, and the scientific theory is a mechanism we use to understand how it works, it's not therefore racist, nor can it be, nor can it be interpreted as racist by anyone with even a passing understanding of evolution,

It is a truth about evolution, and it is type of weapon that my fellow whites use here in the USA to promote the white superiority.

Evolution tells us that the 1st humans came out of Africa, and that means the 1st humans were African black people, and then later the people traveled over into Asia and others migrated into Europe and evolved into the white or Caucasian race. Thereby the whites are the upper evolved and the blacks are the lower evolved. So the evolution of today is no different then the mentality of the whites in the old slave Plantations.

I am not the one who made it interpreted that way, and in fact I dislike it immensely, especially since I see a lot of the theory of evolution is accurate - but not meant to be racist.

My white people misinterpret the Bible in similar racist and malicious ways too, and I do not like them doing that either.

Once again you are making statements about evolution that prove you are shockingly ignorant on the subject, seriously this post of yours is risible nonsense, you really ought to do some reading on the subject.

Thereby the whites are the upper evolved and the blacks are the lower evolved. wrote:JP Cusick

Dear oh dear that is absolute rubbish, in no way is that nonsense validated by evolution at all.  

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

We don't even need to \"interpret" a passage that specifically says to kill everyone right down to the little ones. What is there to spin? What possible escape hatch can any Christian use to wheedle out of the cold blooded murder of children? Under what set of circumstances does murdering kids become acceptable, even moral? If God told me to kill kids, I would want to know why -- God or no God. Did the Israelites ever ask? No ... they must went out and mindlessly butchered in the name of their desert tribal god. wrote:Shirina

It's also worth remembering that they traditionally claim their god to be omnipotent, so he could have freed the Israelites just by wishing it, he could have prevented them being slaves in the first place, but instead we're to believe that a god with both omniscience and omnipotence preferred to orchestrate a scenario where it murdered in cold blood tens of thousands of children.

LOL! Yes indeedy. I actually addressed this point in another thread.  

JP Cusick wrote:Actually I really did already gave specific example of the racist ideals of evolution.

But fortunately I love to repeat things, and especially to repeat things like this, and so I will even use a direct copy-and-paste just to demonstrate.

As said before:
"Particularly the racist ideals of evolution, where the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved."
Link to that posting HERE.

So playing dumb seems rather foolish when the forum itself has a computerized record of everything said right here to see.

JP,

I wasn't playing dumb, and I did remember your previous post. I'm also aware that I can go back to look at it again at any time.

What I'm trying to put across to you is that there is no racism, in any form, in evolution. You stated that "the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved". But viewed by whom? You don't say who holds these views or how they link them to evolution. You made a very general, unsupported statement. Can you back this up? Can you show that this view is held by people and that they specifically hold it as a valid aspect of evolutionary theory?

I like Sam. He's the male version of Shirina

snowyflake wrote:I like Sam. He's the male version of Shirina

Thanks, Snowyflake.  

JP Cusick wrote:To be Atheist really simply means to be anti Christian, as an Atheist can still be Jewish.

To be Atheist, sorry 'atheist' as we atheists do not tend to have the capital, simply means to be anti-god. All the religions then tumble like a house of cards. Two possible exceptions being atheistic (potentially) religions like Buddhism and the Unitarian Church.

Heretic

Sam Hunter wrote:
JP,

I wasn't playing dumb, and I did remember your previous post. I'm also aware that I can go back to look at it again at any time.

What I'm trying to put across to you is that there is no racism, in any form, in evolution. You stated that "the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved". But viewed by whom? You don't say who holds these views or how they link them to evolution. You made a very general, unsupported statement. Can you back this up? Can you show that this view is held by people and that they specifically hold it as a valid aspect of evolutionary theory?

I really did specify that it is done here in my own USA, but this time I do not feel like copy/pasting the info again.

Now-a-days white people are very concerned about NOT being exposed as a racist, so the racism has gone under-cover but it is still there.

However - what I did say and you have in BOLD above is a self-evident claim, as the evidence is built into the words for anyone to see.

 

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Cusick it seems is one of those wishy washy theists who makes their beliefs up as he goes along.  Not surprising really given he seems to make everything up as he goes along.  He has pointedly ignored every piece of evidence that is presented in refutation of the claims he's made, and makes no attempt to either answer that evidence or present cogent evidence for his own claims.

Spins' half brother?

Thereby the whites are the upper evolved and the blacks are the lower evolved. wrote:JP Cusick

Dear oh dear that is absolute rubbish, in no way is that nonsense validated by evolution at all.  [/quote



much to our shame some of our early western academics (back in the day of only the few privileged going to university) those who had the wealth or the financial backing to go off and explore, also had a view of Arian superiority. they were soaked in the understanding that ancient Greece was the cradle of civilisation and the ancestors of the Greeks had invaded from the north (Arians). everything was evaluated according to this premise and as a result non Arian civilisations were seen as less than Arian ones in every way. the works written by these explorers and those that stayed at home and interpreted the findings of those explorers reflected these attitudes and as a result a series of text books were produced promoting the idea of racial inequality and purporting to apply 'scientific' method in doing so. of course time and science has moved on and we now look back and see how misguided and sometimes plain raciest those people were. but it's no surprise that there are still people around who wish to feel racially superior and refer back to those early works as still being relevant.

JP Cusick wrote:

Sam Hunter wrote:
JP,

I wasn't playing dumb, and I did remember your previous post. I'm also aware that I can go back to look at it again at any time.

What I'm trying to put across to you is that there is no racism, in any form, in evolution. You stated that "the black folk are viewed as the inferior (lower evolved) race and the whites are viewed as the upper evolved". But viewed by whom? You don't say who holds these views or how they link them to evolution. You made a very general, unsupported statement. Can you back this up? Can you show that this view is held by people and that they specifically hold it as a valid aspect of evolutionary theory?

I really did specify that it is done here in my own USA, but this time I do not feel like copy/pasting the info again.

Now-a-days white people are very concerned about NOT being exposed as a racist, so the racism has gone under-cover but it is still there.

However - what I did say and you have in BOLD above is a self-evident claim, as the evidence is built into the words for anyone to see.

 

I think you need to make the distinction between evolutionary theory and stuff people have made up to suit their racist views.

Dan Fante wrote:I think you need to make the distinction between evolutionary theory and stuff people have made up to suit their racist views.

I just do not see any way to make such a distinction.

The theory of evolution in its popular scientific explanation comes out as racist by preaching the white superiority and black inferiority.

The way that I myself explain it including God the Creator then my correct explanation is not racist as mine shows all humanity to be sons and daughters of the Creator Father-God.

My perspective would be that we need scientist and evolutionist and Atheist and teachers need to start teaching in realistic terms as to how the evolution is not racist, but I say those people simply do not preach that because the dominant views are the racist views and that is why the evolution is taught in the racist ways as it is done virtually everywhere - simply because evolution is indeed a racist ideology.

And just for the record - just saying (or denying) like this = "No, it is not racist" - is just saying nothing since it so obviously is a racist message.

JP Cusick wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:I think you need to make the distinction between evolutionary theory and stuff people have made up to suit their racist views.

I just do not see any way to make such a distinction.

The theory of evolution in its popular scientific explanation comes out as racist by preaching the white superiority and black inferiority.

Could you back that up by citing some peer reviewed scientific papers on evolution and highlighting the parts in them which are racist please?

JP Cusick wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:I think you need to make the distinction between evolutionary theory and stuff people have made up to suit their racist views.

I just do not see any way to make such a distinction.

The theory of evolution in its popular scientific explanation comes out as racist by preaching the white superiority and black inferiority.

The way that I myself explain it including God the Creator then my correct explanation is not racist as mine shows all humanity to be sons and daughters of the Creator Father-God.

My perspective would be that we need scientist and evolutionist and Atheist and teachers need to start teaching in realistic terms as to how the evolution is not racist, but I say those people simply do not preach that because the dominant views are the racist views and that is why the evolution is taught in the racist ways as it is done virtually everywhere - simply because evolution is indeed a racist ideology.

And just for the record - just saying (or denying) like this = "No, it is not racist" - is just saying nothing since it so obviously is a racist message.

You have this so wrong ! The theory of evolution does not preach white superiority or black inferiority and it is certainly not a racist ideology. Evloution is nothing more than a mechanism that creates new species. It works on the basis of natural selection where organisms adapt to changes in their environment. Black people are black as that is an adaption to living in hot climates. The skin colouration protects them from ultraviolet radiation form the sun. White people are adapted to living in colder climates, and have pale skin to enable them to absorb more light (vitamin D). People, and all other organisms are the way they are as that is how they have evolved to best survive in their environment. So anyone who says evolution is racist, are only demonstrating their own racist tendencies.

To say "evolution is taught in the racist ways as it is done virtually everywhere" is deeply ignorant. That may be true for some schools in the southern states, but it is not true of the northern states, or the majority of the rest of the world. You need to broaden your horizons and not make sweeping and unjustified statements.

JP Cusick wrote:The way that I myself explain it including God the Creator then my correct explanation is not racist as mine shows all humanity to be sons and daughters of the Creator Father-God.

You're doing the exact same thing the Christian apologists do.

They ignore the science behind evolution and instead focus on the wackjob ideologies a very small few have placed upon evolution.

The SCIENCE of evolution does not make the claim of racism. In fact, the SCIENCE says that there are no "races" of humanity as we are all virtually identical genetically speaking.

Therefore, the SCIENCE cannot be racist.

Has anyone ever told you that you seem obsessed with racism? You see it everywhere and in every topic even where it doesn't exist (like in, say, evolution).

In any event, it is clear to me that you're just latching on to some boneheaded reason ... ANY reason ... to reject evolution so you can insert your "Father-God" religion into the void.

JP Cusick wrote:My perspective would be that we need scientist and evolutionist and Atheist and teachers need to start teaching in realistic terms as to how the evolution is not racist

Every time a scientist and an evolutionist and an atheist and a teacher tells people that the "races" of humanity are identical, they are teaching how evolution isn't racist. In fact, every time I, or anyone else, writes on this forum about how humanity doesn't subdivide, we're teaching how it isn't racist. And every time you ignore what we say; every time you use willful ignorance to pretend you didn't read our posts, you turn evolution into a racist ideology via lying by omission.

JP, if, as you claim, "white people are very concerned about NOT being exposed as a racist, so the racism has gone under-cover but it is still there", then how does this tally with your other claim that "evolution is taught in the racist ways as it is done virtually everywhere". The two don't marry up. You can't have a situation where racism is both hidden and being taught openly in schools everywhere. Back to the drawing board methinks.

Dan Fante wrote:Could you back that up by citing some peer reviewed scientific papers on evolution and highlighting the parts in them which are racist please?

Here is one example = University of Connecticut - evolution

Second example = Smithsonian Institution magazine - picture

Those are 2 distinctive examples where the ape-people evolve into the white people.

It does not evolve into the different races or into humanity as a whole as the end or highest evolution is always the white man.

I dare you to show me otherwise?

JP Cusick wrote:It does not evolve into the different races or into humanity as a whole as the end or highest evolution is always the white man.

That's it? Because of a picture? I think you're reading more into it than what's actually there -- you're perceiving intent when you have no proof that it exists.

Besides, if those pictures showed an ape evolving into a black man, you'd be all over that too ... "That picture is showing that blacks are apes and therefore less than human!!! Evolution is racist!!!"