Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[TLK Valentine]

Have you done any looking into as to what that "entire race of people" consisted of?

You were about to tell us that -- and why it justified omnicide.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. Try again. And thanks! Thanks for taking the time to not only counter my points [which, having been made over more than just one post you seem to have missed] with your usual adroitness, but by having done so, you show that you're willing to then not only double down in dogmatic fashion such as you atheists all too often do but to even triple down, if needed.

Yeah, I can see why you'd need to do so, as flimsy as your position is.

Do you study Ethics in any capacity, Bradskii? Or do you just want to give the impression to passerbys that your more or less 'Intuitionist' perspective on Ethics is somehow a simple, straight forward, self-evident moral tell-all to any and everyone who takes umbrage with your presumptions and your resulting moral (and psychological?) evaluations.

That some people accept that God can justifiably drown every person on the planet certainly raises questions about what else they would consider to be justified. Is there anything that actually couldn't be acceptable?

You write a lot but don't say much. And getting a direct answer from you makes me think I should have taken up dentistry. But let's give it a go: On the assumption that it happened, do you personally think it could be justified?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That some people accept that God can justifiably drown every person on the planet certainly raises questions about what else they would consider to be justified. Is there anything that actually couldn't be acceptable?

When you believe that the Biblical God actually exists and the ramifications of the Great Flood narrative become a live option for you and something over which to be concerned, you let me know and we'll have a chat about it.

Thus far in life, I've not been persuaded that I need to assume a literal perspective of the Great Flood account. Nor do I need be concerned about its moral value from my limited human perspective.

Even if it was literally true and I knew it to be so, does it follow that I need to give an account of my recognition of this understanding to other people in order to demonstrate that I'm a "morally" inclined individual rather than a punked out sociopath?

You write a lot but don't say much. And getting a direct answer from you makes me think I should have taken up dentistry. But let's give it a go: On the assumption that it happened, do you personally think it could be justified?

It might be justifiable in human terms, but are we talking on the level of Internalism or Externalism when we inquire into this possibility?

To cut to an answer, I'm going to say it'd comport with neither internalism or externalism, because even IF you or I could come face to face [for want of a better concept] with the Lord Almighty, such as He is as a "Thing-In-Itself," neither of us would still be able to fathom the mind of such a Transcendent Being and no referencing of the DSM-5 or of any Oxford books on Ethics would get us to where we could ...

In other words: We'd still be shocked and awed by it all, regardless.

Until then, and in the meantime, we can just flip the page and move on through Genesis chapter 7 ... or something.

 

[sjastro]

Interesting word Omnicide, I thought it might have referred to the cancellation of Omni Magazine the well known science/science fiction publication of the late 20th century renowned for its bizarre covers.

​

Richard Feynman was interviewed by Omni magazine and was promptly shamed by his mum.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When you believe that the Biblical God actually exists and the ramifications of the Great Flood narrative become a live option for you and something over which to be concerned, you let me know and we'll have a chat about it.

It's not the God who's the immediate problem; it's His fan club.

With Him as a role model, the OP makes a lot more sense -- who knows what they'd happily do in His name?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not the God who's the immediate problem; it's His fan club.

With Him as a role model, the OP makes a lot more sense -- who knows what they'd happily do in His name?

Sure. But as I mentioned in a post elsewhere, there are more factors that correlate to (and more than likely contribute to the actual causation of) racism and any accompanying violent practices than simply whether or not a person subscribes to the Theory of Evolution.

In the case of racists who supposedly identify as 'Christians,' particularly in the U.S. today, a lot of it comes down to local sub-cultural influences and modes of interpreting the bible which result from eisegesis and/or racial solipsism rather than from scholarly exegesis on a wide scale.

The old bogeyman of the so-called "Curse of Ham" is a typical case in point of a biblical trope that has been misread and misapplied, only to contribute to racist attitudes and, as in centuries gone past, even to the perpetuation of social constructs like Antebellum slavery.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said, if you do justify that then you could justify anything. And that's probably the most chilling statement one could make.

Suit yourself.

I take it you don't believe Jesus walked on water.

Does my belief that He give you the chills as well?

And don't you find it ironic that you want to discuss the killing of little children, when all around you your modern society, supported by modern academia, is killing little children before they even get a chance to see the light of day?

 

[AV1611VET]

And may I add it is not a very fine man that doesn't recognize your avatar.

Can't say as I do.

He must not be as famous as mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

With Him as a role model, the OP makes a lot more sense -- who knows what they'd happily do in His name?

Should I switch my avatar to Norma McCorvey, so you guys will appreciate it more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't say as I do.

He must not be as famous as mine.

I would disagree on that. For one thing, he was real. It is a bit of a shame that anyone that tries to debate science does not recognize the man immediately.

 

[AV1611VET]

The old bogeyman of the so-called "Curse of Ham" is a typical case in point of a biblical trope that has been misread and misapplied, only to contribute to racist attitudes and, as in centuries gone past, even to the perpetuation of social constructs like Antebellum slavery.

Academia used to think it was Ham that was cursed, until they realized that it was Canaan, not Ham, that was cursed.

Canaan, as you know, settled in what is now the Promised Land.

So now academia has to try and make us look racist some other way.

Thus this thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting word Omnicide, I thought it might have referred to the cancellation of Omni Magazine the well known science/science fiction publication of the late 20th century renowned for its bizarre covers.

​

Richard Feynman was interviewed by Omni magazine and was promptly shamed by his mum.

Well, y'know, I suppose it should be considered a huge honor to appear in a Bob Guccione publication.

Right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would disagree on that. For one thing, he was real. It is a bit of a shame that anyone that tries to debate science does not recognize the man immediately.

I have no idea who that guy is. Not a clue.

And the fact that he's real or not means nothing to my facial recognition skills.

I don't have a clue as to who Philo's avatar is either; and I suspect he's not real.

I'm just pointing out that I think my avatar trumps Bradski's in the name-that-tune category.

 

[AV1611VET]

You were about to tell us that -- and why it justified omnicide.

Just say NO.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Academia used to think it was Ham that was cursed, until they realized that it was Canaan, not Ham, that was cursed.

Canaan, as you know, settled in what is now the Promised Land.

So now academia has to try and make us look racist some other way.

Thus this thread.

My point in bringing up the alleged Curse of Ham (or the Curse of Cain for that matter) is that it was commonly used to justify the racial degradation and enslavement of African peoples for the service of white ones, even supposed Christian white ones. There are some more cultic pseudo-Christian racist groups still today who refer to these passages to buttress their racist claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the assumption that it happened, do you personally think it could be justified?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

With Him as a role model, the OP makes a lot more sense -- who knows what they'd happily do in His name?

Love their enemies?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are some more cultic pseudo-Christian racist groups still today who refer to these passages to buttress their racist claims.

Ya -- the KKK comes to mind.

But academia does too, when they get on my case for not owning slaves with respect to [their interpretation of] the Bible.

It's like they want to start another civil war or something.

(And I could go on about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Hunts, all passed off in colleges as Biblically-motivated atrocities done with respect to the Bible.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that the flood myth was refuted over 200 years ago, don't you?

On paper, yes.

 

[sjastro]

Well, y'know, I suppose it should be considered a huge honor to appear in a Bob Guccione publication.

Right?

It's perfectly consistent given the articles published in Omni stuck to the bare facts.