Wat versta jij precies onder een Darwinist?Geplaatst door Wouldcha3b
Wat versta jij precies onder een Darwinist?
Mensen die via de evolutietheorie athiesme promoten zoals bv lenin stalin moa zendeng en hitler die dat wou gebruiken voor zijn ubermens project.
Darwin, Nietzsche, and Hitler: Evolution of the Ubermensch
Benjamin Wiker | Tuesday May 13, 2008 3:01 AM
Share on Facebook
Judging by the number of posts, my recent column “Darwin and Hitler…in their Own Words” set the fur a-flying. Many folks just don’t like it when you trace a revered scientific icon to an icon of evil. Small wonder. Too bad it’s true.
Not to rub too much salt in the wound, but Darwinism is responsible for a lot more destruction than the eugenic fantasies of the Third Reich. He can also claim substantial patrimony for the rantings of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche that likewise inspired the intellectuals that surrounded and supported Hitler’s scheme.
Nietzsche is famous for declaring that “God is dead,” and asserting in his infamous Beyond Good and Evil, that mere morality, like religion, is for cowering slaves. The future must belong to the real masters, proclaimed Nietzsche just before the horrors of the 20th century, to those who disregard moral limits, override distinctions between good and evil, and shedding charity for cruelty, impose their will on others for the sake of their own earthly glory. http://humanevents.com/2008/05/13/da...he-ubermensch/
Nietzsche is inderdaad misbruikt door zeer louche types. De De übermensch zoals door hem beschreven werd later (nazi's!) misbruikt en tot Arier, gemaakt.
Dat kan Nietzsche niet worden verweten.
Ook is Darwin vaak misbruikt. Zie de survival of the fittest, ook verkeerd uitgelegd als de sterkste overwint, in de zin van de andere "kapot" maken.
Echte leugen, "fit" in Engels als passend = de organismen die zich het beste aanpaste aan veranderingen in hun leefomgeving, deze overleven.
Ook heeft Darwin nooit al dat onderzoek gedaan met het idee om ergens uit te komen om religie te ondermijnen.
Het principe van evolutie - aanzet voor de ET - toont een andere kijk op hoe de mens uiteindelijk is ontstaan, hoe dieren zijn gevolueerd.
Dat is een andere kijk dan bijbel en koran geven, dieren en mensen bewust geschapen in de vorm zoals wij nu kennen.
Er zijn inderdaad mensen, atheisten die deze wetenschappelijke inzichten gebruiken om aan te tonen dat het verhaal van bijbel/koran op dit punt niet juist is.
Ik begrijp dat jij dat als gelovige vervelend, maar in wezen doen christenen en moslims toch hetzelfde?
Voeren teksten aan uit hun heilige boeken om aan te tonen dat God/Allah bestaat en alles geschapen heeft?
Hitler en Stalin waren geen atheisten.
Dat was de ideologie van darwin een racistische ideologie wat de abrahamistische religies niet zijn.
Ga geschiedenis leren simplist stalin was een hardcore athiest die kerken en moskeen in de fik zette en relgie verboden was.Hitler gebruikte de boeken van darwin voor zijn ubermens project.
Zwart/wit gesteld maken de abrahamistische religies ook onderscheid tussen de gelovige Übermensch en ongelovige Untermensch ...
Zucht....
The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934
"I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath
En Stalin heeft op het seminarie gezeten. Dus zelfs een opleiding gedaan tot priester.
"In late 1888, aged 10 he enrolled at the Gori Church School.[22] This was normally reserved for the children of clergy, although Charkviani ensured that Stalin received a place.[23] Stalin excelled academically,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
Er staat nergens in de koran dat je anderdenkenden moet uitroeien zoals darwin promoot om de zwakkeren onder ons mensen uit te roeien . Tenminste iedere ziel is even veel waard in de koran ookal heb je sektes in de islam die daar anders over denken .
Waar en hoe promoot Darwin dat dan?
Roepen Wallace en Darwin wel om om de zwakkeren onder de andere mensen uit te roeien?
Wat verstaat men in dat opzicht dan onder "zwak".
De wetenschappelijke theorie van Wallace en Darwin en van velen na hun gaat toch over het ontstaan der soorten als ik het goed heb,
En dat de best aangepaste de grootste overlevingskansen heeft...
j'ai vu ta lumière dans ma jante
Leuk debateren met plaatjes.
https://www.salon.com/2017/07/08/for...-to-democracy/
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/0...from-this-one/
Maar wederom feitelijk geen onderbouwing.
Memes zijn vaak gewoon alleen echt fake news.
The Darwinian Foundation of Communism
by Dr. Jerry Bergman on April 1, 2001
Share:
Originally published in Journal of Creation 15, no 1 (April 2001): 89-95.
Summary
A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that 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. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions.
Darwinism as a worldview was a critical factor, not only in influencing the development of Nazism, but also in the rise of communism and the communist holocaust that, by one estimate, took the lives of more than 100 million persons.1 Marx, together with his forebears, associates and successors, was a doctrinaire evolutionist who tried to build his society on evolutionary premises. There is abundant documentation of this assessment and, few would even question it.2
Beate Wilder-Smith suggested that evolution is
‘a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that inbetween links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped” [emphasis in original].’3
Many extremists were active before Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, in 1859, but since religious faith prevailed among both scientists and non-scientists before Darwin, it was very difficult for these radicals to persuade the masses to accept communistic (or other leftist) ideologies. Partly for this reason, Western nations blocked the development of most radical movements for centuries. Darwin, however, opened the door to Marxism by providing what Marx believed was a ‘scientific’ rationale to deny Creation and, by extension, to deny God.4 His denial of God, and his knowledge of Darwin, inspired Marx to develop his new godless worldview now known as communism. And like other Darwinists, Marx stressed that his communistic worldview was ‘scientific’ and, as such, employed a ‘scientific methodology and scientific outlook’.5 Bethell notes that Marx admired Darwin’s book,
‘not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or “beyond” it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades . . . .’6
And historian Hofstadter noted that most of the early orthodox Marxists ‘felt quite at home in Darwinian surroundings. On the shelves of the socialist bookstores in Germany the words of Darwin and Marx stood side by side’.7 He adds that communist books ‘that came pouring forth from the Kerr presses in Chicago [the major U.S. publisher of Communist books] were frequently adorned with knowing citations from Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel’.7
Karl Marx
Born in 1818, Marx was baptized a Lutheran in 1824, attended a Lutheran elementary school, received praise for his ‘earnest’ essays on moral and religious topics, and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8,9,10 until he encountered Darwin’s writings and ideas at the University of Berlin. Marx wrote tirelessly until he died, producing hundreds of books, monographs and articles. Sir Isaiah Berlin even claimed that no thinker ‘in the nineteenth century has had so direct, deliberate and powerful an influence upon mankind as did Karl Marx’.11 Marx saw the living world in terms of a Darwinian ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ struggle, involving the triumph of the strong and the subjugation of the weak.12 Darwin taught that the ‘survival of the fittest’ existed among all forms of life. From this idea Marx believed that the major ‘struggle for existence’ among humans occurred primarily between the social classes. Barzun13 concluded that Marx believed his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s, and that,
‘like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life. . . . both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or esthetic quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product. Both Darwin and Marx [also] tended to hedge and modify their mechanical absolution in the face of objections.’14
Marx owed a major debt to Darwin for his central ideas. In Marx’s words: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history. . . . not only is it [Darwin’s book] a death blow . . . to “Teleology” in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained’.15 Marx first read Darwin’s Origin of Species only a year after its publication, and was so enthusiastic that he reread it two years later.116 He attended a series of lectures by Thomas Huxley on Darwin’s ideas, and spoke of ‘nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries’.17 According to a close associate, Marx was also
‘ . . . one of the first to grasp the significance of Darwin’s research. Even before 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of the Species [sic]—and, by a remarkable coincidence, of Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy—Marx realized Darwin’s epoch-making importance. For Darwin . . . was preparing a revolution similar to the one which Marx himself was working for . . . . Marx kept up with every new appearance and noted every step forward, especially in the fields of natural sciences . . . .’18
Berlin states that after he became a communist, Marx detested passionately any ‘belief in supernatural causes’.19 Stein noted that ‘Marx himself viewed Darwin’s work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views . . . ’.20 Hyman included Darwin and Marx among the four men he considered responsible for many of the most significant events of the 20th century.21 According to Heyer, Marx was ‘infatuated’ with Darwin, and Darwin’s ideas clearly had a major influence not only on him and Engels, but also on both Lenin and Stalin. Furthermore, these men’s writings frequently discussed Darwin’s ideas.22 Marx and Engels ‘enthusiastically embraced’ Darwinism, kept up with Darwin’s writings, and often corresponded with each other (and others) about their reactions to Darwin’s conclusions.23,24 The communists recognized the importance of Darwin to their movement and therefore vigorously defended him:
‘The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said, “ . . . this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view”. . . . And of all those eminent researchers of the nineteenth century who have left us such a rich heritage of knowledge, we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.’25
Prominent communist Friedrich Lessner concluded that Das Kapital and Darwin’s Origin of Species were the ‘two greatest scientific creations of the century’.26 The importance of Darwinism in the estimated 140 million deaths caused by communism was partly because:
‘Clearly, for Marx man has no “nature”. . . . For man is his own maker and will consciously become his own maker in complete freedom from morality or from the laws of nature and of nature’s God. . . . Here we see why Marxism justifies the ruthless sacrifice of men living today, men who, at this stage of history, are only partly human.’27
Halstead adds that the theoretical foundation of communism
‘ . . . is dialectical materialism which was expounded with great clarity by Frederick Engels in Anti-Dührüng and The Dialectics of Nature. He recognized the great value of the contributions made by geology in establishing that there was constant movement and change in nature and the significance of Darwin’s demonstration that this applied also to the organic world. . . . The crux of the entire theoretical framework, however, is in the nature of qualitative changes. This is also spelt out by Engels in The Dialectics of Nature, “a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another”. . . . Here then is the recipe for revolution.’28
Conner adds that communism teaches that by ‘defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of . . . reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order’, i.e. a communist revolution.
