Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: loco on January 15, 2008, 06:29:23 AM
-
Read/Discuss:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
-
Read/Discuss:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
So this is how natural selection is supposed to work? Sounds like Hitler's playbook.
-
So this is how natural selection is supposed to work? Sounds like Hitler's playbook.
I don't see why you are complaining, seems to go right along with your right wing republican policies.
-
I don't see why you are complaining, seems to go right along with your right wing republican policies.
I'm not complaining and I'm not a Republican.
And what does this have to do with what Darwin said?
-
You did mention Hitler - I assumed you were trying to reflect negatively on what Darwin said.
-
You did mention Hitler - I assumed you were trying to reflect negatively on what Darwin said.
Trying? Pretty obvious that Darwin sounds like a genocidal racist in that passage. I mentioned Hitler because it sounds precisely like what Hitler wanted to do--which of course has nothing to do with my politics.
-
So this is how natural selection is supposed to work?
No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets...
-
Read/Discuss:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Yes, why indeed do the weaker members of homo sapiens get cared for? Why doesn't "natural selection" weed them out?
The answer is simple, and two-fold.
1. "Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
Of course, in Darwin's day, the gene was unknown. Mendel's work was not known then. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's, in fact, that we had a working knowledge of natural selection!
2. Natural selection has a simple, and powerful, explanation for human altruism. Over the millenia, our ancestors lived in small groups where everyone was closely related. Thus, every person you met in your life was highly likely to be a close relative. If a gene arose, say, "for harming one's siblings" (and such genes are plentiful in the animal kingdom), then it would constitute a selection pressure against itself, because it would be destroying copies of itself.
Moreover, it's easy to see how genes can favor altruism towards others, as a means of enhancing their own survival. (This brings us to the interplay of evolutionary theory, economic game theory, and experimental biology!)
Hence, evolution "programmed" us to be altruistic towards others.
Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!
-
No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets...
::)
-
::)
..."Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
You're welcome :)
-
You're welcome :)
::) ::)
-
Trying? Pretty obvious that Darwin sounds like a genocidal racist in that passage. I mentioned Hitler because it sounds precisely like what Hitler wanted to do--which of course has nothing to do with my politics.
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
-
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
I'm aware of Hitler's plan. I spent four hours at the Holocaust Museum last summer. Eye opening.
-
Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!
Yeah, and while you are at it also give Darwin a history tutorial to let him know how he inspired Hitler to attempt to rule the world and to murder millions, reducing western Europe to ruins in the process.
Also tell Darwin how he inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.
I understand your explanation of natural selection above, but there is no denying the impact Darwin's words had on these people.
-
Did Darwin say go out and kill? Did he ask for genocide? Did he proclaim the theory of aryan superiority?
He merely observed nature, saw that "weaker" members of other species regularly get the shaft, while we care for our own, and he asked why that is.
Blaming Darwin for how others misinterpreted (deliberately and with malicious intent) makes as much sense as blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Both were long dead by the time their ideas were hijacked and used for completely different purposes they never intended.
Of course, Hitler & co weren't waiting for Darwin to do their deeds, they just needed an excuse, just as the kings of Europe needed an excuse - any excuse - to wage war and conquer some land!
-
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing
about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black
races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is
to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Charleston, Illinois
-
Did Darwin say go out and kill? Did he ask for genocide? Did he proclaim the theory of aryan superiority?
He merely observed nature, saw that "weaker" members of other species regularly get the shaft, while we care for our own, and he asked why that is.
Blaming Darwin for how others misinterpreted (deliberately and with malicious intent) makes as much sense as blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Both were long dead by the time their ideas were hijacked and used for completely different purposes they never intended.
Of course, Hitler & co weren't waiting for Darwin to do their deeds, they just needed an excuse, just as the kings of Europe needed an excuse - any excuse - to wage war and conquer some land!
Hey columbusdude82! I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference. The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
-
Hey columbusdude82! I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference. The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
Oh Really?
Luke 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Sounds like the Crusaders were following his instructions to a T. ::)
-
Hey, Trapezkerl! We missed ya! Welcome back! ;D
Oh Really?
Luke 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Sounds like the Crusaders were following his instructions to a T. ::)
1. Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus was telling is the one who says that. Below is the complete passage. Nice try, Trapezkerl!
2. Even if Jesus had really said that, it is not consistent with the Crusades. The Crusades were not about Christians killing people because they did not want Jesus to be king.
3. I have never read nor heard anyone claim that Luke 19:12-27 inspired the Crusades or that the Crusaders used these Bible verses as an excuse to justify their actions. If that is your claim, let's see some evidence.
The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. Jesus said we must love our enemies and bless those who curse us. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
-
loco, who does the "master" character in this parable refer to?
In Jesus' parables, such a character usually refers to himself, or his father (also himself).
-
Yes, why indeed do the weaker members of homo sapiens get cared for? Why doesn't "natural selection" weed them out?
The answer is simple, and two-fold.
1. "Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
Of course, in Darwin's day, the gene was unknown. Mendel's work was not known then. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's, in fact, that we had a working knowledge of natural selection!
2. Natural selection has a simple, and powerful, explanation for human altruism. Over the millenia, our ancestors lived in small groups where everyone was closely related. Thus, every person you met in your life was highly likely to be a close relative. If a gene arose, say, "for harming one's siblings" (and such genes are plentiful in the animal kingdom), then it would constitute a selection pressure against itself, because it would be destroying copies of itself.
Moreover, it's easy to see how genes can favor altruism towards others, as a means of enhancing their own survival. (This brings us to the interplay of evolutionary theory, economic game theory, and experimental biology!)
Hence, evolution "programmed" us to be altruistic towards others.
Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!
Excellent Post! I would wonder what Darwin would have said, had he something like Lou Goering's Disease....He might have had a different tune. Many times the strong succumb to a disease as well.
-
loco, who does the "master" character in this parable refer to?
Most likely Herod Archelaus: http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm
In Jesus' parables, such a character usually refers to himself, or his father (also himself).
No, not necessarily. Jesus' parables and preaching often made use of events and characters familiar to his listeners as examples.
-
Hey columbusdude82! I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference. The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
Many people on this thread have already pointed out how silly it is, but I'll throw another pebble into the pond by asking if what you are suggesting is that we do away with free speech, ban public discourse, and impose strict political correctness laws in order to discourage people from behaving badly at some future date ???
-
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
You're KIDDING?!!! :o He did? Wow! I thought he only quoted Martin Luther at length since he was such a huge fan, and held a real soft spot in his heart for the great reformer's virulent and all-consuming hatred for the Jews.
Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?
-
Many people on this thread have already pointed out how silly it is, but I'll throw another pebble into the pond by asking if what you are suggesting is that we do away with free speech, ban public discourse, and impose strict political correctness laws in order to discourage people from behaving badly at some future date ???
No
-
Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?
No.
Besides, Luther became anti-Judaism toward the end of his life. Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism are two different things. Luther was against the religion, not the ethnic group. And Luther wrote a lot of stuff throughout his life, but only wrote about Jews very little and only toward the end of his life. His attitude toward Judaism was terrible, but he was not anti-Semitic.
-
No
Well, okay but what is the point of it then? You're pointing out the fallicies of a Victorian-age thinker who was no doubt greatly influenced by his class-based society, and probably was commenting on the squalor upper class Londoners occasionally glimpsed when they passed through the low rent part of town.
Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light. Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?
-
No.
Besides, Luther became anti-Judaism toward the end of his life. Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism are two different things. Luther was against the religion, not the ethnic group. And Luther wrote a lot of stuff throughout his life, but only wrote about Jews very little and only toward the end of his life. His attitude toward Judaism was terrible, but he was not anti-Semitic.
I think it was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of association. As soon as he saw that the Jews weren't going to convert over to the "new" reform, he hated their guts openly. Besides, what does it matter when he spewed his rage? It was written by the time Hitler blossomed into his role, and he made references to Luther in Mein Kampf, and elsewhere, often.
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Not so nice! Anyway, I only throw this out to illustrate what I said in my last post. You'll find plenty of religious thinkers throughout history who have vomited the worst racist, misogynist bile imaginable. And I know you're talking about auteurs and their published works here, but I wonder how many evolutionists have burned people at the stake?
-
Well, okay but what is the point of it then?
I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss". Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.
You're pointing out the fallicies of a Victorian-age thinker who was no doubt greatly influenced by his class-based society, and probably was commenting on the squalor upper class Londoners occasionally glimpsed when they passed through the low rent part of town.
No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage. Thanks for sharing! I mean it! ;D
Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light. Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?
Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it. I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.
-
I think it was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of association. As soon as he saw that the Jews weren't going to convert over to the "new" reform, he hated their guts openly. Besides, what does it matter when he spewed his rage? It was written by the time Hitler blossomed into his role, and he made references to Luther in Mein Kampf, and elsewhere, often.
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Not so nice! Anyway, I only throw this out to illustrate what I said in my last post. You'll find plenty of religious thinkers throughout history who have vomited the worst racist, misogynist bile imaginable. And I know you're talking about auteurs and their published works here, but I wonder how many evolutionists have burned people at the stake?
Yes, I'm aware, and it's terrible. But I'm not Lutheran and Luther was not Jesus Christ. He was a fallible man. But wanting to force Jews to convert over to the new reformed Christianity like Luther wanted, and wanting to wipe out the Jews like Hitler wanted to are two very different things.
-
Read/Discuss:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Spoken like a scientist viewing man as an experiment and devaluing the preciousness of each human life by comparing our species to animals.
Not surprising considering the age he was from.
-
Yes, I'm aware, and it's terrible. But I'm not Lutheran and Luther was not Jesus Christ. He was a fallible man. But wanting to force Jews to convert over to the new reformed Christianity like Luther wanted, and wanting to wipe out the Jews like Hitler wanted to are two very different things.
Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.
-
Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.
I don't know. Yes, Hitler twisted Luther's words to justify killing all Jews, though that's not what Luther said. But when reading what Darwin wrote above, then reading about Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement, any "twisting" of Darwin's words isn't really necessary.
-
I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss". Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.
No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage. Thanks for sharing! I mean it! ;D
Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it. I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.
I didn't mean he was directly commenting on the London unwashed. But like all of us, we're subjectively affected by the societies within which we live, as well as the scientific knowledge available to us.
I do think the commentary on this thread has headed in the direction I mentioned, but nothing wrong with that...and it's so easily refuted. :)
-
I don't know. Yes, Hitler twisted Luther's words to justify killing all Jews, though that's not what Luther said. But when reading what Darwin wrote above, then reading about Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement, any "twisting" of Darwin's words isn't really necessary.
Where does Darwin say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way? You're really grasping here. Darwin doesn't promote any violence whatsoever. There is not ONE word of it in that passage. All he really says is that he hopes imbeciles don't marry. Yet in the passage above, and there are plenty more, Luther is talking about burning synagogues, razing houses, humiliating a people, driving them out of their country etc. Hmmm... now THAT sounds familiar! ;)
-
Where does Darwin say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way? You're really grasping here. Darwin doesn't promote any violence whatsoever. There is not ONE word of it in that passage. All he really says is that he hopes imbeciles don't marry. Yet in the passage above, and there are plenty more, Luther is talking about burning synagogues, razing houses, humiliating a people, driving them out of their country etc. Hmmm... now THAT sounds familiar! ;)
Yes, what Luther wrote was terrible, but where does Luther say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way?
Darwin did not say that either. He was not specific about the method by which to rid this world of "the weak kind":
"Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."
"hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."
"the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
"the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound"
"the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
-
Yes, what Luther wrote was terrible, but where does Luther say that people should be euthanized, or gassed, or murdered, in any way?
Darwin did not say that either. He was not specific about the method by which to rid this world of "the weak kind":
"Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."
"hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."
"the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
"the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound"
"the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
I'm really having trouble following you.
You said Hitler got his ideas for mass murder, gassing, etc. from Darwin. I said that Darwin didn't propose violence of any kind. I also suggested that if anything, he might even have been MORE inspired by Luther who DID promote violence, including much of what Hitler did in fact set into motion.
You're quoting the Darwin passage completely out of context. He's saying that people would never think to breed inferior livestock but that we are morally obligated to save the wretched or inferior among us. What's wrong with that? It's perfectly true.
I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.
-
I'm really having trouble following you.
You said Hitler got his ideas for mass murder, gassing, etc. from Darwin. I said that Darwin didn't propose violence of any kind. I also suggested that if anything, he might even have been MORE inspired by Luther who DID promote violence, including much of what Hitler did in fact set into motion.
You're quoting the Darwin passage completely out of context. He's saying that people would never think to breed inferior livestock but that we are morally obligated to save the wretched or inferior among us. What's wrong with that? It's perfectly true.
I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.
Deedee, when did I say that? You are confused. Are you referring to this post?
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
Notice that isn't me. That is Nordic Superman. I noticed that earlier you quoted him, but addressed me instead. I thought that was odd, but I figured maybe you decided to address both of us in the same post. ;D
By the way, I think Nordic Superman is an atheist, so the following would not apply to him:
it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light. Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?
-
Deedee, when did I say that? You are confused. Are you referring to this post?
Well, it's very possible that I am confused. I am a Lutheran Protestant, so can you blame me, what with all the confusing messages concerning love and hatred? :) However, seems you did say this:
Yeah, and while you are at it also give Darwin a history tutorial to let him know how he inspired Hitler to attempt to rule the world and to murder millions, reducing western Europe to ruins in the process.
Also tell Darwin how he inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.
I understand your explanation of natural selection above, but there is no denying the impact Darwin's words had on these people.
And that's where I drew my conclusions. Maybe you were trying to take your thread in another direction and it veered toward Hitler accidentally? That's why I asked.
Anyway, people are already planning their children with certain genetic strengths in mind... musical, or mathematical aptitude, for instance, so I don't much see the difference between that and what Darwin was musing and going on about.
And I did answer both you and NS in the same post. I was trying not to be an annoying multiple poster. :)
-
Directly related to the conversation: The shifting moral Zeitgiest
-
Beach Bum in his usual eye-rolly articulate fashion, made some kind of allusion to Hitler and it seems that's where the thread is going... i.e. evolutionists are bad, racist, politically incorrect people who inspire wars and human tragedy, whereas devout creationist people write only about all that is goodness and light. Or have I misunderstood? If I have, what is it you are trying to underscore with your quote?
::) Oh please. The eye roll was in response to the following dumb comment: "No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets..."
-
I stated the point in my original thread, "Read/Discuss". Just curious to see people's reaction/opinion when reading this passage from Darwin’s Descent of Man.
No, but that's your reaction/opinion to the passage. Thanks for sharing! I mean it! ;D
Beach Bum likewise shared his reaction/opinion as did the others, and I appreciate it. I won't speak for Beach Bum, but I doubt he meant all of what you said above.
Correct.
-
Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?
Where in the Lutheran Church do you find anti-semitism?
I am asking you this, because the State Church of Sweden is Lutheran, and there is no large anti-semistic policy or tradition in that church.
And all of the Reformist Churches are based on Luther's choice to stand up against the Pope.
Even the Calvinists IMO.
-
Hey, Trapezkerl! We missed ya! Welcome back! ;D
1. Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus was telling is the one who says that. Below is the complete passage. Nice try, Trapezkerl!
2. Even if Jesus had really said that, it is not consistent with the Crusades. The Crusades were not about Christians killing people because they did not want Jesus to be king.
3. I have never read nor heard anyone claim that Luke 19:12-27 inspired the Crusades or that the Crusaders used these Bible verses as an excuse to justify their actions. If that is your claim, let's see some evidence.
The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. Jesus said we must love our enemies and bless those who curse us. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
The referee is not clear. In any event Hitler was far more inspired by centuries of Christian inspired anti-semitism than he was by Darwin.
-
The referee is not clear. In any event Hitler was far more inspired by centuries of Christian inspired anti-semitism than he was by Darwin.
Gotta disagree with this assertion.
-
You're KIDDING?!!! :o He did? Wow! I thought he only quoted Martin Luther at length since he was such a huge fan, and held a real soft spot in his heart for the great reformer's virulent and all-consuming hatred for the Jews.
Yes, he did. You thought wrong. Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther. Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.
I disagree. Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther. Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther. Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.
Deedee, as a Lutheran, you must be familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the The Confessing Church, right?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian, and a founding member of the Confessing Church. In response to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, Bonhoeffer's faith eventually let him to become a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism. He was involved in plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually hanged for helping Jews escape the Nazis.
The Confessing Church was a Christian resistance movement in Nazi Germany. The Confessing Church engaged in various forms of resistance, notably hiding Jews from the Nazi regime. Some of the leaders of the Confessing Church, such as Martin Niemöller were sent to concentration camps, and some died there.
I was just giving you something to think about when you've obviously posted the Darwin passage to promote the idea that evolutionists and their theories have brought misery into this world. I counter that by saying the devout have caused far more.
You are arriving at conclusions as to why I created this thread on your own. You are assuming way too much about me.
And though that is not what this thread is about, I do disagree when you say that "the devout" have caused far more misery. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Where did you get that?
Far more misery and death have been caused by non-religious people than by "the devout". So I don't understand how you can say that the opposite is true.
-
Where in the Lutheran Church do you find anti-semitism?
I am asking you this, because the State Church of Sweden is Lutheran, and there is no large anti-semistic policy or tradition in that church.
And all of the Reformist Churches are based on Luther's choice to stand up against the Pope.
Even the Calvinists IMO.
I was referring to its founder, Martin Luther. He spoke quite openly about his hatred for Jews. I posted one quote above but there are many more to be googled. Apparently Calvin was not such a great human being either.
-
::) Oh please. The eye roll was in response to the following dumb comment: "No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets..."
Okay that makes 4 ::) in this thread. Are you unaware that this is your signature post reply?
The formal Victorian english is difficult to grasp but after reading it over 3 or 4 times the meaning of this portion of the Darwin quote should become clear:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
Those are hardly the words of a genocidal racist. For you, special -------> ::)
MMC78 made note of the shifting moral Zeitgeist and he has a very valid point about what is acceptabled, as well as accepted, public discourse depending on what time and place in history the discourse took place.
Further, during that era it was common for the mentally ill or mentally challanged to be referred to as imbeciles, and this is also how the American Christians who helped organize and wholeheartedly supported the eugenics program referred to these people as well.
In simple word-speak what Darwin said is this:
Certain individuals, like schizophrenics and chronic alcoholics, to give two examples, have an increased chance of producing children with birth defects or inherited mental illness. Morally of course we can't stand in the way of allowing such individuals to propegate, so the best we can do is hope that they would not.
Doesn't sound like Hitler's playbook to me. Where's the call to violence or eradication of a people? Many of the posters on this board, Christians included, say far worse on a daily basis.
-
Yes, he did. You thought wrong. Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther. Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
I disagree. Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther. Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther. Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.
Deedee, as a Lutheran, you must be familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the The Confessing Church, right?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian, and a founding member of the Confessing Church. In response to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, Bonhoeffer's faith eventually let him to become a participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism. He was involved in plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually hanged for helping Jews escape the Nazis.
The Confessing Church was a Christian resistance movement in Nazi Germany. The Confessing Church engaged in various forms of resistance, notably hiding Jews from the Nazi regime. Some of the leaders of the Confessing Church, such as Martin Niemöller were sent to concentration camps, and some died there.
You are arriving at conclusions as to why I created this thread on your own. You are assuming way too much about me.
And though that is not what this thread is about, I do disagree when you say that "the devout" have caused far more misery. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Where did you get that?
Far more misery and death have been caused by non-religious people than by "the devout". So I don't understand how you can say that the opposite is true.
Hitler was inspired by a number of things. His failure as an artist, his sado-sexual weirdnesses, and as Trapezecurl mentioned, centuries of European anti-semitism. He was inspired by the theory of evolution, as well as the words of religious thinkers and anti-semitic composers.
I just don't get the importance you place on this. Are you saying that because there is a possibility that someone in the distant future may take someone's words and turn them to achieve their own evil means, we should ban everything that might be a contributive factor. You might as well burn down every library then.
This is just silly. And pulling out the one Reader's Digest style, anecdotal story of a Protestant hero doesn't prove anything and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You needn't defend Lutherans to me. I was only speaking of one.
As far as the devout creating more misery... Loco, go read a history book or two. Holy wars, witch hunts, Catholics killing Protestants and vice-versa...burnings, torture, mutilation... you'll find far less material written by atheists calling for the execution of the religious than you will the opposite. And hmmm, I dunno, what's going on in the middle east today. Anything to do with religion? BTW, I'm not criticizing. Religion serves a great purpose in keeping our herds thinned. If we didn't have it the world would surely have been overrun by now and our survival endangered.
-
Yes, he did. You thought wrong. Hitler may have quoted Martin Luther, but he wasn't inspired by Luther. Hitler was inspired by Darwin.
I disagree. Yes, Hitler was inspired by Darwin, but Hitler was not inspired by Luther. Twisting Luther's words in a futile attempt to turn German Lutherans against the Jews does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Luther. Lutherans are not anti-smites and Hitler's attempts to turn them against the Jews failed.
You could just as well claim that Hitler twisted the words of Darwin.
-
You could just as well claim that Hitler twisted the words of Darwin.
I guess you could, but is that really what happened?
-
The referee is not clear. In any event Hitler was far more inspired by centuries of Christian inspired anti-semitism than he was by Darwin.
But to what degree? Hitler was far more inspired by hate, he could have found a number of things to justify his actions. Darwin and Luther are only what he chose.
-
Herein lie the answers to all of Loco's questions and concerns regarding Hitler and Darwin. :)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Hitler_based_his_views_on_Darwinism
-
Herein lie the answers to all of Loco's questions and concerns regarding Hitler and Darwin. :)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Hitler_based_his_views_on_Darwinism
And what are my questions and concerns, Deedee? Why are you jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me and telling me to go read history books? It was not me who first brought up the fact that Darwin inspired Hitler, it was Nordic Superman. Why aren't you having this discussion with him and why are you not addressing him but me instead? Is it because he is an atheist and I'm a Christian?
And I did not start the "evolutionists are good/bad/worse, creationists are good/bad/worse" argument. You did.
Why are you, a Christian, so bitter toward Christians, making claims that "the devout" have brought more misery and death than the non-religious, that Luther was anti-Semite, that Christians on this board have said worse things than Darwin’s Descent of Man? You are entitled to feel and say whatever you want. I'm just curious.
Read/Discuss
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
-
Well, it's very possible that I am confused. I am a Lutheran Protestant, so can you blame me, what with all the confusing messages concerning love and hatred?
The remedy to your confusion then would be to look to Jesus Christ and not to fallible humans. In Jesus there are no confusing messages concerning love and hatred.
What's a Lutheran Protestant? Aren't all Lutherans protestants? Is there such a thing as a Lutheran Roman Catholic?
-
Okay that makes 4 ::) in this thread. Are you unaware that this is your signature post reply?
The formal Victorian english is difficult to grasp but after reading it over 3 or 4 times the meaning of this portion of the Darwin quote should become clear:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
Those are hardly the words of a genocidal racist. For you, special -------> ::)
MMC78 made note of the shifting moral Zeitgeist and he has a very valid point about what is acceptabled, as well as accepted, public discourse depending on what time and place in history the discourse took place.
Further, during that era it was common for the mentally ill or mentally challanged to be referred to as imbeciles, and this is also how the American Christians who helped organize and wholeheartedly supported the eugenics program referred to these people as well.
In simple word-speak what Darwin said is this:
Certain individuals, like schizophrenics and chronic alcoholics, to give two examples, have an increased chance of producing children with birth defects or inherited mental illness. Morally of course we can't stand in the way of allowing such individuals to propegate, so the best we can do is hope that they would not.
Doesn't sound like Hitler's playbook to me. Where's the call to violence or eradication of a people? Many of the posters on this board, Christians included, say far worse on a daily basis.
Dumb comments get the eye roll. I'll continue to use it often.
What Darwin essentially said was this: let the mentally and physically disabled die. There is no way to reasonably sugarcoat that position. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It is precisely what Hitler wanted to do. I just saw nearly an entire floor of the Holocaust Museum that walked through Hitler's attempt to exterminate "imbeciles," including children.
Regarding Darwin and his racism, that can't be reasonably refuted either:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … 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 civilized 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.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.html
-
And what are my concerns, Deedee? Why are you jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about me and telling me to go read history books? It was not me who first brought up the fact that Darwin inspired Hitler, it was Nordic Superman. Why aren't you having this discussing with him and why are you not addressing him but me instead?
And it wasn't me who started the "evolutionists are good/bad/worse, creationists are good/bad/worse" argument. You did.
Why are you, a Christian, so bitter toward Christians, making claims that "the devout" have brought more misery and death than the non-religious, that Luther was anti-Semite, that Christians on this board have said worse things than Darwin’s Descent of Man? You are entitled to feel and say whatever you want. I'm just curious.
Read/Discuss
I don't know exactly what your concerns are. I did address NS but it was you who replied, and kept on posting back when I answered. (And btw, it was Beach Bum who first brought up Hitler, not NS.)
I'm not jumping to conclusions about you at all. Just responding to your comments and questions you've posted quoting me. if you're hell bent on blaming Hitler's actions as a consequence of evolutionary theories, go ahead, but you're wrong to do so. If you think Darwin was a racist, you're wrong there too.
I'm not bitter toward christians at all. Because I'm a Lutheran Protestant, does that mean I shouldn't criticize Luther? Lol. You asked ME why I said what I did about religion and misery, so I pointed you toward a history book and in addition gave you some examples of why I thought so. :)
Lots of people on this board talk about genetics, both inferior and superior, as it's a body building board... and secondly there are a number of posters on Getbig who talk about ghetto people and others they consider human trash. I'm not upset by it, it doesn't make me bitter... just stating what is true.
-
I don't know exactly what your concerns are. I did address NS but it was you who replied, and kept on posting back when I answered. (And btw, it was Beach Bum who first brought up Hitler, not NS.)
I'm not jumping to conclusions about you at all. Just responding to your comments and questions you've posted quoting me. if you're hell bent on blaming Hitler's actions as a consequence of evolutionary theories, go ahead, but you're wrong to do so. If you think Darwin was a racist, you're wrong there too.
I'm not bitter toward christians at all. Because I'm a Lutheran Protestant, does that mean I shouldn't criticize Luther? Lol. You asked ME why I said what I did about religion and misery, so I pointed you toward a history book and in addition gave you some examples of why I thought so. :)
Lots of people on this board talk about genetics, both inferior and superior, as it's a body building board... and secondly there are a number of posters on Getbig who talk about ghetto people and others they consider human trash. I'm not upset by it, it doesn't make me bitter... just stating what is true.
The only one saying I'm hell bent on blaming Hitler's actions as a consequence of evolutionary theories is you. I am not. I only re-stated what NS had already stated, that Darwin inspired Hitler, which is a fact and not a mere claim on my part. You addressed me, not NS. That is why I responded to you.
And it was NS who brought it up first. Beach Bum did not know that Darwin inspired Hitler. Beach Bum simply said that Darwin’s Descent of Man looked like something from Hitler, which is interesting that Beach Bum came to that conclusion all by himself without knowing the rest of the story.
As for posters on Getbig who talk about ghetto people and others they consider human trash, are any of these posters Christians on the Religious board?
-
Hitler was not soley inspired but Darwin; he was inspired by lots of things, first and foremost, by centuries of Christian persecution.
And in any event, none of this changes the fact of evolution.
-
Hitler was not soley inspired but Darwin; he was inspired by lots of things,
True
first and foremost, by centuries of Christian persecution.
False
-
first and foremost, by centuries of Christian persecution.
That couldn't be further form the truth. He used Darwinism to justify his actions along with Christianity.
What inspired Hitler was the economic fall out from WW1 and the treaty of Versailles plunging Germany into depression and the Jews flourishing in many ways during that time. Many people resented the Jews. Hitler saw an opportunity to give Germans something to hate and bring them together.
-
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
I thought Hitler was a huge fan of Darwin b/c he could mold natural selection to fit his propaganda technique for demonizing the Jews giving the German people a singular enemy to rally against under Hitler's direction. Isn't that more in line with the ideas expressed in Mein Kampf?
-
That couldn't be further form the truth. He used Darwinism to justify his actions along with Christianity.
What inspired Hitler was the economic fall out from WW1 and the treaty of Versailles plunging Germany into depression and the Jews flourishing in many ways during that time. Many people resented the Jews. Hitler saw an opportunity to give Germans something to hate and bring them together.
Exactly.
-
The only one saying I'm hell bent on blaming Hitler's actions as a consequence of evolutionary theories is you. I am not. I only re-stated what NS had already stated, that Darwin inspired Hitler, which is a fact and not a mere claim on my part. You addressed me, not NS. That is why I responded to you.
And it was NS who brought it up first. Beach Bum did not know that Darwin inspired Hitler. Beach Bum simply said that Darwin’s Descent of Man looked like something from Hitler, which is interesting that Beach Bum came to that conclusion all by himself without knowing the rest of the story.
As for posters on Getbig who talk about ghetto people and others they consider human trash, are any of these posters Christians on the Religious board?
Oh for god's sake... this is just ridiculous. You know your argument fell apart and now you're wriggling around, taking it all personally. I kept replying to you, that's what is clear from the posts. Lol, and Beach Bum is the second person who answered, clearly mentioning "Hitler's playbook" in his post.
Darwin himself did not inspire Hitler at all. Read the link I posted for you. It was the theory of evolution, smushed in with his own vision of superior races under God that inspired him. The theory itself lives outside of Darwin. And Hitler was ALSO inspired by all of the factors mentioned above and elsewhere and your dogged refusal to accept it, doesn't change anything.
There are one or two posters who have written in a racist way, and who post on other boards as well as this one. I don't think negative posts are tolerated here.
-
Oh for god's sake... this is just ridiculous. You know your argument fell apart and now you're wriggling around, taking it all personally. I kept replying to you, that's what is clear from the posts. Lol, and Beach Bum is the second person who answered, clearly mentioning "Hitler's playbook" in his post.
Darwin himself did not inspire Hitler at all. Read the link I posted for you. It was the theory of evolution, smushed in with his own vision of superior races under God that inspired him. The theory itself lives outside of Darwin. And Hitler was ALSO inspired by all of the factors mentioned above and elsewhere and your dogged refusal to accept it, doesn't change anything.
There are one or two posters who have written in a racist way, and who post on other boards as well as this one. I don't think negative posts are tolerated here.
My argument fell apart? What argument is that?
-
Darwin himself did not inspire Hitler at all. Read the link I posted for you. It was the theory of evolution, smushed in with his own vision of superior races under God that inspired him. The theory itself lives outside of Darwin. And Hitler was ALSO inspired by all of the factors mentioned above and elsewhere and your dogged refusal to accept it, doesn't change anything.
No offence, but wouldn't it be safe to assume that when they say things such as "Darwin inspired Hitler's holocaust", they really mean "Darwinism inspired Hitler's holocaust"?
-
Dumb comments get the eye roll. I'll continue to use it often.
What Darwin essentially said was this: let the mentally and physically disabled die. There is no way to reasonably sugarcoat that position. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It is precisely what Hitler wanted to do. I just saw nearly an entire floor of the Holocaust Museum that walked through Hitler's attempt to exterminate "imbeciles," including children.
Regarding Darwin and his racism, that can't be reasonably refuted either:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … 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 civilized 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.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.html
I wasn't trying to dissuade you from your highly intelligent, mature ::) responses. Most people use words, or if a comment is too dumb, simply ignore it, so your disdainful emoticon responses are always refreshing and a welcome respite from the ordinary.
Beach, I'm glad you took an opportunity to read something, since obviously you barely skimmed the original passage but felt inclined to answer it anyway. Maybe you should read Darwin's work in its entirety, read it in the context of the times, then get back to us.
Sadly I have a far more intimate knowledge of what went on in Hitler's Germany than you ever will, and I don't find it particularly relevant to any discussion of Darwin. We'll have to disagree on that.
-
No offence, but wouldn't it be safe to assume that when they say things such as "Darwin inspired Hitler's holocaust", they really mean "Darwinism inspired Hitler's holocaust"?
No offence taken... it seems to me they're targeting the man himself, but you may be right. On the other hand some people have this to say:
Hitler never mentioned Darwin nor did his view of nature reflect any substantive understanding of evolution. In fact, Hitler's racism was based on the view that "races were created distinct by God" and he frequently cited works such as Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" as guides to his policies.
-
No offence taken... it seems to me they're targeting the man himself, but you may be right. On the other hand some people have this to say:
Hitler never mentioned Darwin nor did his view of nature reflect any substantive understanding of evolution. In fact, Hitler's racism was based on the view that "races were created distinct by God" and he frequently cited works such as Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" as guides to his policies.
Deedee, who is targeting the man himself? Call it Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution as you said earlier. Personally, I'm not here making stuff up and making false claims. I'm just going by what I read and I am posting my references. I do appreciate your participation. Where did you get the above quote and who is it by?
Deedee, are you German?
What do you think of these?
"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head."
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.
"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained."
Dr. John G. West, Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
-
No offence taken... it seems to me they're targeting the man himself, but you may be right. On the other hand some people have this to say:
Hitler never mentioned Darwin nor did his view of nature reflect any substantive understanding of evolution. In fact, Hitler's racism was based on the view that "races were created distinct by God" and he frequently cited works such as Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" as guides to his policies.
Hmm maybe.
But how do you explain killing cripples, mental patients, people with physical and mental retardation - regardless of race?
-
And it was NS who brought it up first. Beach Bum did not know that Darwin inspired Hitler. Beach Bum simply said that Darwin’s Descent of Man looked like something from Hitler, which is interesting that Beach Bum came to that conclusion all by himself without knowing the rest of the story.
Correct again. I simply read the passage and posted a comment.
-
I wasn't trying to dissuade you from your highly intelligent, mature ::) responses. Most people use words, or if a comment is too dumb, simply ignore it, so your disdainful emoticon responses are always refreshing and a welcome respite from the ordinary.
Beach, I'm glad you took an opportunity to read something, since obviously you barely skimmed the original passage but felt inclined to answer it anyway. Maybe you should read Darwin's work in its entirety, read it in the context of the times, then get back to us.
Sadly I have a far more intimate knowledge of what went on in Hitler's Germany than you ever will, and I don't find it particularly relevant to any discussion of Darwin. We'll have to disagree on that.
You didn't dissuade me from anything. I don't care what you think about how I post on this board. But I think I've told you that before? :) And thanks for the lecture on how "most people" post on getbig.com. ::) (That's five if you're still counting. :)) But feel free to continue to address me, rather than the substance of the thread.
I'm not sure how you know I "barely skimmed the original passage," but you're wrong. I read it and posted a comment. This is a message board. That's what people do.
I have no idea what your experience with the Holocaust is and whether you have "far more intimate knowledge" about it than me. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. What difference does that make? Certainly doesn't change my impression of Darwin's comments. We will have to agree to disagree on whether Darwin's comments were consistent with Hitler's attempt to eliminate certain segments of the population. Sounds that way to me.
-
You didn't dissuade me from anything. I don't care what you think about how I post on this board. But I think I've told you that before? :) And thanks for the lecture on how "most people" post on getbig.com. ::) (That's five if you're still counting. :)) But feel free to continue to address me, rather than the substance of the thread.
I'm not sure how you know I "barely skimmed the original passage," but you're wrong. I read it and posted a comment. This is a message board. That's what people do.
I have no idea what your experience with the Holocaust is and whether you have "far more intimate knowledge" about it than me. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. What difference does that make? Certainly doesn't change my impression of Darwin's comments. We will have to agree to disagree on whether Darwin's comments were consistent with Hitler's attempt to eliminate certain segments of the population. Sounds that way to me.
Is this like a confirmation post or something, where you basically reiterate everything I say? :) I only addressed you because you addressed me first.
-
Deedee, who is targeting the man himself? Call it Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution as you said earlier. Personally, I'm not here making stuff up and making false claims. I'm just going by what I read and I am posting my references. I do appreciate your participation. Where did you get the above quote and who is it by?
Deedee, are you German?
What do you think of these?
"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head."
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.
"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained."
Dr. John G. West, Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
Yes, I am Loco. That's where the Lutheran part of Protestant comes in. To answer your earlier question, I never call myself Lutheran. Just Protestant, unless some additional qualification is needed, like here, in which case I use the awkward Lutheran Protestant. :)
I appreciate what you've posted above, and there are many people who believe that Darwinism influenced Hitler.
But I still say there is far more to it than that. Take a look at a Leni Riefenstahl film clip on youtube and you'll better see what Hitler's vision was. The whole "we are the sun-god people" theme comes across in an almost otherworldly manner. She captured it perfectly with lighting and camera angles. Even though he was a failed artist, Hitler did have a creative imagination, (evident in over the top architecture, uniforms, pomp and PR, etc) and he and his inner circle worshiped runes, met secretly to engage in mystical religious rituals... the whole nazi thing was imbued with magical symbolism, (the hackenkreuz), ancient mythology (the valkyries), etc. There was much more to his (eventual) demented vision than your simple, "we arouse out of the goo together but our people have emerged superior" ideal. He truly believed that the Germanic people were just short of godlike. :-\
I'll post a few Hitler myth links for you when it's less busy... and I'll leave it up to you if you want to read them or not. (For instance, Hitler believed in superior/inferior bloodlines. Bloodlines are biblical/religious, not evolutionist. There's much more, if you're interested.)
I'm still not sure why promoting Hitler as having been influenced by Darwin is important to your thread. It doesn't change the measure of the theory of evolution at all.
Also, were you aware that Darwin was Christian himself and had a hard time reconciling his science with his faith?
-
Also, were you aware that Darwin was Christian himself and had a hard time reconciling his science with his faith?
Hi Deedles! :) What is your definition of a Christian? I ask this because some people don't agree on what "Christian" means.
Interesting thread!
-
Yes, I am Loco. That's where the Lutheran part of Protestant comes in. To answer your earlier question, I never call myself Lutheran. Just Protestant, unless some additional qualification is needed, like here, in which case I use the awkward Lutheran Protestant. :)
I appreciate what you've posted above, and there are many people who believe that Darwinism influenced Hitler.
But I still say there is far more to it than that. Take a look at a Leni Riefenstahl film clip on youtube and you'll better see what Hitler's vision was. The whole "we are the sun-god people" theme comes across in an almost otherworldly manner. She captured it perfectly with lighting and camera angles. Even though he was a failed artist, Hitler did have a creative imagination, (evident in over the top architecture, uniforms, pomp and PR, etc) and he and his inner circle worshiped runes, met secretly to engage in mystical religious rituals... the whole nazi thing was imbued with magical symbolism, (the hackenkreuz), ancient mythology (the valkyries), etc. There was much more to his (eventual) demented vision than your simple, "we arouse out of the goo together but our people have emerged superior" ideal. He truly believed that the Germanic people were just short of godlike. :-\
I'll post a few Hitler myth links for you when it's less busy... and I'll leave it up to you if you want to read them or not. (For instance, Hitler believed in superior/inferior bloodlines. Bloodlines are biblical/religious, not evolutionist. There's much more, if you're interested.)
I'm still not sure why promoting Hitler as having been influenced by Darwin is important to your thread. It doesn't change the measure of the theory of evolution at all.
Also, were you aware that Darwin was Christian himself and had a hard time reconciling his science with his faith?
I am not promoting Hitler as having been influenced by Darwin. That is not important to me. That is not what this thread is about. I said Read/Discuss Darwin’s Descent of Man, and that's what we are doing.
I actually did not intend for this thread to turn into a Hitler thread, as if Hitler was the only one Darwin inspired. Darwin also inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.
Deedee, regardless of my intentions, what's the problem? We are having a discussion. People here are free to discuss the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Luther on the Jews, Darwin, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, The Holocaust, The Red Terror, the Great Leap Forward, etc. Are you saying that I should not have created this thread and that we should not have discussed this topic? I think we all are learning from this thread.
-
Why do you think I have a problem? You're right, it's a discussion and you have lots of posts on your thread. Look down the board. Yours has among the top three in terms of response. Isn't that the intention? Do you only want opinions that concur with yours? That's okay too... but won't make for much of an interesting thread.
Should I take this moment to remind you that the eugenics program in the US was embraced by many Christian organizations? :) It's never the idea that matters so much as the way society interprets it. But perhaps tis best not to go there.
I also posted something earlier regarding modern day people cherry picking their children's genes, and wondered whether it was all that different than what was espoused at the turn of the 20th century.
-
Hi Deedles! :) What is your definition of a Christian? I ask this because some people don't agree on what "Christian" means.
Interesting thread!
Hi STells! :) That's a tough one to answer off the cuff, but I'm pretty sure my definition is a lot more lax than most of the people on here, :D and centers more on basic Christian values rather than literally interpreting the scriptures.
-
Why do you think I have a problem? You're right, it's a discussion and you have lots of posts on your thread. Look down the board. Yours has among the top three in terms of response. Isn't that the intention? Do you only want opinions that concur with yours? That's okay too... but won't make for much of an interesting thread.
Should I take this moment to remind you that the eugenics program in the US was embraced by many Christian organizations? :) It's never the idea that matters so much as the way society interprets it. But perhaps tis best not to go there.
I also posted something earlier regarding modern day people cherry picking their children's genes, and wondered whether it was all that different than what was espoused at the turn of the 20th century.
You keep focusing on my intentions and drawing your own conclusions about it, as if that was relevant to this discussion. No, lots of posts on my thread is not the intention either. And no, I do not only want opinions that concur with mine. I actually expected more than one person to deny Darwin's influence on Hitler, but I was surprised that not one person denied it, not on this board anyway.
-
You keep focusing on my intentions and drawing your own conclusions about it, as if that was relevant to this discussion. No, lots of posts on my thread is not the intention either. And no, I do not only want opinions that concur with mine. I actually expected more than one person to deny Darwin's influence on Hitler, but I was surprised that not one person denied it, not on this board anyway.
Do you really think it was influence or just convenient ammo for propaganda suitable for their goals?
-
Not your intention loco, the intention of a message board in general, is to evoke discourse.
I'm not following again. There were posts denying Darwin's influence besides mine. But I think it's time for me to let it go, because you seem to be getting defensive.
-
Not your intention loco, the intention of a message board in general, is to evoke discourse.
I'm not following again. There were posts denying Darwin's influence besides mine. But I think it's time for me to let it go, because you seem to be getting defensive.
You denied Darwin's influence on Hitler? When? I don't consider these a denial
Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.
Hitler was inspired by a number of things. His failure as an artist, his sado-sexual weirdnesses, and as Trapezecurl mentioned, centuries of European anti-semitism. He was inspired by the theory of evolution, as well as the words of religious thinkers and anti-semitic composers.
I'm not getting defensive. I'm sorry I gave you that idea! But I appreciate that you care if I get defensive, since you don't have to. ;D
Deedee, please don't stop posting, debating me and refuting me on this or any thread! ;D
-
Do you really think it was influence or just convenient ammo for propaganda suitable for their goals?
Hitler was obsessed with killing Jews to his last day. He killed not only Jews, but also cripples, mental patients, people with physical and mental retardation, all regardless of race. He was convinced that "the weak kind" must not survive. "Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."[1] Hitler believed in this so much that some say that if he had not waisted so much money and resources on this, he could have won the war.
1. Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
-
loco, if only you'd put down the creationist pamphlets for a minute and try and learn real science, you'd see what a fool you're making of yourself...
But that's the ten millionth time I've told you this. ::)
-
loco, if only you'd put down the creationist pamphlets for a minute and try and learn real science, you'd see what a fool you're making of yourself...
But that's the ten millionth time I've told you this. ::)
Please, name the creationist pamphlets I, according to you, have read or posted on this thread.
How am I making a fool of myself again?
-
By displaying astonishing ignorance of evolution and natural selection with all this "Hitler" talk about "weeding out the weak."
Of course, your purpose there is not to discuss science, but merely guilt by association: associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for you to dismiss the former :)
-
By displaying astonishing ignorance of evolution and natural selection with all this "Hitler" talk about "weeding out the weak."
Of course, your purpose there is not to discuss science, but merely guilt by association: associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for you to dismiss the former :)
If you want to jump to those conclusions, go right ahead. You don't have to be so paranoid and touchy about this. Many people are unaware of these facts. Must we suppress them?
As for guilt by association, you've posted plenty of that yourself. I simply debated you, discussed why I disagreed with you, but I never called you a fool, questioned your education or insulted you in any way.
-
Please present examples of my "guilt by association" posts.
Also, I never called you a fool. I question your education about certain aspects of science when you post blatant falsehoods. My intent is certainly not to insult or offend.
-
Please present examples of my "guilt by association" posts.
Also, I never called you a fool. I question your education about certain aspects of science when you post blatant falsehoods. My intent is certainly not to insult or offend.
Quote me on my "blatant falsehood" in this thread.
-
Hey columbusdude82! I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference. The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
-
Directly related to the conversation: The shifting moral Zeitgiest
See this loco, if you haven't already.
-
Hey columbusdude82! I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference. The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught. By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.
Thank you! Now we can continue our discussion. When I first posted this, you did not say that this was a "blatant falsehood" on my part, neither did you try to show me why. Instead, you and Trapezkerl tried to show how The Crusdades are consistent with something that Jesus said in Luke 19:12-27. Now, that's false, and I did tell you that, and I did show you why it's false.
-
I am not promoting Hitler as having been influenced by Darwin. That is not important to me. That is not what this thread is about. I said Read/Discuss Darwin’s Descent of Man, and that's what we are doing.
I actually did not intend for this thread to turn into a Hitler thread, as if Hitler was the only one Darwin inspired. Darwin also inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.
Deedee, regardless of my intentions, what's the problem? We are having a discussion. People here are free to discuss the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Luther on the Jews, Darwin, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, The Holocaust, The Red Terror, the Great Leap Forward, etc. Are you saying that I should not have created this thread and that we should not have discussed this topic? I think we all are learning from this thread.
If you knew what evolution by natural selection is (and I've tried to explain it numerous times), you wouldn't be saying stuff like this.
Notice the word "natural" in "natural selection." It doesn't say "artificial selection" or "selection by gas chambers."
And like I said many times before, any natural selection process can only operate on replicators: self-replicating entities with a high copying fidelity, and a low but persistent probability of copying error.
Humans are not self-replicators. You don't make a copy of yourself. Species aren't self-replicators. A species doesn't make a copy of itself either. "Races" and "nations" aren't self-replicators. No group or individual is a self-replicator. Thus, to speak of "natural selection" operating on any of these demonstrates one's ignorance of what natural selection is and how it works.
The replicator is the gene. Natural selection operates on genes. When a gene has two competing alleles, natural selection occurs when one allele makes its way into the bodies of those organisms who become ancestors, while the other allele does not.
Darwin looked at the brutality of animals in the wild, which penalizes the slightest weakness, and asked why this did not, as a rule, happen among homo sapiens. His problem was not knowing at what level natural selection operates, not a surprise given he didn't know what genes were.
There's your answer, Mr Darwin. Individual humans aren't replicators, so it makes no sense of to speak of "natural selection" weeding out or killing off anybody.
-
Thank you! Now we can continue our discussion. When I first posted this, you did not say that this was a "blatant falsehood" on my part, neither did you try to show me why. Instead, you and Trapezkerl tried to show how The Crusdades are consistent with something that Jesus said in Luke 19:12-27. Now, that's false, and I did tell you that, and I did show you why it's false.
No I didn't. I didn't even bring up that verse. I was using the analogy of Jesus and the crusades to illustrate how you can't blame someone for something that happened long after their death, which they didn't ask for or promote. Just as Jesus didn't say "Go kill the Muslim bastards," Darwin didn't say "Throw the Jews in the ovens" either!
-
No I didn't. I didn't even bring up that verse. I was using the analogy of Jesus and the crusades to illustrate how you can't blame someone for something that happened long after their death, which they didn't ask for or promote. Just as Jesus didn't say "Go kill the Muslim bastards," Darwin didn't say "Throw the Jews in the ovens" either!
Trapezkerl brought up the verse and you followed by saying that Jesus was speaking of himself in that verse, which is false. It's not the first time you have done this, and the first time you did bring up the verse:
If he doesn't want anyone to perish, why does his "Son" (also himself) tell his followers to kill those who deny him, in Luke 19:27?
-
That's tangential to the Darwin discussion, but I asked you who the character in the parable refers to?
In the prodigal son parable for example, the father refers to God, the prodigal son refers to the sinner who repents...
-
That's tangential to the Darwin discussion, but I asked you who the character in the parable refers to?
In the prodigal son parable for example, the father refers to God, the prodigal son refers to the sinner who repents...
It does not follow that Jesus was referring to himself in Luke 19:27, and yours and Trapezkerl's point was that the Crusdades are consistent with what Jesus said in this verse, which is false.
-
It does not follow that Jesus was referring to himself in Luke 19:27, and yours and Trapezkerl's point was that the Crusdades are consistent with what Jesus said in this verse, which is false.
No that is not my point. And I already did say that the Crusades are not consistent with Jesus. Or do you not remember?!
But still, who does the "master" character in the parable refer to? And why is he so angry?
-
Please present examples of my "guilt by association" posts.
It was soon after you had read "The God Delusion" or "God is not Great" that you posted something along those lines. I do admit that you have not done that in a while, as if your attitude has changed to an extent. That I appreciate! But it's not just you, and this thread is not directed at you in anyway.
"It is a law of nature that scientists must bring up the Crusades within five minutes of mention of religion."
H. Allen Orr, Gould on God, Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
Not saying that this justifies guilt by association from either side. That's not my intention.
-
No that is not my point. And I already did say that the Crusades are not consistent with Jesus. Or do you not remember?!
But still, who does the "master" character in the parable refer to? And why is he so angry?
Herod Archelaus: http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm
Read about him and you'll see why he was so angry.
-
Hitler was obsessed with killing Jews to his last day. He killed not only Jews, but also cripples, mental patients, people with physical and mental retardation, all regardless of race. He was convinced that "the weak kind" must not survive. "Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."[1] Hitler believed in this so much that some say that if he had not waisted so much money and resources on this, he could have won the war.
1. Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
Yeah, i think you are right. what ever the case, where ever he got his ideas, Darwin's idea fits in nicely.
-
Yeah, i think you are right. what ever the case, where ever he got his ideas, Darwin's idea fits in nicely.
You must be reading "creationist pamphlets" too? :)
-
Yeah, i think you are right. what ever the case, where ever he got his ideas, Darwin's idea fits in nicely.
Actually, no, Darwin's ideas don't fit in nicely. Darwin's theory was based on survival of the fittest, natural selection, whereas Hitler's belief lay in the superiority of bloodlines... an aryan nation directly descended from the true god. There's a subtle difference there that people don't get. ANY German, no matter in what poor physical or mental condition, was BETTER than any Jew, no matter how intelligent or fit the latter was. That's not natural selection, that's discrimination based on bloodlines. :) He threw in some kill the old, weak, mentally challenged stuff in there cause he was an all-around bastard, but Darwin is never mentioned in his oeuvre, Mein Kampf. For all we know, he may have been inspired by the Spartans who were also big on throwing defectives off cliffs to keep their society strong, long before Darwin was even an ideer in his freethinking daddy's mind.
-
By displaying astonishing ignorance of evolution and natural selection with all this "Hitler" talk about "weeding out the weak."
Of course, your purpose there is not to discuss science, but merely guilt by association: associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for you to dismiss the former :)
I'm inclined to agree. :)
-
Yeah, i think you are right. what ever the case, where ever he got his ideas, Darwin's idea fits in nicely.
And where, pray tell, did you learn about "Darwin's idea"? Have you read any of his books? Or do you just like to run your mouth as usual?
-
You denied Darwin's influence on Hitler? When? I don't consider these a denial
I'm not getting defensive. I'm sorry I gave you that idea! But I appreciate that you care if I get defensive, since you don't have to. ;D
Deedee, please don't stop posting, debating me and refuting me on this or any thread! ;D
I misspoke in the first quote, but in the second I was referring to a theory. Your thread concept has become a little mixed between the man himself and the interpretation of his theory by others. But anyway, I'm glad you aren't taking the discussion to heart. And yes, I do care if I cause someone to be upset, so happy it isn't an issue. :)
-
By displaying astonishing ignorance of evolution and natural selection with all this "Hitler" talk about "weeding out the weak."
Of course, your purpose there is not to discuss science, but merely guilt by association: associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for you to dismiss the former :)
I'm inclined to agree. :)
Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.
I guess Nordic Superman, an atheist who accepts evolution, must be using "guilt by association" too. I guess to him "associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for" him "to dismiss the former" too. I guess he must be reading "creationist pamphlets" too. :)
-
And where, pray tell, did you learn about "Darwin's idea"? Have you read any of his books? Or do you just like to run your mouth as usual?
no i just read it.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
What's a matter can't handle someone else agreeing with loco?
-
no i just read it.
What's a matter can't handle someone else agreeing with loco?
It's not everyday OzmO agrees with loco. ;D
-
It's not everyday OzmO agrees with loco. ;D
;D ;)
I actually agree with you quite a bit, it's just that i don't always say so and we have spent more time debating what we don't agree on.
-
;D ;)
I actually agree with you quite a bit, it's just that i don't always say so and we have spent more time debating what we don't agree on.
Thanks, OzmO! That's good, but even if you disagreed with me on most or even all things that would be okay too! :)
-
I guess Nordic Superman, an atheist who accepts evolution, must be using "guilt by association" too. I guess to him "associating the central idea of modern biology with Hitler's crimes makes it easier for" him "to dismiss the former" too. I guess he must be reading "creationist pamphlets" too. :)
Not really. All NS said was that he thought Hitler was a fan of Darwin. He says nothing of Darwin, nor judges him in any way. You on the other hand, are subtly trying to use the crimes of Hitler to discredit Darwin and his theory, in order to bolster your own creationist theories
-
no i just read it.
No you didn't. :) You highlighted half a sentence. Had you highlighted the rest, you would have noted that Darwin believed that you couldn't morally neglect the weak and sick. Nowhere does Darwin ever advocate violence against others. Natural selection is all about the weak dying off on their own, not with a helping hand from the rest of the herd.
Hitler's proactive stance toward weeding out the weak is more reminiscent of others, religious thinkers among them, or societies like the Spartans.
-
Hitler's proactive stance toward weeding out the weak is more reminiscent of others, religious thinkers among them, or societies like the Spartans.
More from religious thinkers? Such as? I'm willing to learn more about this, but you have yet to post any evidence of this. Can you at least post some quotes from historians or from people close to Hitler and also references to support this?
-
No you didn't. :) You highlighted half a sentence. Had you highlighted the rest, you would have noted that Darwin believed that you couldn't morally neglect the weak and sick. Nowhere does Darwin ever advocate violence against others. Natural selection is all about the weak dying off on their own, not with a helping hand from the rest of the herd.
Hitler's proactive stance toward weeding out the weak is more reminiscent of others, religious thinkers among them, or societies like the Spartans.
here:
No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
and
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Whether Darwin is advocating it directly or not, He's highlighting the reasons for killing off the weak.
Now, I'm not saying what you suggested that Drawin advocated a proactive stance towards it.
-
Not really. All NS said was that he thought Hitler was a fan of Darwin. He says nothing of Darwin, nor judges him in any way. You on the other hand, are subtly trying to use the crimes of Hitler to discredit Darwin and his theory, in order to bolster your own creationist theories
No, I'm not, but you have come to that conclusion on your own and nobody and nothing can change that now. Who said I was a creationist? What is your definition of a creationist?
-
here:
and
Whether Darwin is advocating it directly or not, He's highlighting the reasons for killing off the weak.
Now, I'm not saying what you suggested that Drawin advocated a proactive stance towards it.
Oh Ozmo!!!! Read this sentence this paragraph.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
You don't like it that he's matter of fact in his tone and that puts you off. However, he's a scientist and his plain, factual language illustrates that. He clearly states that the original instinct of sympathy, which contributed to man's survival (banding together, helping to ward off predators etc) has become even more pronounced as we evolved. And that if we were to neglect saving the weak and sick, it might be practical in some small sense for human society but with "certain and great present evil" i.e. bad, dire moral consequences. For morality's sake we have to take care of our imbeciles...but we can still hope they won't marry.
So, where is the cry to violence toward the weak and sick? What he writes here is the complete opposite of what Hitler advocates.
And actually, I'm in complete agreement. I wish imbeciles wouldn't marry either. :)
-
I understand what you are saying and what Darwin is saying.
Please read this sentence:
Whether Darwin is advocating it directly or not, He's highlighting the reasons for killing off the weak.
Did Hitler get some inspiration from this? Did this re-enforce his ideas? Did this help him justify his actions?
-
More from religious thinkers? Such as? I'm willing to learn more about this, but you have yet to post any evidence of this. Can you at least post some quotes from historians or from people close to Hitler and also references to support this?
Well, you spoke of eugenics and deplored the number of people who were sterilized and tortured during the early part of the 20th century. Are you not aware that a number of Christian organizations supported and helped facilitate the program, garnering support for it, etc. Prostestant groups especially I think, were fond of this measure. I can find you some links but all you have to do is google it, and you'll find reams.
What references do you want regarding Hitler? About his involvement with "mystical, we are God's chosen sun people" stuff? I think it's pretty plain that Darwin mused (capital letters on the word mused) about natural selection in terms of the weakest, sickest dying off on their own thus producing a more hardy society, whereas Hitler advocated the proactive murder of people who were not God's chosen, and as well, the mentally and physically challenged of his own society. Two totally different mission statements if you ask me... what evidence would you like me to post? You already have with that Darwin passage.
-
I understand what you are saying and what Darwin is saying.
Please read this sentence:
Did Hitler get some inspiration from this? Did this re-enforce his ideas? Did this help him justify his actions?
I guess my answer is the same as I gave loco.
Ozmo, I think his work needs to be read in its entirety. This is one passage, the wording of which some people here seem to think is open to interpretation. To add to that, Darwin also writes about societies on distant shores needing to treat each other as brothers, etc.
-
I guess my answer is the same as I gave loco.
Ozmo, I think his work needs to be read in its entirety. This is one passage, the wording of which some people here seem to think is open to interpretation. To add to that, Darwin also writes about societies on distant shores needing to treat each other as brothers, etc.
I agree.
-
Well, you spoke of eugenics and deplored the number of people who were sterilized and tortured during the early part of the 20th century. Are you not aware that a number of Christian organizations supported and helped facilitate the program, garnering support for it, etc. Prostestant groups especially I think, were fond of this measure. I can find you some links but all you have to do is google it, and you'll find reams.
Yes, I'm aware that of those who supported eugenics in the US during the early part of the 20th century some were Christians. So what? It would not be the only time that Christians get divided on issues like this. Today there are Christians who are pro-choice. There are Christians who are racist. Still, eugenics, abortion and racism are not consistent with anything that Jesus said.
Is eugenics, in this case forced sterilization, not consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man?
What references do you want regarding Hitler? About his involvement with "mystical, we are God's chosen sun people" stuff? I think it's pretty plain that Darwin mused (capital letters on the word mused) about natural selection in terms of the weakest, sickest dying off on their own thus producing a more hardy society, whereas Hitler advocated the proactive murder of people who were not God's chosen, and as well, the mentally and physically challenged of his own society. Two totally different mission statements if you ask me... what evidence would you like me to post? You already have with that Darwin passage.
I said that Hitler was inspired by Darwin and I posted quotes, links and references to support that. If you or anyone here disagrees with me then you will have to tell me that my sources are questionable and you'll will have to tell me why.
You said that Hitler was inspired more by religious thinkers. Can you post quotes by historians or people who were close to Hitler, with references and links to support that, or is that something you heard or read from questionable sources?
-
Yes, I'm aware that of those who supported eugenics in the US during the early part of the 20th century were Christians. So what? It would not be the only time that Christians get divided on issues like this. Today there are Christians who are pro-choice. There are Christians who are racist. Still, eugenics, abortion and racism are not consistent with anything that Jesus said.
Is eugenics, in this case forced sterilization, not consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man?
I said that Hitler was inspired by Darwin and I posted quotes, links and references to support that. If you or anyone here disagree, you can look at my references and show me where they are wrong or deceptive.
You said that Hitler was inspired more by religious thinkers. Can you post quotes by historians or people who were close to Hitler, with references and links to support that, or is that something you heard or read from questionable sources?
Eugenics has been around a hell of a lot longer than Darwin's Descent of Man. Royalty has practised it since the beginning of time. I've mentioned the Spartans, probably the most historically famous proponents of eugenics. And, Christians actually found biblical references to help them in their active support of this idea. Darwin's theory of evolution was blasphemous to most people at that time as you can imagine. So no, I'd have to say the essentially the bible itself influenced many in that area.
Actually, I said Hitler was driven by a variety of sources, all of which he twisted to fit his perception of the perfect world. I've read Mein Kampf (longest psychotic rant in the history of the planet) and various books on the subject. What people often mistakenly refer to as "Darwinism" is really something else entirely. But I'll hunt down some links for you when I can.
-
Deedee, why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
Stop it. Darwin inspired Hitler and nothing else! The Nazis' hatred of the Jews had nothing, nothing to do with centuries of Church (both Catholic and Protestant) incitement and pogroms against the Jews.
It was that damn evolution and Darwin. Once you accept that, next thing you know you'll be out throwing people into ovens because you came from monkeys.
::)
-
Eugenics has been around a hell of a lot longer than Darwin's Descent of Man. Royalty has practised it since the beginning of time. I've mentioned the Spartans, probably the most historically famous proponents of eugenics. And, Christians actually found biblical references to help them in their active support of this idea. Darwin's theory of evolution was blasphemous to most people at that time as you can imagine. So no, I'd have to say the essentially the bible itself influenced many in that area.
Please, list those Biblical references. I'm not saying they didn't do that, I just want you to post them so that I can learn something new and so that you have something to support your claim.
You say that the Bible influenced many in the area of eugenics. Please post references to back that up.
Deedee, just out of courtesy to readers of your posts, it would be nice if you would please include references to support claims such as these, claims that are not common knowledge or that are debatable. Otherwise, we could all just pull claims and statements out of our butts, then tell anyone who disagrees to go read a book or to go get an education. That's not much of a good debate in my opinion.
Actually, I said Hitler was driven by a variety of sources, all of which he twisted to fit his perception of the perfect world. I've read Mein Kampf (longest psychotic rant in the history of the planet) and various books on the subject. What people often mistakenly refer to as "Darwinism" is really something else entirely. But I'll hunt down some links for you when I can.
Thank you!
-
Please, list those Biblical references. I'm not saying they didn't do that, I just want you to post them so that I can learn something new and so that you have something to support your claim.
You say that the Bible influenced many in the area of eugenics. Please post references to back that up.
Deedee, just out of courtesy to readers of your posts, it would be nice if you would please include references to support claims such as these, claims that are not common knowledge or that are debatable. Otherwise, we could all just pull claims and statements out of our butts, then tell anyone who disagrees to go read a book or to go get an education. That's not much of a good debate in my opinion.
Thank you!
I have no problem with that, other than when I do, very often people don't read them, just as you didn't read a link I posted for you yesterday, or at least, ignored it. I'm at work, so I don't like to waste time.
Those quotes you provided regarding your position, are simply opinions of people and don't prove anything one way or another. I can write with authority that you are a creationist, but that is still my opinion based on my perceptions. I haven't provided proof that you are. In the same way, you have not posted anything that directly links Hitler and Darwanism. That's why I say, people often label things mistakenly.
Just out of curiosity though in the meantime. You're claiming that Christians were "influenced" by Darwin, twisting his theory and writings to accommodate sterilizing immigrants and degenerates, yet even reading his works at that time was blasphemous to the faithful. Tell me, how can people be influenced by something they shun and disdain altogether?
-
Deedee, why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
Stop it. Darwin inspired Hitler and nothing else! The Nazis' hatred of the Jews had nothing, nothing to do with centuries of Church (both Catholic and Protestant) incitement and pogroms against the Jews.
It was that damn evolution and Darwin. Once you accept that, next thing you know you'll be out throwing people into ovens because you came from monkeys.
::)
:D
-
I have no problem with that, other than when I do, very often people don't read them, just as you didn't read a link I posted for you yesterday, or at least, ignored it. I'm at work, so I don't like to waste time.
I read it. Why do you assume that I did not read it or that I ignored it?
Those quotes you provided regarding your position, are simply opinions of people and don't prove anything one way or another. I can write with authority that you are a creationist, but that is still my opinion based on my perceptions. I haven't provided proof that you are. In the same way, you have not posted anything that directly links Hitler and Darwanism. That's why I say, people often label things mistakenly.
And you know that these are simply opinions because? Besides, opinions by historians and biologists do count, so please do post those to support your claim. An expert's opinion is better than nothing. Also, opinions or claims by those who were close to the person discussed also count. They may not prove anything, but they at least give your claims and statements more credibility.
Just out of curiosity though in the meantime. You're claiming that Christians were "influenced" by Darwin, twisting his theory and writings to accommodate sterilizing immigrants and degenerates, yet even reading his works at that time was blasphemous to the faithful. Tell me, how can people be influenced by something they shun and disdain altogether?
Some Christians, even Christian Scientists such as R. A. Fisher accepted evolution and did not find it blasphemous.
-
I read it. Why do you assume that I did not read it or that I ignored it?
And you know that these are simply opinions because? Besides, opinions by historians and biologists do count, so please do post those to support your claim. An expert's opinion is better than nothing. Also, opinions or claims by those who were close to the person discussed also count. They may not prove anything, but they at least give your claims and statements more credibility.
Some Christians, even Christian Scientists such as R. A. Fisher accepted evolution and did not find it blasphemous.
I figured if you had read it, you wouldn't have repeated some of the same things over and over. ;)
You haven't provided us with any direct links vis a vis Darwin's theories and Hitler's plan 'o action. I'll give you some that show how Hitler followed Luther's blueprint almost to the letter for dealing with the Jews, (adding in just a smattering of his own modern day creative madness with his use of the gas chamber and importing some mystical embroidery to make it exciting). Unfortunately, for some reason, people always feel they should dump stuff on my desk at the end of the day, so it'll have to wait while I toil like a slave all night. But in the meantime you could try and google it yourself. It's all out there.
For starters though, here's a little something from a Christian proponent of Eugenics. I haven't even dug back to the turn of the century yet... but this is going on TODAY! :) Now where do you think this guy got his impetus from... Darwin... or the bible?
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/03/christian-eugenics.html
What to do if your baby is gay!
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
P.S. You posted once again, an anecdotal story of one man, but forget about the hundreds of thousands who thought a different way. And I find it funny that you dismiss the actions of many Christians, while you doggedly stick to your story that Darwin is responsible for the scandal of eugenics, a notion that existed well into history before him.
-
No you didn't. :) You highlighted half a sentence. Had you highlighted the rest, you would have noted that Darwin believed that you couldn't morally neglect the weak and sick. Nowhere does Darwin ever advocate violence against others. Natural selection is all about the weak dying off on their own, not with a helping hand from the rest of the herd.
Oh Ozmo!!!! Read this sentence this paragraph.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
You don't like it that he's matter of fact in his tone and that puts you off. However, he's a scientist and his plain, factual language illustrates that. He clearly states that the original instinct of sympathy, which contributed to man's survival (banding together, helping to ward off predators etc) has become even more pronounced as we evolved. And that if we were to neglect saving the weak and sick, it might be practical in some small sense for human society but with "certain and great present evil" i.e. bad, dire moral consequences. For morality's sake we have to take care of our imbeciles...but we can still hope they won't marry.
So, where is the cry to violence toward the weak and sick? What he writes here is the complete opposite of what Hitler advocates.
And actually, I'm in complete agreement. I wish imbeciles wouldn't marry either. :)
Deedee, you sound like a fundamentalist defending your holy text....not that there is anything wrong with that! ;D
-
I figured if you had read it, you wouldn't have repeated some of the same things over and over. ;)
Why? Your link goes to a page that can be edited by anybody in the world. It has a list of claims with no citations, no references to its sources, nothing. Do you have anything better, like a quotes from historians, scientists or anybody who was close to Hitler? They don't have to be links as long as you list your references. Thank you!
You haven't provided us with any direct links vis a vis Darwin's theories and Hitler's plan 'o action. I'll give you some that show how Hitler followed Luther's blueprint almost to the letter for dealing with the Jews, (adding in just a smattering of his own modern day creative madness with his use of the gas chamber and importing some mystical embroidery to make it exciting). Unfortunately, for some reason, people always feel they should dump stuff on my desk at the end of the day, so it'll have to wait while I toil like a slave all night. But in the meantime you could try and google it yourself. It's all out there.
I haven't? I've posted a long quote by none other than Darwin himself for people to read and draw their own conclusions. I then followed that with quotes from people who say Darwinism inspired Hitler, and then also biologists to promote the eugenics movement which led to forced sterilizations in the US in the 1800s. These people are more reliable sources then myself and they have convincing arguments to support their claims.
What have you posted to support your, so far baseless claims that Christian thinkers and that the Bible were more influential on Hitler and on biologists who promoted eugenics in the US 1890s–1945?
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head."
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.
"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained."
Dr. John G. West, Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
For starters though, here's a little something from a Christian proponent of Eugenics. I haven't even dug back to the turn of the century yet... but this is going on TODAY! :) Now where do you think this guy got his impetus from... Darwin... or the bible?
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/03/christian-eugenics.html
What to do if your baby is gay!
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
No, you said that essentially the bible itself influenced many to support the eugenics movement which let to forced sterilizations in the US during the early part of the 20th century. I asked you to please cite references to support that, but you have not yet done that. I asked you to please provide the Bible verses that you claim Christians used to support the above, but you have not yet done that either.
P.S. You posted once again, an anecdotal story of one man, but forget about the hundreds of thousands who thought a different way. And I find it funny that you dismiss the actions of many Christians, while you doggedly stick to your story that Darwin is responsible for the scandal of eugenics, a notion that existed well into history before him.
Excuse me? I have once again done what? Please show me where I have posted an anecdotal story of one man? You asked me a question and I gave you a more than valid answer:
A. Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher was not just "one man" or "just any man" for that matter. He was a statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. Anders Hald described him as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]
B. He was a Christian. [3]
C. He supported eugenics
D. He lived 1890 – 1962
Refernces:
1. Hald, Anders (1998). A History of Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.
2. Dawkins, Richard (1995). River out of Eden.
3. H. Allen Orr describes him as "deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines" in the Boston Review Gould on God Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
And it wasn't just him. There were always Christians who accepted evolution, not all rejected it. So my answer was more than adequate for your question. You are the one who claims that the Bible inspired those Christians who supported the eugenics movement's forced sterilization. The burden to support your own claim falls on you, not me.
And I have neither denied that of those who supported the eugenics movement some were Christians, neither have I held Darwin responsible. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You've done that plenty of times in this thread already. I said Darwin's Descent of Man inspired the movement, not that Darwin is directly responsible.
-
You post quotes from religious wack jobs with dubious intentions. Sorry, just doesn't do it for me. And I don't have time for this today, but I'll get back to you loco. :)
Richard Weikart:
In The Journal of Modern History (March 2006) Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of history at the University of Louisville explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:
"This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history."
-
Deedee, you sound like a fundamentalist defending your holy text....not that there is anything wrong with that! ;D
I do? :) If I was a fundamentalist defending my holy text... I would have told Ozmo that he'd growing festering boils on his face and writhe burning for eternity in a black pit if he didn't come to his senses and agree with me. :)
-
I do? :) If I was a fundamentalist defending my holy text... I would have told Ozmo that he'd growing festering boils on his face and writhe burning for eternity in a black pit if he didn't come to his senses and agree with me. :)
Really? Why is that? Are you making a reference to somebody else? Who would that be?
-
You post quotes from religious wack jobs with dubious intentions. Sorry, just doesn't do it for me. And I don't have time for this today, but I'll get back to you loco. :)
Richard Weikart:
In The Journal of Modern History (March 2006) Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of history at the University of Louisville explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:
"This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history."
Deedee, first of all let me say Congratulations! You have finally posted a source that I consider reliable and acceptable. You have posted a quote, from a professor of history, naming the professor that you are quoting and the name of the University where she works, and the journal where the quote came from along with the month and the year of publication. Not only that, but the quote is consistent with what we are discussing since she disagrees with Weikart on Darwinism's influence on Hitler.
Having said that, what you posted does not support your claim that Richard Weikart is a "religious wack job with dubious intentions". He is a respected historian. I could just as easily have claimed that Ann Taylor Allen is a "Darwinian wack job with dubious intentions". You could have left that out, but since you didn't I would appreciate it if you would please back your claim. Thank you!
Also, I never claimed that Darwinism inspired anti-semitism. I am well aware that anti-semitism goes way back in history and that Hitler's anti-semitism was not inspired by Darwinism. What Darwinism inspired Hitler to want to do and to try to do is to dominate the world and to destroy "the weak kind", regardless of race. To Hitler, "the weak kind" happened to include all Jews.
Finally, what you posted about Ann Taylor Allen does not deny that Darwinism inspired Hitler's desire to dominate the world and to rid the world of "the weak kind", regardless of race. All she is saying is that even if this is true "this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science."
Oh, one more thing. You have shown me why you disagree with only one of my sources. I posted other sources. What have you to say about them?
-
Good things come to those who wait. :)
Lol, what credible sources have you posted? Two "respected" authorities who are financed by the Discovery Institute. ;D One a white supremacist. These people aren't biased or anything are they? I'm going to thank you also loco, as I had no idea that the new Christian agenda was to tastelessly attach Hitler's crimes to the theory of evolution in order to discredit it. By the way, here is what the Jews think of this.
ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler
NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”
After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.
It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”
The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”
A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”
I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when it gets less busy.
-
Good things come to those who wait. :)
Lol, what credible sources have you posted? Two "respected" authorities who are financed by the Discovery Institute. ;D One a white supremacist. These people aren't biased or anything are they? I'm going to thank you also loco, as I had no idea that the new Christian agenda was to tastelessly attach Hitler's crimes to the theory of evolution in order to discredit it. By the way, here is what the Jews think of this.
ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler
NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”
After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.
It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”
The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”
A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”
I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when it gets less busy.
Deedee,
Hold on just one second. Who is D. James Kennedy? When did I quote him?
And which one of my sources is a white supremacist?
Why did you accuse Richard Weikart of being a "religious wack job with dubious intentions"?
I don't understand how your last post supports any of your claims or how it counters any of mine. Are you simply dodging my questions and avoiding the issue? I only say that because three times now you have posted sources and links that do not support your earlier claims, then you tell me that you'll get back to me, then you come back with more baseless claims and putting words in my mouth again. Why don't you instead spend your time and energy producing the sources that will actually support your claims?
-
Deedee,
Hold on just one second. Who is D. James Kennedy? When did I quote him?
And which one of my sources is a white supremacist?
Why did you accuse Richard Weikart of being a "religious wack job with dubious intentions"?
I don't understand how your last post supports any of your claims or how it counters any of mine. Are you simply dodging my questions and avoiding the issue? I only say that because three times now you have posted sources and links that do not support your earlier claims, then you tell me that you'll get back to me, then you come back with more baseless claims and putting words in my mouth again. Why don't you instead spend your time and energy producing the sources that will actually support your claims?
Calm down loco... I'm not interested in changing your beliefs, nor will you change mine. This is just an exercise in asking ourselves to think. :)
I am not dodging your questions, but do have a life outside of getbig.
At least two of your sources aren't credible to me because they were financed to write what they did. The Discovery Institute's mission is to instill the teaching of creationism in schools. So, in essence these writers are producing what we refer to as propaganda. To add to that, you post convenient snippets, out of context and disregarding whatever else the author may have said to balance the highlighted paragraph. Your writer Richard Weikart, apparently states in his book that Darwin is NOT responsible for the holocaust. I did misspeak about the white supremicist thing. I was momentarily thinking of someone else, so I apologize for that one.
You, like many people, do not know the difference between theory of evolution (natural selection) and its opposite, eugenics (actively mucking around with the breeding of people). Therefore, you cannot tell that Hitler was a creationist, not a darwinist.
Darwinism - theory of haphazard survival of species, based on naturally adapting to environment.
Eugenics - breeding favorable traits into humans while discouraging the mating/proliferation of undesirables and defectives. This concept has been around well into history.
Hitler - believed the Aryan race was the perfect, descended lineage of kings created by God. Inspired by the enthusiasm of the German medical community who had embraced the ideas of American Eugenicists, incorporated their notions into his mishmash of creationist, mystical ideas. Worship of bloodlines = creationist, not Darwinist thinking.
If you look back at my posts, I said that Hitler was inspired by many sources... the teachings of Luther, American Eugenicists, the smothering Treaty of Versailles, centuries of dogged anti-semitism, his addiction to amphetemines.
I know you didn't quote Kennedy, but your thinking is along the same lines, if I'm not mistaken. You too, feel that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust. At least, that's what I'm getting from your posts. If you DON'T think Darwin is responsible, then just say so.
The reason I became interested in this thread is because due to my extended family I have personally known people whose lives were touched by the Holocaust, and I found it a little shocking that people would trivialize the suffering of so many just to serve an agenda. I figured I'm just overly sensitive to these things, but when I googled some Jewish responses, I saw that I was not alone. Many Jews find it tasteless as well. That's why I posted that story.
-
...Dr. D. James Kennedy...
He died recently. He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god. His church was a cathedral worth millions.
In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.
Sorry for the interruption.
-
Here's some reading for you regarding the Christian community's embracing of eugenics in the early 20th century.
The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying.6
In a later section, she connected such unfortunates with Malachi’s prophetic rebuke of postexilic Israel’s offering of blind, lame, and sick animals as sacrifices. She scoffed at the notion that "the lame, halt, deaf, blind, mutes, imbeciles, idiots, drunkards and moral perverts" could be properly called "God-given children," or considered a proper offering and gift to God.7
That's from here -------> http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm which is probably the most concise of what I've provided for you.
This has lotsa pictures, and is a very interesting reading.
http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/davis01.pdf
And this is a lot to get through, but I found it a very engrossing read!!! You'll find the biblical references that were utilized to convince people of the godliness of eugenics on page 123 I think. Sermon of the Mount is mentioned, as is "Sins of the Father, shall be visited etc... and Noah and the Flood is noted. If you want to read the first couple of introductory chapters, go to Amazon and find PREACHING EUGENICS: RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THE AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVEMENT.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=the+american+eugenics+christians+biblical+references&source=web&ots=ChXkSjvbLE&sig=QPIz9ke_h3aiOsyOC0Qgy6b3SPo#PPA9,M1
Hitler admired what the American Eugenicists were accomplishing so much, that he got his own people right on that. There's an infamous quote by a Virginia physician "They're beating us at our own game."
http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html
I think, based on your logic, it would seem that American Christians had much more of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin.
I'll post you some Hitler/Luther stuff at a later time.
-
He died recently. He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god. His church was a cathedral worth millions.
In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.
Sorry for the interruption.
Can't say I'm sorry. :-X
And I welcome the interruption. The more the merrier. :)
-
I have to say that as someone who culturally identifies as a Jew and has orthodox Jews in his family, blaming Darwin for the holocaust is akin to blaming Jesus for the pogroms.
-
He died recently. He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god. His church was a cathedral worth millions.
In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.
Sorry for the interruption.
He can't be what's wrong with organized religion when he's dead. :)
I was never much of a Kennedy fan, because I didn't like his church-state views, but organized religion is fine overall. Part of the backbone of our society.
-
At least two of your sources aren't credible to me because they were financed to write what they did. The Discovery Institute's mission is to instill the teaching of creationism in schools. So, in essence these writers are producing what we refer to as propaganda. To add to that, you post convenient snippets, out of context and disregarding whatever else the author may have said to balance the highlighted paragraph. Your writer Richard Weikart, apparently states in his book that Darwin is NOT responsible for the holocaust. I did misspeak about the white supremicist thing. I was momentarily thinking of someone else, so I apologize for that one.
Deedee,
So you falsely make it seem as if I'm quoting somebody who I did not quote. You falsely accused one of my sources of being a white supremacist and a "religious wack job with dubious intentions". Then you finally admit it after I ask you to substantiate your baseless claims.
Looks to me like you are desperate to discredit me and my sources.
And if The Discovery Institute was a good for nothing bunch of "religious wack jobs with dubious intentions", then it would not be funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides $1 million a year for The Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
You, like many people, do not know the difference between theory of evolution (natural selection) and its opposite, eugenics (actively mucking around with the breeding of people). Therefore, you cannot tell that Hitler was a creationist, not a darwinist.
Hitler, a creationist? First you call me a creationist, now Hitler is a creationist. Deedee, what is your definition of a creationist? So Hitler did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? Yeah, right Deedee.
If you look back at my posts, I said that Hitler was inspired by many sources... the teachings of Luther, American Eugenicists, the smothering Treaty of Versailles, centuries of dogged anti-semitism, his addiction to amphetemines.
You conveniently left Darwinism out of your list above.
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger."
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.
I know you didn't quote Kennedy, but your thinking is along the same lines, if I'm not mistaken. You too, feel that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust. At least, that's what I'm getting from your posts. If you DON'T think Darwin is responsible, then just say so.
Then why did you not make that clear in the post where you accuse one of my sources of being a white supremacist, then immediately follow that with an article that talks about this Kennedy guy, a "Christian Supremacist" according to your post, whom I did not quote? Very sneaky of you if you ask me.
And you are mistaken. I've already told you:
I said Darwin's Descent of Man inspired the movement, not that Darwin is directly responsible.
I've also said Darwinism inspired Hitler, but I do not and cannot hold Darwin directly responsible.
-
Here's some reading for you regarding the Christian community's embracing of eugenics in the early 20th century.
The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying.6
In a later section, she connected such unfortunates with Malachi’s prophetic rebuke of postexilic Israel’s offering of blind, lame, and sick animals as sacrifices. She scoffed at the notion that "the lame, halt, deaf, blind, mutes, imbeciles, idiots, drunkards and moral perverts" could be properly called "God-given children," or considered a proper offering and gift to God.7
That's from here -------> http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm which is probably the most concise of what I've provided for you.
This has lotsa pictures, and is a very interesting reading.
http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/davis01.pdf
And this is a lot to get through, but I found it a very engrossing read!!! You'll find the biblical references that were utilized to convince people of the godliness of eugenics on page 123 I think. Sermon of the Mount is mentioned, as is "Sins of the Father, shall be visited etc... and Noah and the Flood is noted. If you want to read the first couple of introductory chapters, go to Amazon and find PREACHING EUGENICS: RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THE AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVEMENT.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=the+american+eugenics+christians+biblical+references&source=web&ots=ChXkSjvbLE&sig=QPIz9ke_h3aiOsyOC0Qgy6b3SPo#PPA9,M1
Hitler admired what the American Eugenicists were accomplishing so much, that he got his own people right on that. There's an infamous quote by a Virginia physician "They're beating us at our own game."
http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html
I think, based on your logic, it would seem that American Christians had much more of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin.
I'll post you some Hitler/Luther stuff at a later time.
What? You think that based on my logic, American Christians had "much more" of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin?
Deedee,
You keep trying to turn this thing around and claim that no, not only did Darwin not inspired Hitler at all, but it was the Bible and Christianity that did. That is false.
Hitler's actions are in no way, shape or form consistent with Jesus Christ or with true Christian doctrine. Hitler himself was aware of this, but he tried Christian rhetoric anyway to get Catholics and Protestants on his side and turn them against the Jews.
To the Catholics he would publicly claim to be a devout Catholic. To the Protestants he would quote Luther, who never said anything about killing Jews or about exterminating the entire race, but Luther was the best Hitler had at his disposal. By the way, Hitler was either a devout Catholic or he was a fan of Luther, but he couldn't be both. Roman Catholics are no fans of Martin Luther.
Anyway, Hitler's public statements about religion were confusing, but his private statements were more clear:
"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
Joseph Goebbels(one of Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers), The Holy Reich by Richard Steigmann-Gall, p. 253
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Adolf Hitler as reported by Albert Speer(Hitler's chief architect before becoming his Minister for Armaments during the war), The Holy Reich by Richard Steigmann-Gall, p. 252-253
On Martin Bormann, Head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer
"Nazism, based as it was on a 'scientific' world-view, was completely incompatible with Christianity whose influence was regarded by Bormann as a serious obstacle to totalitarian rule"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/bormann.html
-
Some funny, zany Hitler quotes:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance
with the will of the Almighty Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
the practical existence of a religious belief."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence
of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but
the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
"....the personification of the devil as the symbol
of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11,
precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]
"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable
stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin
the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for
compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but
in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
And there's this:
The Lutheran editor of the American translation of Luther's works comments: "It is impossible to publish Luther's treatise today . . . without noting how similar to his proposals were the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's." The Nazis would now and then pay tribute to their mentor by staging an event on a date or at a place associated with him. They declared, for example, that their first large-scale pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 was a pious operation performed in honor of the anniversary of Luther's birthday.
To cite but one more example, the installation of Ludwig M?ller as Reich Bishop was conducted with great fanfare in the church at Wittenberg where Luther had preached. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, names Luther as one of the great heroes of the German people. The historian, Professor Friedrich Heer, is authority for the knowledge that Hitler "was prepared to concede that Luther had prepared the way for his own work." He quotes Hitler as saying, as early as 1918: "He saw the Jew as we are only now beginning to see him today." (Ominous.)
What was it that Luther offered that made him so attractive to the Nazis? It was a book-length treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he gave expression to his unbridled, not to say utterly maniacal, detestation of Jews, and which contained more than a hint of genocidal intentions toward them. Luther's vehement attacks on the Jews were frequently recalled and widely disseminated by the Nazis. The original edition of Luther's loathsome volume was exhibited in a special glass case at party rallies in Nuremberg.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust4.html
Some quotes from people who were actually "there"
Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."
Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:
When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity.
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.
-"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:
Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun.
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich
Erich Koch, the Reich Commissioner for Ukraine and President of the East Prussian Protestant Church Synod wrote:
Only we can enter into Luther's spirit.... Human cults do not set us free from all sin, but faith alone. With us the church shall become a serving member of the state.... There is a deep sense that our celebration is not attended by superficiality, but rather by thanks to a man who saved German cultural values.
-Konigsberg-Hartungsche Zeitung, 20 Nov. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:
Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn].
-Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Hans Schemm became Bavarian Minister of Education and Culture. Throughout the Reich, Germans particularly knew Schemm for his slogan, "Our religion is Christ, our politics Fatherland!" He writes:
His engagement against the decomposing Jewish spirit is clearly evident not only from his writing against the Jews; his life too was idealistically, philosophically antisemitic. Now we Germans of today have the duty to recognize and acknowledge this.
-"Luther und das Deutschtum," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (19 Nov. 1933: Berlin), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Our confession to God is a confession of a doctrine of totality.... To give ultimate significance to the totalities of race, resistance and personality there is added the supreme totalitarian slogan of our Volk: "Religion and God." God is the greatest totality and extends over all else.
-(Gertrud Kahl-Furthmann (ed.), Hans Schemm spricht: Seine Reden und sein Werk (Bayreuth, 1935), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:
"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."
The list goes on and on, but you are convinced and brainwashed by the latest marketing tactics of the "Discovery Institute" that venerable insitution seeking to inform and promote knowledge and freethinking. ::) Bwahahahaha.
Do you think people are stupid loco? It's very easy to google the Discovery Institute to find out exactly who and what that disgusting organization is comprised of, and exactly what they stand for. And yeah, I think anyone who is financed by such an unethical institution must be a religious wack job. That's my opinion. Go check out who else gives generous donations to this institute you try to sell so eagerly. But then again, I'm sure you'd be absolutely thrilled to live under one big, happy theocracy together. :)
And you DO post convenient snippets. You even posted a sentence on another thread that clearly DIDN'T support your point of view AT ALL, and yet you bolded a few phrase fragments to make it seem so. That was kind of funny actually. I giggled. :)
I'm sure you're just repeating this Hitler shit (which you don't understand and know nothing about) because this is the newest marketing scheme of associations like the "Discovery Institute" in their latest venture to discredit the theory of evolution and have creationism taught nationwide in schools, and you don't bother to think for yourself. You just repeat the party line over and over again.
As far as "Darwinism" goes, there are many people, even in academic circles, who have borrowed his name and attached his work as a label where it has no place in being, and what you've quoted bears that out. Stick to your story though, no matter how crass and tasteless and belittling it is to the memory of millions. As someone said, associating the Holocaust to Darwin is the same as blaming Jesus for the pogroms. That is most concise and true statement in this thread.
-
The list goes on and on, but you are convinced and brainwashed by the latest marketing tactics of the "Discovery Institute" that venerable insitution seeking to inform and promote knowledge and freethinking. ::) Bwahahahaha.
Do you think people are stupid loco? It's very easy to google the Discovery Institute to find out exactly who and what that disgusting organization is comprised of, and exactly what they stand for. And yeah, I think anyone who is financed by such an unethical institution must be a religious wack job. That's my opinion. Go check out who else gives generous donations to this institute you try to sell so eagerly. But then again, I'm sure you'd be absolutely thrilled to live under one big, happy theocracy together. :)
And you DO post convenient snippets. You even posted a sentence on another thread that clearly DIDN'T support your point of view AT ALL, and yet you bolded a few phrase fragments to make it seem so. That was kind of funny actually. I giggled. :)
I'm sure you're just repeating this Hitler shit (which you don't understand and know nothing about) because this is the newest marketing scheme of associations like the "Discovery Institute" in their latest venture to discredit the theory of evolution and have creationism taught nationwide in schools, and you don't bother to think for yourself. You just repeat the party line over and over again.
As far as "Darwinism" goes, there are many people, even in academic circles, who have borrowed his name and attached his work as a label where it has no place in being, and what you've quoted bears that out. Stick to your story though, no matter how crass and tasteless and belittling it is to the memory of millions. As someone said, associating the Holocaust to Darwin is the same as blaming Jesus for the pogroms. That is most concise and true statement in this thread.
Quote Luther all you want. It does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Christianity. And go ahead and continue adding to your long list of baseless claims and false accusations, and continue to dodge my questions and to put words in my mouth. If I posted a sentence on another thread that "clearly DIDN'T support my point of view AT ALL", why did you even say that and not even tell me what that sentence is and show me how it "clearly DIDN'T support my point of view AT ALL"?
And you yourself have gone on record saying that Hitler was inspired by the theory of evolution and by Darwin, and now you are going back and forth, contradicting yourself. How can you be taken seriously after all that?
Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.
Hitler was inspired by a number of things. His failure as an artist, his sado-sexual weirdnesses, and as Trapezecurl mentioned, centuries of European anti-semitism. He was inspired by the theory of evolution, as well as the words of religious thinkers and anti-semitic composers.
-
We're done with the Discovery Institute now? ::)
You say what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in clear, savage language, specifically talking about religion or Luther had no bearing on what he did. I say it does. The exact timing of the violence commited on Kristalnacht with Luther's birthday is just an example. You say Darwin's work inspired Hitler. Okay fine, where does Hitler ever talk about Darwin? He does however, mention Luther. I say the religious American community readily embraced eugenics from a godly inspired point of view, and posted to that effect with proof. It's a historical fact that Hitler admired the American Eugenicists and his people learned much from them... and since the religious community embraced the American Eugenecist movement, it stands to follow that Hitler received some of his inspiration from the American religious community. And THAT'S based on YOUR logic, not mine.
You can keep on with your pretzel logic though, as long as you like. What is this... I post something and you just keep repeating "no it's not, no it's not, no it's not. ::)"
Your funny little bolded snippet is from the "US Doomed if Creationist President Elected" thread. Go find it. It's right on the first page. I find it funny also, that you quote a passage from Darwin, claiming it to be a damning and a clear link to Nazi atrocities, yet in that passage Darwin states as plain as day that because we have a nobler, more elevated nature than mere animals, we could never think to interfere with harming others, or leaving them to neglect. Doesn't sound like that quote's backing up your claims much, far as I can see.
Most people don't have a clue what the difference is between Darwinism, social Darwinism, theory of evolution and eugenics. Many people mislabel all of these and generally throw it all under one big umbrella for convenience sake, even academics. That's why I said Darwinism, instead of specifying exactly, with a huge underscore, that I meant eugenics. I didn't realize this thread was so serious.
Of course Hitler WAS inspired by eugenics, and some bastardized notions of survival of the "strongest" (which has nothing to do with survival of the fittest... you don't seem to get that either loco). But if you've read any history at all, you'd know that he believed in the racial superiority of the Aryans. That again, is the complete opposite of theory of evolution, which says that species survive randomly and haphazardly and is dependant upon adapting to the environment. Racial superiority, worshipping bloodlines... all of that is conducive to creationist thinking.
As a little aside, Hitler was quite practical when it came to euthanasia policies actually... once the war started, beds were needed and so were all the resources available. The elderly and those with no hope went first. I don't see where the big Darwin influence there is. Sounds like typical Nazi fiscal responsibility.
This could go on and on, but like I said, you go around and around with your pretzel logic, others have already told you the same as I, and yet you are convinced that everything the Discovery Institute puts forward to you is utter truth. So go be happy loco, but I'll tell you one last time, it's crass and tasteless. :)
-
Deedee,
Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "the theory of evolution"? Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "Darwin"?
-
Deedee,
Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "the theory of evolution"? Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "Darwin"?
I didn't. I said he was inspired by many sources, and as I told you in my last post, I was throwing the big umbrella over it all because most people who aren't scientists do just that. You're right. I should have specified eugenics instead of theory of evolution, and Darwin.