Topic: Atheism Weak or Strong | |
---|---|
There is a good book out Called From Darwin to Hitler. "Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich "This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were." --German Studies Review |
|
|
|
Eljay uttered: Ah... but I am not saying we are not a nation made up of practicing Christains.
I am saying exactly that. You know why? I am not a Christian. JB is not a Christian. TBRICH is not a Christian. Abra is not a Christian. The list goes on. In fact you are in the minority as a Christian because you are a Born Again. That has never been in doubt. I would say that more than half of the professing christains on this site have never even read the bible, and think that they are christain because they're - well, nice people. Being "nice" isn't part of the criteria for being a christian. Doing good works makes one a good Muslim, doesn't make one a christian. Again I ask - do you know what one has to do to be saved? (Which translates into one being a christain) |
|
|
|
Yeah the Hitler thing just leads to argument and it occupies any thread it is mentioned on. There is more than enough evidence to support Hitler's Christianity however. It’s not as if we need Hitler to substantiate the grievace atrocities perpetrated by Christians. Its gravy. Having read this - I ask you again. What do you think a christain is? |
|
|
|
Darwin and Hitler: Darwin disavowed selective breeding of humans
The film quotes an extended and seemingly damning passage from Darwin on the effects of bad breeding. ‘...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.” If anything seems like a “necessary” idea to German master race theory, it surely is this. But just a minute. Actually, the influence of breeding is not Darwin’s idea at all - he is merely pointing out what we have known for literally thousands of years since humans domesticated animals. And most importantly, Darwin himself emphatically disavows any such program for humans. The quote given in the movie completely excises a large section and a crucial qualifier in the middle of passage - “excepting in the case of man himself”. And it entirely leaves off Darwin’s conclusion: we cannot restrain our sympathy “without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature” and if “we neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for contingent benefit with an overwhelming present evil.” Darwin explicitly asserted that refusing to help, let alone destroying, the needy and the infirmed is both contrary to our nature and morally repugnant. The very opposite of Hitler and sadly, the opposite of the views ascribed to him by Expelled. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 10:06 AM
|
|
Yeah the Hitler thing just leads to argument and it occupies any thread it is mentioned on. There is more than enough evidence to support Hitler's Christianity however. It’s not as if we need Hitler to substantiate the grievace atrocities perpetrated by Christians. Its gravy. Having read this - I ask you again. What do you think a christain is? A subscriber of the Christian faith. This would include Born Agains. |
|
|
|
There is a good book out Called From Darwin to Hitler. "Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich "This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were." --German Studies Review I just discredited the movie "Expelled" |
|
|
|
That has never been in doubt. I would say that more than half of the professing christains on this site have never even read the bible, and think that they are christain because they're - well, nice people.
It has been my belief that a person can be nice in spite of being a Christian. Being "nice" isn't part of the criteria for being a christian.
Nor is being a murderer nessassarily. |
|
|
|
Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:
Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383) The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.) Other passages further support his creationist leanings: The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383) and What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214) Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example: Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65). "[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398). A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933). The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279) On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed": c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.) Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics. |
|
|
|
The U of H study was one that was conducted over a ten year period of time and examined all of the writings and correspondence of the 150 some odd "Founding Fathers" - essentially those who's work was on one or all of The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Articles of Confederation - as well as those who served in the original congress and Supreme Court (Most of whom were part of the previous aformentioned commitees.) Statistics were then compiled over who or what was most quoted or referenced in Terms of the creating of the Documents and idea's that formed this country. The idea of forming a Republic was actually not a new idea - it had already been outlined by John Locke - who was one of the more frequently referenced influences of the Founding Father's. As would be expected - the bible was quoted more often than any other individual or Document, since about 90 per cent of the Founding Fathers were members of Orthadox Christian churches, and many were themselves in the Clergy. Hardly a surprise since the original purpose of coming to this country was for the purpose of freely pursuing their Christain beliefs without being influenced by the Church of England - which despite this effort, was still the largest church in the New Colony. Nor surpsing - again, since it was a British Colony. The Church of England was much too powereful back in those days to not have established itself in the New World. Anyway... I find it surprising that at the time of the Founding Fathers, Christianity would not have been extremely influential in the founding of this country. I have spent my entire life in New England - and churches outnumber any other type of establishment - by far. The major colleges established in those days were Divinity Schools! The school primers were taken directly from the bible. Try as one might - wish as one may, attempting to erase the Christian influence on the founding of this country is a sad lesson in ignorance and ignoring the facts. As you stipulate, but here's where I think it bogs down-- what's the difference between 'influence' and actual execution? Let's say I'm designing an adaptive battery charger for the military, and make use of the Laplace Transform in doing the engineering math. That doesn't make either me or my product French. Where do 'influence' and 'Christian principles' converge to make our representative democracy a 'Christian nation'? Said another way, if could be proven beyond all debate that, say, 80% of what went into the Constitution was of 'Christian principle', and 20 percent of principles derived from Freethought, don't Christians have the obligation to acknowledge said contributions? See, when they annex all the credit and give it to He who says I Am and call this a Christian nation, it causes the type of friction that was the irritant to spur people to take long ocean voyages to strange and dangerous lands to escape such a hegemony. How different is Pat Robertson to Freethinkers from Oliver Cromwell to Catholics? Why oh why can't we just say of the American way of government and culture that "It is what it is" and let it be a work in perpetual progress? -Kerry O. As to "it is what it is" - we agree. Since I wasn't around when the framers were discussing what principles they would adhere to in terms of establishing the cornerstone of this "New Nation", I can only go by what history records of what those framers said of what and why they based their decisions on. Obviously the difference between Robinson and Cromwell can be directly - or indirectly seen from the lay_of_the_land of the times in which they lived. It is obvious that the power of the church in government is in direct oposition to each other in terms of it's influence at the time each man lived. The same can be said for just examining the influence of religion in the country in the mid 1700's as compared to today. I don't think that it is too difficult to see that were any of the founding fathers to walk into a seesion of congress - or to see the ACLU bring a petition before the Supreme court - that they would wonder what country they were in. To think that the state of the country and the practices of the day are what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the constitution is a case of futility in attempting to prove that where we are is what they had hoped for. Does anyone think that the founding fathers even considered that the issue of abortion was something they needed to adress? That it was a crime in their time to teach from the bible in the classroom? I doubt it. It is what it has become. Only God knows whaere that will lead us. |
|
|
|
Then prove it. We have clearly shown an overwhelming amount of evidence to discredit this theory. Who's this "we" and what is the "evidence"? |
|
|
|
And one last question. Why is it the case that my sources pepper their historical accounts of Hitler using direct quotes where he espouses his anti-Semitisms and biblical views. Yet when I look at any information provided of the opposite opinion, it is ALL based on the author’s conjecture?
|
|
|
|
Then prove it. We have clearly shown an overwhelming amount of evidence to discredit this theory. Who's this "we" and what is the "evidence"? Lets see, KerryO, Redy, Me, Inkraser, Dragoness, Busidobillyclub. I might have missed some. This entire thread is peppered with historical accounts. If you refuse to read them, there is nothing I can do but dont sit there and claim the evidence has not been provided. |
|
|
|
If I claimed that you and your beliefs are responsible for someone's death, would that not only be in error, but also be offensive to you?
Your beliefs exist because you ACCEPT that the sole purpose of Jesus was to DIE for YOU. You are the reason and therefore the cause of that person’s death. I find it amazing that people are so willing to accept that others would DIE so that life will continue, but claim no responsibility for contributing to that death. For every Christian martyred there is blood on your hands, for they have established, through their death, what you believe. You would accept that, yet you claim offense when you are asked to take responsibility for it. But Redy - that is what every christain understands, the part they played in sending Jesus to the cross. To deny having taken part in the responsibility of that, is not to understand the essence of christianity in the first place. So - for the most part - your claim of taking offense - is erronious to any true christain. |
|
|
|
If I claimed that you and your beliefs are responsible for someone's death, would that not only be in error, but also be offensive to you?
|
|
|
|
Last I checked more then 38,000. Seems almost schizophrenic in its disorder and dis-joined concept. What are you basing your criteria on to determine if a denomination is Christain or not? There are some people on thi site who think that because Hitler was a Catholic that the Nazi's are christians - or that the KKK is a christain group. There are those who are Scotsman - and those who only claim to be, and those who just wished they were. Is that supposed to be a joke or you don’t understand what the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy is exactly? I have heard it used twice now. Once for Hitler and once for the Klan. Read carefully as this paragraph sums it up quite clearly. the “no true Scotsman” fallacy that Christians are so fond of because it allows them to easily dispose of anyone that doesn’t meet whatever criteria they currently decide to use for Christianity. Child-molesting Catholic priests? No, they’re not real Christians. Bloodthirsty, murderous tyrants? Nope, they’re not Christian either. What constitutes being a Christian, you might ask? Why, whatever the person making the claim believes at the time, of course! So Krimsa - what is a christain? You continue to site all these examples of christains - so tell me what a christain is? Ive answered this question twice. I also will say again that the evidence to support Hitler's Christianity is overwheming. The ball is in your court once again |
|
|
|
Yeah the Hitler thing just leads to argument and it occupies any thread it is mentioned on. There is more than enough evidence to support Hitler's Christianity however. It’s not as if we need Hitler to substantiate the grievace atrocities perpetrated by Christians. Its gravy. Having read this - I ask you again. What do you think a christain is? A subscriber of the Christian faith. This would include Born Agains. A "subscriber" - what does that mean? You think because someone supports a few christian views that makes them a christian? |
|
|
|
If someone claims to accept Jesus Christ as their savior then yes, I would refer to them as a Christian. What right would I have to say they are a "fake Christian" at that point? How would you be able to ascertain the difference between a pretend Christian and a real one? That would mean that during 1930s Germany, the most Christianized country in the world in that time period and the most heavily Christian population could not tell that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian according to you.
|
|
|
|
Then prove it. We have clearly shown an overwhelming amount of evidence to discredit this theory. Who's this "we" and what is the "evidence"? Lets see, KerryO, Redy, Me, Inkraser, Dragoness, Busidobillyclub. I might have missed some. This entire thread is peppered with historical accounts. If you refuse to read them, there is nothing I can do but dont sit there and claim the evidence has not been provided. It is not the pepper shaker of evidence to support your statements - it's the mountain of evidence that refutes what you say that is conspicuously missing from your "evidence". You merely make a statement - find a single quote to support it, and ignore where all of the evidence takes you. You establish "evidence" by pretext, then when context is established you cry "that's a biased source" - ignoring what the context even demonstrates. Have you found that good lawyer yet? |
|
|
|
Then prove it. We have clearly shown an overwhelming amount of evidence to discredit this theory. Who's this "we" and what is the "evidence"? Lets see, KerryO, Redy, Me, Inkraser, Dragoness, Busidobillyclub. I might have missed some. This entire thread is peppered with historical accounts. If you refuse to read them, there is nothing I can do but dont sit there and claim the evidence has not been provided. It is not the pepper shaker of evidence to support your statements - it's the mountain of evidence that refutes what you say that is conspicuously missing from your "evidence". You merely make a statement - find a single quote to support it, and ignore where all of the evidence takes you. You establish "evidence" by pretext, then when context is established you cry "that's a biased source" - ignoring what the context even demonstrates. Have you found that good lawyer yet? Okay if I have ignored any of your "evidence" then point it out. I have provided source material from documents and papers written by the Founding Fathers. I have also utilized historical society documentation and my own texts. If you are unhappy, I will provide more data. I have also refuted several sources provided to me. What else do you want me to do? |
|
|
|
If someone claims to accept Jesus Christ as their savior then yes, I would refer to them as a Christian. What right would I have to say they are a "fake Christian" at that point? How would you be able to ascertain the difference between a pretend Christian and a real one? That would mean that during 1930s Germany, the most Christianized country in the world in that time period and the most heavily Christian population could not tell that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian according to you. You determine the difference of a fake christain from a true christain by their actions and their words. The bible is quite clear on what determines a person becoming a christain, and how to recognize the validity of the claim to be one. A perfect example of someone who is not a christain in terms of this criteria is Hitler. Since you are unable to discern who a christain is and how to determine the validity of their claim, I question your input into any discussion concerning christainity. Your own claims disqualify you. Your insistance that Hitler is a christain by using secular writing to support your view, and not the text that defines christianity itself is enough proof to disqualify from even presenting evidence in the first place. Your opinion is obviouslty one from emotion and not fact. You are as bias as you claim your deterents to be. Even more so because you refuse to examine the the issue from all sides - and you pick and chose facts that support your bias rather than just gathering all of the facts and seeing where they lead. It's unfortunate - because you are obviously intelligent enough to overcome this fallacy in your arguments. |
|
|