Evolutionary Theory responsible for Nazism

Anti-semitism which has been found among various christians has more to do with religion, not race, as you find in Hitlers writings. Furthermore, no serious christian is antisemetic, since Christ himself was a Jew.

tecoyah, whoever you are, I consider the Catholic form of Christianity the best and most genuine, with the most teneble doctrines, a systematic dogma that permits a variety of philosophic perspectives and spiritualities. Other forms of christianity I find more rigid and less tolerable of differing philosophies. I also would like to see other forms of christianity dwindle and be replaced by our faith, since it has the full embodiment of truth, unlike the others. It doesnt mean that I do not appreciate their contributions, only that I see them as flawed.

If you want to debate this thats ok, but I really dont. Here the issue is Evolution and christianity, Hitler, and history.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Such posts dont really help your cause. They do not effect me or stop me. Everyone knows that the one who is accusing another of stupidity without offering counterpoints is really the one guilty of the flaw he claims he sees in another. Is this not common knowledge?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lawdog, if you actually believe the bullshit you are typing, you are even stupider than hitler.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course I believe it. Nor was Hitler stupid. Morality and Genius are not equivalencies, you do realize, dont you?

By the way, you have read the entire article.....or not?

 

:bugeye:
So, you're saying that anti-semitism, racism, mass-murder, torture, genocide, slaughter, killing, starting the largest war ever seen on this earth, and then making the most fucktarded decisions which led to him being defeated and destroyed in said war, in addition to killing millions of his own people and destroying his own nation's infrastructure, is not a stupid thing to do?

Great Odin's Beard, what is wrong with you? :bugeye:

 

i have to agree with lawdog here,its dangerous to say that hitler was stupid because he wasnt,he was time man of the year for fucks sake!he single handedly rescued the german economy.you cannot be a stupid man and get into power in the way that he did,using peoples weaknesses and other countries indecision to get his power.however he let power go to his head and became even more mental and arrogant and that was his downfall.also he only had one ball.

 

You may hate what he did, you may even hate the man himself, but you cannot deny the facts of his machiavellan political genius and power to convince the masses. He started to make mistakes as he got older and went on drugs, mistakes like invading Russia. He would most likely be diagnosed with mental illness, megalomania or socio-pathetic today. Personally I think he was possessed by the Devil and was an antichrist, which would explain his ability at mass hypnotism and terror, in accord with the prophecies.

 

Very well then...perhaps another time

 

Hmmmm....maybe "insane" was the word I was looking for.
Still, though, he was a military retard. His military decisions fucked over his own war effort, and he got omgwtfpwnz0rd for it.

 

It is clear (and well known to any one who has taken the trouble to learn a little of the history of Germany in the inter-war years) that Hitler and his followers took much from Darwin's thoughts on 'survival of the fittest'. It is equally clear (and well known to any one who has taken the trouble to learn a little of the details of Darwinism and how these have been adapted and adjusted over the century or so since Darwin published Origin of Species) that what the naziz took from evolutionary theory was so grossly simplified as to be in error.
Blaming the Holocaust and Hitler's other madnesses on evolution is akin to blaming the attack on the Twin Towers on Orville and Wilbur Wright.
So, Lawdog, an interesting article, an interesting site, but ultimately a flawed conclusion.

 

In that case you could also say that the Wright Brothers were responsible for the disaster of the Twin Towers, because they invented the plane. No, sorry. Evil minds will always find the dark side of things, in this case the theory of evolution. Hitler was evil, I'm sure that if creationism was the standard theory in Germany in that time, he would have managed to find an interpretation of Creationism denigrating jews. I'm sorry, but I find fundamentalists like you despicable persons, you better should start reading some science books, now you are apparenting to be a rather silly person

Edit: Ophiolite was more rapid to mention the Twin Towers example

 

A couple of years back I had a long debate with a journalist from the New York Times who had written an article stating that the Game GTA: Vice City should be banned. He cited it's extremely 'realistic' violence and the case of a couple of kids who played it and then went out and started shooting cars.

In short I explained to him that he might aswell then ask for everything to be banned - for example Pulp Fiction which was 100 times more 'realistic' than a computer game will ever be, and just as violent. I then proceeded to explain that the issue is not with the product, it's with the person.

I heard of a kid once who thought he was Superman, jumped out his window and went splat on the concrete.

I asked if he would ask for a ban on Superman merchandise, or whether he would instead recognise that Superman wasn't to blame, but that the kid had something clearly wrong with him.

It's pretty much the same thing here, and I find it dishonest and rather naive of you, Lawdog, to try and pass the blame around in such fashion.

 

yeah,i heard that they were planning to assasinate him but by 1944 they stopped trying cause he was fucking up the war and they were worried if they killed him someone compentant might take over.

 

Maybe Lawdog has a point... I mean, you'd never see anyone using religious teachings to justify killing.

 

Yes, I'm well familiar with the "No True Scotsman" argument, logical fallacy that it is.

Politics. As I already stated it seems that he believed in Christianity but also believed that it should serve the State.

Who elected him? Who is it that his appeals to Christianity were directed towards?

Been there, done that.

Hardly. The misunderstanding and misapplication of idea is not the idea itself. Biological Evolution is science. Social Darwinism is not. Big difference. Huge.

I'm shaking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look. I'm simply using your own argument.

Darwin didn't invent Social Darwinism. Some bastards took what he said about Biology and tried to apply it to human society. They misunderstood it, twisted it out of context, and used it to justify all kinds of terrible behavior. This is no different that some asshole taking the Bible, misunderstanding it, twisting it out of context and using it to justify all kinds of terrible behavior. Therefore, if Darwin is to blame for Social Darwinism and Social Darwinism is responsible for Nazism then Jesus is responsible for all the horrors Christians have committed in his name.


But I know, I committed the sin that you theists hate so much. I applied logic to God.

~Raithere

 

This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It works like this:

A statement is made such as, "No true Scotsman wears underpants under his kilt."
The refutation, "Argyle Gregor is a Scotsman and he wears underpants under his kilt."
The counter is then made, "Then Argyle Gregor is not a true Scott."

As you can see, the fallacy is based upon circular reasoning. The conclusion becomes part of the premise.

Your argument is the same and thus fallacious.

The definition of a Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ. Whether or not Hitler was a Christian by this definition no one can know. Of course, we cannot know that the former Pope, John Paul, was Christian by this definition either. All we can know is what they professed to believe.

Once again though, Hitler's true belief is actually irrelevant to my argument.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

~Raithere

 

Very good point. But I will just like to ask one thing..

You haven't seen any Christians around handling snakes and drinking poison, just as the inspired Apostles testified to doing have you?

I mean, if Christians started doing that, or I dunno.. things as wild and crazy as nailing themselves to crosses and/or starving themselves for days on end in fasting, you think we could get a ban on Christianity?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hello Lawdog. I have only glanced at the link so can't comment on its content but I think it is important to keep in mind that European antisemitism predates Darwinism by by many centuries. My understanding is that antisemitism actually has its origins in the New Testament (that's another discussion) and prior to the 19th century all antisemitism was religious in nature. The USA and Canada turned away a shipload of German Jewish refugees before the start of the war (sent them back to Nazi Germany where they all perished). This refusal to admit them had nothing to do with Darwinism and everything to do with a long standing dislike of Jews. The future state of Israel had British support prior to the British mandate of Palestine because some British leaders (Churchill included) thought world Jewry could be influential in bringing the Great War to a favourable end (a lot of nonsense!) and many Germans believed (unjustifiably) that Jews were responsible for their losing the war. This is where Hitler's antisemitism stems from - not Darwinism! The Nazi party co-opted social Darwinism because it suited their purpose. Had Darwinian theory not been available to corrupt they would have found another excuse to murder Jews. REMEMBER - Hitler's anti-semitism did not originate in Darwinism but sprang from his misguided belief that the Jews had betrayed Germany.

 

Exactly.
In reality, it was an amalgam of many conflicting interests, mostly involving socialists, not Jewish Germans. The whole damn mess could have been totally avoided if Russia, and in effect, France, had not allied with Serbia prior to 1914. It would've just been the "Austro-Serb War of 1914" instead of "The Great War". Hilter wouldnt've had any basis for claiming power, and Europe probably would be in a better economic condition to absorb the shock of the 1929 Depression (if it happens at all,).

 

It was really Serbia's fault, ultimately. I mean, yeah, Austria overreacted a bit, and Germany didn't do enough to stop them, but in the end, it was Serbia's government that supported and funded the terrorist organization that fired the first shot of the war...the assassination of Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand.