AnnaAgainstAtheists, at it, again:

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Anna, to JesusWalks27:

You come across as a BOGUS CHRISTIAN.
1) You have NO RIGHT to elect yourself to speak on behalf of
Christians so please just speak for yourself.
2) GEERUP is clearly expressing his opinion which he has every right
to do.
3) Evolution is getting used by (what Stephen Jay Gould called)
"DARWINIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS" LIKE DAWKINS to make metaphysical and
other claims that have nothing to do with science.

My reply, which is lost in the morass of YouTube commentary, was to
challenge Anna about her own representation of Christianity and to ask
her, twice, about her definition of "evolutionism." She did finally
answer that one question, of the many that I asked:

Anna: It's a very dangerous and pernicious generalisation of UNPROVEN
THEORY into a BIGOTED BELIEF SYSTEM and way of life of the type that
guided Hitler in his racist Darwinian philosophy and it's heartless
and mindless and its survival of the fittest philosophy is
diametrically opposed to the Christian ethic of charity, and you
should listen carefully to what GEERUP is actually saying here in this
video because he states the important points very clearly.

Anna also wrote, to another user: "The connections between
EVOLUTIONISM IN MILITANT ATHEISM and EVOLUTIONISM IN HITLERIAN NAZISM
are very striking and also very worrying, and they stand at the very
opposite pole of everything good and moral and blessed that was taught
by Our Lord Jesus Christ."

And: "On evolution Darwin states, At some future period, not very
distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races.

Hitler in strong Darwinian tones in Mein Kampf ( ChXI Nation and Race)
states that while his philosophical outlook is based on respecting
Natures laws, the Jews with their effrontery say the opposite: that
Mans role is to overcome Nature! DARWINIAN NAZISM."

My replies follow:

How silly of you, Anna, to fall for the boogie-man that your religious
masters have constructed and, at the same time, show that you once
again make assertions on a subject about which you possess little
knowledge.

Hitler is well-known not to have understood natural selection and
Darwinian mechanisms but, instead, attempt to invoke a poor
understanding of *SOCIAL* Dawinism, which was not a Darwinian theory,
at all, but was forwarded by a fellow names Spencer.

"Evolutionism" isn't a theory, at all, Anna - not like those theories
of evolution that the educated speak of. And even if Hitler did use of
misuse the concepts, that does not make them false. That's a fallacy,
Anna. Do bad Christians or Christians who misuse Christianity to evil
ends make Christianity false? No, Christianity stands or falls on its
own merits or lack of them, and not on how people use the precepts. So
it is with any concept or theory.

But if all you know of Darwinian evolution, Anna, is the catch-phrase,
"survival of the fittest," then you know nothing of the concept, even
if you, again, demonstrate your shallow mindset. The fact is that
natural selection, which is truly Darwinian evolution, is an elegant
and well-evidenced solution to the problem of explaining diversity in
nature.

t may very well be "heartless," Anna, but that's nature, and all of
the whining in the world won't change that. It's part of the natural
order of the universe, as serene as an ocean sunset or as "heartless"
as an earthquake that indiscriminately kills thousands.

But part of human evolution has been demonstrated "altrusim" and
"charity," all of which have been shown to be evolutionarily
advantageous, and almost certainly the root of "Christian" charity.

We can even forget for the moment, Anna, that you, of all people, want
to preach of Christian charity, since you are among the least
charitable Christians I have ever encountered, and I was a Christian
for more than double the time you've been alive.

On the other hand, your Christianity is an extension of your own
personal ego and an expression of your narcissism, and not
Christianity, at all, but that's another argument.

The points that GEERUP makes, Anna, such as they are, are every bit as
ignorant as yours, Anna, and I did listen to them. Unlike you, I don't
take them uncritically because they agree with me, and I don't
criticize them because they do not. I measure them against what is
known and understood and I find him and you ignorant of the subject
matter, too overtly biased to address the subject dispassionately, and
too dishonest, even with yourselves, to admit it.

Well, Anna, let me again invite you to discuss and debate these things
in a more amenable forum, so that we can see if there's anything to
your catch-phrases "evolutionism," "militant atheism," and "Hitlerian
nazism." You don't seem to understand any of those things very well
and it would be charitable to suggest that the reason for that is the
limited venue we have, here. So let's debate it at the Google Group,
Debating YouTube Theists, and see your substance, if you have any.

Anna, if we consider your claims about Jesus Christ, who almost
certainly did not exist - at least, not as described - we can look to
several things that he claimed or is attributed to have said that are
quite immoral. He was certainly an improvement on the God of the Old
Testament, whom he is alleged to represent or actually be, depending
on your beliefs, but tell me: Jesus spoke more about judgment and Hell
than anyone else in the Bible. What is "good," "moral," or "blessed"
about that?

Darwin was a product of his times, Anna, somewhat bigoted. That's one
of the warts of our very human history. No one will deny it.

But what does that have to do with the value and evidence for the
theory of natural selection?

And by the way, Anna, if we compare Darwin's racism with that of
Christian England and Christian America, we would see some rather
striking contrasts. Darwin was right, in a way, because that is what
happened, even if we might argue about what is "civilized."

Our history has shown, Anna, that, to a great deal, the "civilized
races" did engage in an extermination and replacement of what were
viewed as "savage" races, but underlying the quote-mining are some
significant factors that your shallow approach would not uncover.

There is no doubt that Darwin held many of the superior views of
Victorian England when considering the more primitive races. But if
that falsifies natural selection, somehow, you did not provide any
evidence or explanation.

You state that Hitler presumed to respect "Nature's laws," according
ot Mein Kampf, but did you actually *read* Mein Kampf? Did you then
actually bother to compare what HItler had to say about "Nature's
laws" with what nature actually has to say on the matter...or what
scientists and historians have said?

How is it that what Hitler claimed means that he even understood the
laws he presumed to follow? Is it possible that he did not and
followed his own poor understanding, instead?