AnnaAgainstAtheists and Hitler

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

This debate, such as it was, appeared today (keep in mind that a
message or more may be missed because of the problems with YouTube's
mechanisms - I am trying to copy them all and in order of appearance):

CAF: HItler quite emphatically told his audiences that his was "the
work of the Lord," Anna. In Mein Kampf, which you've never read, of
course, he wrote, "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. The anti-
semitism that Hitler developed has roots in the Christian history of
the region.

This was what Hitler said in a speech in 1944, Anna: I may not be a
light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and
believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws
framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the
Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.

This double-standing of yours is amusing, Anna, in that you will no
doubt dismiss that direct quote of Hitler, but there are many others.
And who better to define his own beliefs than the man, himself? My
feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.
It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a
few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth!" That was Hitler in
1922.

Now, the fact is that you can argue that Hitler's use of Christianity
was a perversion, and many Christians make that argument. Hitler
MISused his religion to justify his hate, and he MISused a poor
understanding of SOCIAL Darwinism (not "Darwinian evolution," you have
already been corrected about that more than once) as his inspiration.

Real historians, Anna, not rank and incompetent amateurs such as you,
understand those things.

Anna: Never mind what Hitler THOUGHT he was doing, because what he
WAS in fact doing was to act in accordance with racist Darwinian
evolution as also expounded by Darwin himself. And Hitler's religious
invocations were simply aimed at gathering consensus as is clearly
documented by historians. Only a fool could possibly see Hitler as
acting in accordance with Christ's teachings because Hitler was
obviously acting in accordance to Darwinian evolution theory.

CAF: Oh, yes, of course, Anna, "never mind what Hitler THOUGHT he was
doing," what really matters is what YOU have to say on the matter?

Well, aside for your self-importance, the fact is that Hitler defined
himself as a religious man, following his religious precepts, which
were, in the end, based on his religious environment. He considered
himself a Christian and wrote, quite emphatically, that he was doing
the work of the Lord. It was a common theme in his speeches.

And, as you have already been corrected, Anna, Hitler was not invoking
any form of natural selection, but a bastardized version of Spencer's
Social Darwinism.

Tell me, Anna, what specific tenet of natural selection was Hitler
invoking?

The concensus among historians, Anna, of which I am one (Ph.D.,
Harvard) is that Hitler presumed to use social Darwinism, not
Darwinian evolution (natural selection) as his justifications. Those
same historians tend to agree that Hitler's religious beliefs were
very much rooted in his Christian upbringing, supplemented - some
might say bastardized - by the inculcation of paganism and mysticism -
into a bizarre personality cult.

"The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based on
religious ideas instead of racial knowledge." - Adolf Hitler, Mein
Kampf

Of course, such things are far more complex to discuss than YouTube's
limited mechanisms will allow, so I again invite you to debate this
issue in the Google Group, Debating YouTube Theists, where your
ignorance and sophistry can again be exposed quite fully.

Anna: Look Foster, this isn't question and answer time here so use
your common sense. In Mein Kampf ChXI Hitler invokes Darwin to justify
his disgusting racist policies based on DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF THE
FITTEST THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION and this is what the dominant
intepretation of Darwin was then regardless of what it is now and THAT
was what consolidated Hitler's PURIFICATION plans for the German race
according to DANGEROUS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION and the NATURAL course of
Nature.

CAF: Uh, Anna, it may or may not be "question and answer time," but
it is perfectly reasonable to challenge your silly claims when you
make them, and you make them often.

As has been explained, HItler did not use Darwinian evolution. He did
not understand it, and you can't give me a specific tenet of natural
selection that he even claimed to use (hint, "survival of the fittest"
is not a tenet of natural selection).

Who coined the term, "survival of the fittest," Anna? Do you know?

Anna: Foster, put your hand on your heart if you can find it and ask
yourself whether Hitler was acting in accordance with the teachings of
Jesus Christ or in accordance with Darwinian evolution theory and if
you can't see that one clearly I fear there's really no hope for you
at all here because you're just dancing around the question and
avoiding the obvious interpretation.

CAF: Anna, I have no interest in indulging your speeches or your
rhetoric. Jesus never existed. Get over that. But even if we assume
that he did, let's remember that your claims are that Hitler's
motivation was "natural" selection, about which you will provide no
details, by the way.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a scientific principle, Anna. It
merely serves as a metaphor, as anyone who actually understands the
phrase will tell you.

Consider that the key word in "natural selection" is "natural" and
I'll ask, again: What tenet of natural selection was Hitler using (or
even presuming to use)?

Now, Anna, I realize that your response is predicated more on the idea
that I DARE to question or challenge you than it is on any real
capability that you might have to debate these issues. You'll just
have to get over yourself, Princess.

And, Anna, as I have already pointed out, Hitler clearly stated that
his anti-semitism was based on his religion "instead of racial
knowledge." Nothing to say about that?

Anna, there are lots of people who know what they are talking about
when this subject comes up.

You simply aren't one of them. You'll just have to learn to accept
that you are neither omniscient nor especially competent. You can
prove otherwise by participating in honest debate rather than
trolling. Care to take that on?

Whether or not Hitler was acting in accordance with Jesus's teachings,
Anna, Hitler BELIEVED that he was, just as the Crusaders and
Inquisitors believed that they were, and just as the many radical
religionists of the present day believe that they ARE. That is what
matters.

The problem is that your thinking is far too superficial to understand
that.

Even when I was still a Christian, Anna, I would argue that the
actions of those who commit atrocious acts in the name of Christianity
are not a reflection of Christianity, and, though flawed, it is a
reasonable argument. One must examine Christianity for what it is, not
what some people claim to do in its name, and that is certainly true
for any other precept, idea, or system.

YOU would have us believe otherwise, Anna. Neither you nor Hitler
understood/understand natural selection or Darwinian evolution, but
because YOU have decided that Hitler invoked it, Darwinian evolution
is "DANGEROUS," according to you. But you can't even tell me what
tenet of natural selection was invoked. "Survival of the fittest" is a
metaphor. It is not a tenet of natural selection.

So you rely on catch-phrases and speeches, Anna, and arguments from
assertion and an intellectual authority that you do not possess, and
we're all supposed to take it to the bank that what you're saying is
Absolute Truth.

Sorry, Princess. Your parents and boyfriends may spoil you that way,
but it doesn't always work in the real world.

Anna, a friend of mine uses the response, "get an
education...understand what you would presume to criticize." That's
good advice. You would be well-served to take it, but you would never
do so, would you? You are far too narcissistic.

Now, Anna, I've been telling you what some historians have been
saying. As an historian, myself (Ph.D., Harvard...dismiss that, as you
will, but feel free to tell us your credentials), I'll tell you that,
in my opinion, by the time he died, Hitler was, effectively, a
religionist with a bizarre pagan-personality cult - with himself as
"god" in the center of that cult. But his influences were clearly
Catholic, and he included much of Catholicism in his organizations and
precepts.

"and if you can't see that one clearly I fear there's really no hope
for you at all here because you're just dancing around the question
and avoiding the obvious interpretation."

So, as we can see, Anna, you make no real attempt to intellectual
justify your claims. They are simply your claims, and if they cannot
be seen as true, there's a problem with the person challenging them,
even if we forget that this is a blatant appeal to both emotion and
your alleged "authority" on the matter.

Understand, Anna, that not seeing things through your obviously young,
subjective, and mostly-ignorant viewpoint is a good thing. And people
who live in a rational, scholarly objective world are not interested
in feeding your ego.

You're wrong, Anna, about everything - again.

[Anna shifts gears, here:]

Anna: YOU go and get an education because ABSOLUTE TRUTH in this
context needs to be looked at in its proper perspective, and for
Hitler that means Nietzsche ,"What then is truth? A mobile army of
metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms", so just educate yourself
on Nietzsche's direct and indirect influence (via Wagner and others)
on Hitler because you're a hopeless windbag of uselss dead rhetoric.

CAF: I have the education, Anna, and the credentials to prove it.

But I see you're shifting gears in an attempt to salvage your very bad
arguments (or confuse the issue - I suspect that I'll have to save
this one in the Google Group, again). .

I know all about the influence of Nietzsche and Wagner, Anna. What do
those things have to do with what has been discussed, so far?

Anna, I took a few moments to copy the comments into the Google Group,
Debating YouTube Theists, and place them in a message I'll call
"AnnaAgainstAtheists and Hitler," so that we can all see this
exchange, as much in order of occurrence as I can copy and paste. I
return and see that you have no answered my questions.

You shifted gears from Darwinian evolution and now want to talk about
other influences on Hitler? Can you make them relate or was this a
move of desparation?

[Anna may have retreated from the thread, but it's too soon to be sure
about that, so if more comes, I'll add it to this thread.]

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

Anna has chosen to avoid all of my questions and challenges and,
instead, posted this:

"Well it definitely looks like ad hominems are all you've got buster,
and as far as Mr Sockpuppet CAFoster (alias nascentatheist and
goodness knows how many other aliases) is concerned I see he's been
revealed for what he is at
Adonijah (dot) blogspot (dot) com , so I really couldn't care less
what this poor old man is ranting about, nor for that matter what
YOU're ranting about given that you you're associating with him and
maybe even ARE him and have NOTHING except ad homs."

Regular readers of this group will instantly recognize "adonijah" as
Josiah, aka TurnerDiaries, ExposingCondell, ExposingCondell2,
ExposingCondell3, the ConfederationSock sock puppets, and quite a few
others. So it would seem that Anna has unwittingly allied herself
with someone that any good Christian should find quite repugnant.

However, I suspect that Anna actually knows nothing about Josiah, and
merely latched on to the accusations made so that she could presume to
use them to avoid answering the many questions and challenges that, to
date, have been put to her.

And isn't it very odd that she would resort to ad hominem attacks in a
message in which she criticizes others for using ad hominem?

At any rate, here are my responses:

Well, now, Anna, I see you have made the best of your alliance with
Josiah and his many sock puppets. Tell me, child, since he never
would: What is your evidence that I am a sock puppet of anyone?

Go ahead, dear. I'll wait.

And wait...

...and wait...

Oh, right, the problem is, of course, that you can't counter my
arguments.

So while you whine at Busy about ad hominem, you use it quite
liberally.

How very Christian of you.

But since you've chosen to bring it up, Anna, let me introduce you to
your latest partner, Josiah, who is a member of Christian Identity, a
hate group. Josiah posts as, among other identities, TurnerDiaries,
ExposingCondell, and ConfederationSock. He is angry at me because I
have exposed him. He is angry at NascentAtheist for the same reason.

This is exposed at the Google Group, Debating YouTube Theists.

Your embrace of it merely shows your desparation

I find it interesting, too, Anna, that you decided to take up Josiah's
bandwagon and ignore Busy's advice. You see, if you can take a look at
the Google Group, you can see that Josiah has a vested interest in
perpetuating gossip rather than deal with the substantive arguments.
That you would follow his lead is not surprising. After all, there
were several pertinent questions put to you. How much easier is it to
avoid them with innuendo than to actually have to think about answers,
eh?

Josiah and his many sock puppets have been caught in numerous lies,
Anna, but if you are the Christian you claim that you are, you must
eschew any association with such a loathsome individual as Josiah, who
believes that non-whiters are not creations of God, and who has
boasted of forcefully shaving the head of one woman who failed to wear
a head covering.

Josiah lied when, as ExposingCondell, he denied being TurnerDiaries,
even though he actually had admitted to that to another user.

You may associate with liars and bigots, if you wish, Anna, and with a
person who would have no use for you - as a Catholic, if I recall
correctly - than he would for any other puppet...

Ah, but wait, the arrogance...the narcissism...all characteristic of
Josiah, as well.

And Josiah is a closet homosexual - at least, potentially...

Do you see how easy this is, Anna? Anyone can play.

Wouldn't it be better to stick to the subject matter?

[Taboggle]

Pardon my intrusion, but I couldn't help but notice that there was a
Debating YouTube Theists channel and I would like to join.

It appears that despite claiming to focus solely on debating,
you often regress into merely insulting Anna and various other
participants of the debates.

You have insulted Christians and the Christianity itself, which I take
offense to. You may have your opinions concerning the validity of our
claims, but please don't go on ranting against the "stupidity" and
"blindness" of those who follow the religion, you'd save yourself
quite
a bit of typing.

Also, stop discriminating against users based on their age. If you
look
at it from a psychological perspective, your fluid intelligence has
most
likely decreased, while your crystallized intelligence increased. This
implies you can draw information from a wider variety of resources and
previous knowledge to solve problems, but those younger than you
(after having gone through intellectual maturation) have greater
capability
in using raw brainpower to solve problems. In short, don't insult age.
To
carry out this forums purpose those involved would need to focus only
on facts- not insults.

Now I shall move past my rant concerning off topic behavior (how
ironic).
I see there are two major topics: Hitler's use and misuse of natural
selection and religion, and the subject of evolution.

I agree that Hitler did in fact use Docial Darwinism, as opposed to
the theory of natural selection as one of his motives for the
genocides he
committed. Natural selection is a theory which states that organisms
with traits that are advantageous to survival will be able to live
long
enough to be able to reproduce and therefore pass on their genes
to the next generation. Natural selection has little to do with
Hitler...

An extreme misinterpretation of Christianity would be required for
Hitler to have cited Christianity as an impetus to the genocides.
Jesus himself says to "love your neighbor as yourself", this being the
second greatest commandment (second to loving God).

What Hitler could have been referring to as his Biblical reason behind
his action could be rooted in books such as Leviticus, which when
taken out of context could point him towards persecution of
nonbelievers
and others departing from Christian morals. However when interpreted
properly, one would find the most "offensive" Old Testament books
to be written for the purpose of Israeli law to keep "God's people" in
line with God's will.

I am a Christian (if you haven't guessed that), but I agree with
evolution.
From the biological perspective, the probability that evolution has
produced
all life as we know it in vivo is extremely improbable. Not only would
the
spontaneous generation of an organic creature have to happen, but it
would have to have a means of reproduction for its genetic code.

Even if one knows very little concerning genes, it is obvious that
genes
are very complex. Once spontaneously generated (picture throwing all
the pieces of a an airplane off a cliff then somehow becoming a
Boeing 747, that's what the probability of this is like) the molecule
will inevitably break down into less complex materials. Without
replication, there would be nothing to ensure its survival.

Furthermore, the replication would have to be facilitated by enzymes,
which also would somehow have to fit onto the genetic material.

The truth of microevolution (changes within previously existing
traits)
is self evident and has no need of proof. However, the validity of
macroevolution (generation of previously nonexistant traits) is
much more debatable.

Theoretically, to achieve the complexity of modern organisms,
millions and millions of trinucleotide insertions would have to occur
throughout time, slowly building upon the previously existing
protein structures to eventually produce new organs and such.

However, before the organ has reached a usable form, an unusable
form would be there in place, impeding movement and being
disadvantageous. Survival of the fittest would predict that these
organisms with disadvantageous growths would die, preventing
the passing on of the genetic information to future generations

To combat this, the biological community has come up with the
theory of punctuated equilibrium, where gene changes are cumulative
but not evident structurally for long periods of time, then suddenly
they appear. This would help explain the fossil record, void of
organisms which are in between species.

Despite these problems I have with evolution, I still believe in it.
Evolution is still in line with my beliefs because while the Bible
states that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the
seventh, it also says that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord.

As evident in the scientific beauty of this world, God appears to have
created the universe for man to study an discover him in its
complexity.
I find it hard to believe that he simply spoke the world into being as
it is because he's much more powerful than that.

Instead he devised a scheme so improbable, it had to have been caused
by a divine being. The Big Bang would mark the start of a long series
of events which would lead to the evolution of life and ultimately
man.

One reason I'm a Christian is because the mere existence of this
universe screams the need for a Creator. Something cannot come
out of nothing within the limits of science.

If matter existed forever, I theorize that the universe would
collapse upon itself and then explode outwards in a perpetual
cycle, recreating similar events to the Big Bang. However, each time
the explosion occurs, matter is lost when it extends past the limit of
the collapse point. Eventually the matter within the center of the
universe
dwindles until there is not enough matter to fall into entropy and
eventually result in explosion.

Here's a site I like to look at as I am very interested in biology and
such matters:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TOC.html

This is the site of a professor from Harvard.

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

Anna: Hitler simply USED religion for power purposes and he was as
far from the spirit of Christ as is imaginable and anyone who can't
see this is plain ignorant. But you should read ch 11 of Mein Kampf
alongside Darwin's Origin Of Species 5th edition for an outstanding
example of THE ENORMOUS DANGERS OF EVOLUTIONIST THINKING.

Me: How do you know that Hitler was "far from the spirit of Christ"
at any time, Anna? Who gets to decide what his or her beliefs might
be? You? The person? Hitler wrote considerably of his mission for
"the Lord" and felt a commission of sorts, especially early in his
career, that what he was doing was holy and based on his religion (and
less on what he understood was science - the quotes have been
provided...you ignored them).

Anna: Limited atheist thinking again, so YOU try reading the 2 side
by side as I explained in my last post, and you'll see VERY CLEARLY
that Hitler based his whole race supremacy thing on Darwinian
evolution and the survival of the fittest.

Me: No, Anna, as I pointed out, already, and more than once, Hitler
had little understanding of Darwinian evolution, based many of his
race beliefs on Social Darwinism, which was not a Darwinian theory,
but a school of thought put forth by Spencer, *and* Hitler, himself,
wrote quote emphatically:

"The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based
on
religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

That was in Mein Kampf, Anna. You're wrong. Again.