How/when did evolution become The Enemy?
foxt...@webtv.net
resistance; it was the first time that Christian faith had been
challenged by the squelching weight of objective observation and logic,
instead of just other assorted faiths. Christianity didn't know how to
respond to such a challenge.
When other comparable discoveries of how the world works came along,
there was little objection to them even though they still sometimes
really shook up people's older concepts of the way things are and/or
left questions unanswered.
Nobody hollered about how the myriad of different substances couldn't
come from the simplicity of the atomic model because that would be too
much of an information increase, or that God didn't know how to make
things without always reverting back to the same limited set of parts.
Nobody screamed at Newton that his observations of objects' movements
were clearly false because they didn't account for the Hand of God
pushing everything around, or because there were some questions his
equations couldn't answer and some interactions he couldn't perfectly
predict.
Nobody called Mendeleëv a heratic or Satanist because his periodc
table limited God's imagination to simple categories and
ascending/descending numerical scales, or claimed that the table's
accurate prediction of the properties of a previously undiscovered
element didn't count because the element's discoverers had only managed
to "conveneiently find what they were looking for".
By the time Darwin came along, Christians worldwide had even accepted
the fact that the Earth was thousands, perhaps over a million, of times
older than they'd previously thought, even though that seems to conflict
with what we're now told the Bible says. It would seem that, after that
first little solar-system incident, Christianity had learned to face
facts about God's world when they were discovered.
Now look at evolution, an observed fact that gets persistently denied,
and natural selection, a ridiculously simple, inevitable law with
titanicly overwhelming evidence pointing to it, accused of being a wild,
unproven guess. It's a shame that discussion groups like this need to
even exist; young-earth Creationism and anti-evolutionism are as
scientifically dead as anything could be, right along with the
Earth-centered and flat-Earth models of the world and atomless models of
matter, but still there are these stragglers that just won't admit they
lost over a century ago. The internet and religious radio and TV
channels are inundated with nonsense and lies from people who act like
they're on drugs, trying to tell us the equivalent of "The sky isn't
blue, it's plaid."
Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
others give the same ones or not.)
Nando Ronteltap
>Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>others give the same ones or not.)
It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
opposition to Christianity.
Nando
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
That's a lot of gently quivering bollocks Nando, and you know it.
Best Regards,
Dave
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
Gary Hurd
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
were probably correct.
Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
creationist movement in the USA.
Nando Ronteltap
The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism. The association of
Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
raising man on the organic scale).
Nando
KMT
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
Hitler was a Christian doing work for God. Research and understand before you
claim to know. Intelligence is just questions away.
Gary Hurd
> "Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see
whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >>
> >
> >What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
> >little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition,
they
> >were probably correct.
> >
> >Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
> >demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
> >creationist movement in the USA.
>
> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism
The association of
> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
> naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
> consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
> raising man on the organic scale).
>
> Nando
>
Herbert Spencer was the originator of a racist/classist philosophy he called
"Social Darwinism." It was not, and is not related to evolutionary biology.
Galton was dead well before the end of WW1, was a contributor to
statistics -far from "the inventor"- and was the originator of eugenics,
whose thoughts on the inheritability of intellect did influence his cousin
Darwin. This was particularly evident in the 1871 publication of "The
Descent of Man." The mechanism of inheritance was unknown at the time, and
the very concepts of "mental faculties" was not particularly related to
modern ones. What does the errors, and misapplications of Galton, Spencer,
or Pearson (you missed a chance for another false charge there!) have to do
with biology? NOTHING. The resort by creationists to attack by association
is ample demonstration that there is no honest refutation available to them.
Pat James
(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
[snip]
>
> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> others give the same ones or not.)
>
there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Jonathan Stone
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:13:36 -0500, foxt...@webtv.net wrote
>(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> others give the same ones or not.)
>>
>
>there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
>are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
>it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.
I thought what they *really* hated is that we are descended
from "monkeys"?
(Heroically refraining from commenting on the education of those
who conflate african apes with monkeys)
R. Tang
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
>>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>>> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>>
>>> Nando
>>>
>>
>>What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
>>little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
>>were probably correct.
>>
>>Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
>>demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
>>creationist movement in the USA.
>
>The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
They also associated Christianity with Nazism.
And you dare have the hubris to consider youself a Christian when
you so regularly lie? From your fruits, you appear to be
anti-Christian....
The association of
>Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
>influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>raising man on the organic scale).
>
>Nando
>
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
ReidRover
wf...@ptd.net
funny that hitler never mentioned darwin in his book...
and german biologists rejected darwin at the beginning of the
century...
and that christians hated jews for thousands of years, confining them
to ghettoes, and, on occasion, killing them
nando's an antisemite fundamentalist who prefers jews to forget
christian history, and focus on evolution as the 'enemy'. fortunately
most christians are more honest than nando, and havent forgotten what
christian theology often meant to jews.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
>>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>>> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>>
>>> Nando
>>>
>>
>>What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
>>little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
>>were probably correct.
>>
>>Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
>>demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
>>creationist movement in the USA.
>
>The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
all, of course, except a guy named 'adolph hitler', who never once
mentions darwin in his book 'mein kampf'. nando's an antisemitic liar,
so he doesnt tell you that.
The association of
>Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel
and in chapter 11 of martin luther's book 'concerning the jews and
their lies', that good german recommended non converted jews be
exterminated. he said jews should be covered in pig shit, and their
synagogues burned.
nando, good little storm trooper, wont mention that, either.
(most
>influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>raising man on the organic scale).
>
here in america, jefferson davis, the president of the confederate
states, wrote a treatise on the hamitic hypothesis, and why blacks
deserved slavery...he was a devout christian. 1/2 of all proslavery
tracts in the US were written by the christian clergy. they had more
influence than evolutionists ever did.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>
>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken.
the nazis also associated physics with nazism. phillip lenard, nobel
laureate in physics, said relativity was 'jewish science'.
to nando, this means his computer doesnt work since its based on the
laws of physics and encroaches on his view of life...
RepackRider
>It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>opposition to Christianity.
I presume you also reject other sciences used by the Nazis, for the same
reasons. They were pioneers of jet aviation and aerodynamic design, among
other things. Do you reject that also?
How about the Volkswagen, a Nazi development? You ever ride in one of those?
-----
~~ Repack Rider ~~
|| Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the ||
|| top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups. ||
|| No e-mail sent to this address is opened. ||
Nando Ronteltap
Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.
>The association of
>> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
>> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
>> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
>> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
>> naziparty as "applied biology", and participated in the Holocaust),
>> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
>> consequent from Darwinist findings), Darwin (wrote about competitive
>> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
>> raising man on the organic scale).
>>
>> Nando
>>
>
>Herbert Spencer was the originator of a racist/classist philosophy he called
>"Social Darwinism." It was not, and is not related to evolutionary biology.
>Galton was dead well before the end of WW1, was a contributor to
>statistics -far from "the inventor"- and was the originator of eugenics,
>whose thoughts on the inheritability of intellect did influence his cousin
>Darwin. This was particularly evident in the 1871 publication of "The
>Descent of Man." The mechanism of inheritance was unknown at the time, and
>the very concepts of "mental faculties" was not particularly related to
>modern ones. What does the errors, and misapplications of Galton, Spencer,
>or Pearson (you missed a chance for another false charge there!) have to do
>with biology? NOTHING. The resort by creationists to attack by association
>is ample demonstration that there is no honest refutation available to them.
Whatever, I'm telling you the sort of things why so many Christians
reject Darwinism for over 140 years now. There are other matters, but
this is the main reason.
Let's note here that many Christians that did accept Darwinism,
consequently also accepted an Aryan fighting Jesus, so I don't think
you'd neccessarily be pleased with the results if Christians did
accept Darwinism.
Your above texts are irrellevant to the point at issue, which is that
Darwinism was associated to Nazism by the work of some very
influential mainstream Darwinist scientists, like Galton, Haeckel,
Lorenz, and last but not least, Darwin himself through his principle
of racial competition until extinction, raising man on the organic
scale. The story that Social Darwinism has/had nothing to do with
Darwinism is just wishful thinking of course.
Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
you would accept.
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>>
>>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
>>_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
>>to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
>>Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
>>creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
>>Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
>>1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
>>you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
>>intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
>>the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
>>from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
>>War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism
>
>Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
>much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
>which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
>the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.
the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
antisemite, and refuses to recognize, as 170 rabbis and jewish
scholars stated in the sept. 2000 issue of 'first things' stated,
christianity, while it didnt CAUSE the shoah certainly influenced who
its victims were, especially the jews.
unfortunately christians participated to an extraordinary extent in
the shoah. in his book 'escape from sobibor', author richard raschke
explains that the ukrainian volunteer guards outnumbered the germans
10:1. these ukrainian orthodox and catholic guards were members in
good standing in their churches.
in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
knowing full well what would happen to them.
nando, being a fundamentalist creationist, looks at jews as
automatons...robots fulfilling their place in the fundamentalist
cosmology...they are nothing more than ants placed on earth to
demonstrate gods will so that people will convert to fundamentalist
christianity. thats the view creationists have of jews.
>
>
>Whatever, I'm telling you the sort of things why so many Christians
>reject Darwinism for over 140 years now. There are other matters, but
>this is the main reason.
if they rejected ideologies because they led to hate, christianity
would be extinct.
>
Boikat
>
> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >others give the same ones or not.)
>
> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> to the Hitleryouth,
Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
taught basic math, along with a full range of
other subjects which are not disputed, and 2)
evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
before Hitler came on the scene.
> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> opposition to Christianity.
Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
their uniform, don't you think?
Boikat
Boikat
>
> "Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7n81dtonrm6mgl3jb...@4ax.com...
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth, in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >>
> >
> >What drivel. Hitler, and most nazi's thought of themselves as perfect
> >little christians. Considering the blood soaked christian tradition, they
> >were probably correct.
> >
> >Nando's mindless attempt to associate science with what ever is vile ,
> >demonstrates the desperation, and dishonesty that fuels much of the
> >creationist movement in the USA.
>
> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
They also associated Christianity with Nazism.
> The association of
> Darwinism with the Nazi's occurred mainly through the efforts of very
> respectable and very influential Darwinists like Haeckel (most
> influential Darwinist in Germany, and advocate of a Darwinist
> anti-semitic eugencism), Lorenz (nobel-prize winner, supported the
> naziparty as "applied biology",
The "wrongness" of the application is the
responsibility of the person or persons doing the
"applying", not the theory.
> and participated in the Holocaust),
Like all good christian Nazi's.
> Galton (inventor of statistics, advocated an eugenic religion as
> consequent from Darwinist findings),
Why do you not condemn statistics?
> Darwin (wrote about competitive
> racial encroachment through war and slaughter until final extinction
> raising man on the organic scale).
So what? Do you deny that human history is full
of war and slaughter (Most if it in some religious
cause)? How does *reporting* a phenomena like
human war and slaughter *justify* war and
slaughter? You have always run away from that
question like a scalded dog. Are you going to run
like a yellow -bellied coward again?
Boikat
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
> scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
> Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
> individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
> killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
> was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
> you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
> you would accept.
Exactly. Scientific theories don't make prescriptive statements and don't
take a stand on morality. Anyone who attempts to use evolution to justify
any sort of condemnable action is wrong, period. But even if this were not
the case, your point is still irrelevant, because true theories do not
suddenly become false because they have implications we might dislike. Is
atomic physics false because we can use it to build hydrogen bombs?
And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.
I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any of Hitler's
other works.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Nando Ronteltap
>the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>antisemite,
A lie of course. You're a Darwinist that's true.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>
>> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>> to the Hitleryouth,
>
>Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
>taught basic math, along with a full range of
>other subjects which are not disputed,
No they weren't.
> and 2)
>evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
>before Hitler came on the scene.
The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
came on the scene.
>> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>> opposition to Christianity.
>
>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>their uniform, don't you think?
What about the SS, did they have that too?
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
really? then why did daniel goldhagen, professor of history at
harvard, write a book on the subject?
you think historians have a vested interest in darwinism?
more fundamentalist paranoia.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
here's a quote from a speech of hitler:
>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!
> was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless
> love as a Christian and as a man I read through
> the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His
> might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple
>the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his
> fight against the Jewish poison.
>
from:
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.
by the by...he echoes the views of martin luther...another german
christian.
i personally dont think hitler was a christian. however, i know nando
hates jews. and i know nando's a fundamentalist.
foxt...@webtv.net
to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
natural selection to further their causes, that would mean nothing for
the real natural selection anyway. They also tried to hold up Friedrich
Nietzsche as a great German patriotic philosopher and supporter of their
beliefs. But in fact he was full of praise for Jews and criticism of
German culture, and his discussion of the "übermann" was about
individuals rising above the crowd, not one crowd exterminating another.
So if you reject Nietzsche because of the supposed Nazi connection, you
might be rejecting works that you'd appreciate a lot if you read what
they really are insted of listening to Nazi lies about them.
If Nando wants to reject things based on the Nazis having coincidentally
been among the participants, fine for him. Personally, I can't imagine
going the rest of my life without potato salad.
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> to the Hitleryouth,
> >
> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
> >other subjects which are not disputed,
>
> No they weren't.
So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
evolution. You come from an alternate reality,
right?
>
> > and 2)
> >evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
> >before Hitler came on the scene.
>
> The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
> came on the scene.
So, you agree that "Darwinism" has nothing to do
with the Nazis or Hitler. Thank you.
>
> >> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
> >> opposition to Christianity.
> >
> >Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
> >said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
> >supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
> >their uniform, don't you think?
>
> What about the SS, did they have that too?
<sarcasm mode>
I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
them Nando.
</sarcasm mode>
Boikat
Mark E. Miller
>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>their uniform, don't you think?
They said 'Gott mit uns', actually.
The Nazis did not start that - it went back to the Kaiser and before.
There were certainly many Christians in the Wehrmacht. I would guess
that Hitler saw no reason to take it off and risk whatever morale
effect that might have, especially since he was posing as a Christian
anyhow.
Mark E. Miller
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d0r1dt028f0n3qe68...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Anyway it's clear that if there was a very influential Darwinist
>> scientist who philosphised about controlling the human genepool in
>> Darwinian terms of fitness, and consequently went about selecting
>> individuals deemed to decrease populational fitness, which were then
>> killed, then you still wouldn't acknowledge that in this case there
>> was any meaningful association of Darwinism with the killing. Since
>> you reject that as evidence, there is no possible evidence of any link
>> you would accept.
>
>Exactly. Scientific theories don't make prescriptive statements and don't
>take a stand on morality. Anyone who attempts to use evolution to justify
>any sort of condemnable action is wrong, period. But even if this were not
>the case, your point is still irrelevant, because true theories do not
>suddenly become false because they have implications we might dislike. Is
>atomic physics false because we can use it to build hydrogen bombs?
>
>And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.
>I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any of Hitler's
>other works.
Ah first you say you won't accept any evidence, and then you want me
to give you evidence. The evidence of Hitler talking about natural
selection is there, but then you don't accept that as evidence of
anything.
Nando
Tony Curtis
>> foxt...@webtv.net said:
> If Nando wants to reject things based on the Nazis
> having coincidentally been among the participants, fine
> for him. Personally, I can't imagine going the rest of
> my life without potato salad.
<delurk>
I think fundamentalist christians have a binary view of
the world. Good - evil. God - Devil. You are either
with them, or against them. Their religion does not admit
of more possibilities. That things can be amoral is not
possible with a binary morality.
Christianity of course lands on the "good" end of the
spectrum. "Nazi" now carries such a weight of "badness"
that clearly it's on the "evil" side, and thus must be
something which actively opposes christianity
(<tangent>it's strange watching old footage of people
nazi-saluting, e.g. Chamberlain being driven through the
streets on that piece-of-paper visit. That
arm-straight-out and shouting "Heil" didn't have the same
connotations then).
Therefore...since evolution is also evil, the nazis must
have been all for evolution. There can only be 2 sides,
you see.
Godwin's law applies at this point, if it hasn't done so
already. Maybe there should be the Ronteltap Corollary
too?
--
Just reach into these holes. I use a carrot.
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >>
>> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
>> >>
>> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
>> >> to the Hitleryouth,
>> >
>> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
>> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
>> >other subjects which are not disputed,
>>
>> No they weren't.
>
>So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
>evolution.
Something like that yes, no mention of math in "the schoolbook for the
hitleryouth"
> You come from an alternate reality,
>right?
A reality where the Holocaust occurs and millions of people accept
things like communism and nazism.
>> What about the SS, did they have that too?
>
><sarcasm mode>
>I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
>them Nando.
></sarcasm mode>
Did they? Maybe like that person who killed people in Columbine they
had natural selection printed on their uniforms.
Nando
Mark E. Miller
>On 8 Apr 2001 19:41:19 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Gary Hurd" <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Nazi's associated Darwinism with Nazism.
>>>
>>>This is one of the few items in your polemic that is not mistaken. The
>>>_Nazi_ prapagandists tried to use the obviously powerful evolutionary model
>>>to give their ideology "scientific support" when there of course was none.
>>>Their lies in this regard are equaled by very few today, other than
>>>creationists. Try reading Daniel J. Goldhagen "Hitler's Willing
>>>Executioners" 1996, or Saul Friedlander "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol.1"
>>>1997 (just two books within reach from my desk). If you do, which I doubt,
>>>you will learn that this spurious association was an attempt by the nazi
>>>intellectuals to legitimate their predetermined course of action. Further,
>>>the nazi pogrom had little to do with any formal philosophy, but resulted
>>>from the disastrous economic sanctions imposed at the end of the First World
>>>War, and the entirely christian tradition of anti-semitism
>>
>>Really, the Holocaust had much to do with Nazism. Darwinism was not
>>much used as a propaganda tool, it was one of the main tools with
>>which Nazi's sabotaged their own conscience. The propaganda towards
>>the German population wasn't that much Darwinist as far as I know.
>
While I basically agree with you in dismissing the smear of Darwinism
being a motivation for Nazism, I feel constrained to jump in to these
threads where historical falsehoods are being perpetrated.
>
>in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
>explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
>protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
>turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
>knowing full well what would happen to them.
I have not read the above, I will at my earliest opportunity. *If* you
have fairly characterized his message, he is perpetrating a blatant
falsehood. If not, you are.
Does the phrase 'Barmen Declaration' mean anything to you? It was the
declaration by the Confessing Church that the 'German Christians'
(those collaborating with Hitler) were guilty of heresy. You can read
about the church struggle in Germany at great length (800 pp) in
Eberhard Bethge's biography, 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer'.
Mark E. Miller
Nando Ronteltap
The fighting Aryan Jesus is Darwinist Christianity.
Nando
KMT
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
The fact that humans inherit traits was known well before Darwin's time. There
was no need for Hitler to thank Darwin for his ideas regarding natural selection.
As far as Hitler was concerned, he was doing God's work. Just think, if there was
a heaven, you would get to spend it with Hitler. I prefer the Hell that your God
sent all the Jews that died in concentration camps.
Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
present it. I am not holding my breath.
Get Well Soon,
Kevin
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> >> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> >> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> >> >others give the same ones or not.)
> >> >>
> >> >> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> >> >> to the Hitleryouth,
> >> >
> >> >Two problems. 1) The Hitler youths were also
> >> >taught basic math, along with a full range of
> >> >other subjects which are not disputed,
> >>
> >> No they weren't.
> >
> >So, the only course taught was the nazi version of
> >evolution.
>
> Something like that yes, no mention of math in "the schoolbook for the
> hitleryouth"
I suppose the only subject taught was evolution
and nothing else at all, right? Pull the other
leg Nando.
>
> > You come from an alternate reality,
> >right?
>
> A reality where the Holocaust occurs and millions of people accept
> things like communism and nazism.
...and democracy, and monarchies, and so on. What
does that have to do with biological evolution?
>
> >> What about the SS, did they have that too?
> >
> ><sarcasm mode>
> >I'm sure they had a portrait of Darwin stamped on
> >them Nando.
> ></sarcasm mode>
>
> Did they?
You tell me, smart guy. Or are you so dull witted
that you don't know sarcasm, even when it is
clearly marked as sarcasm?
> Maybe like that person who killed people in Columbine they
> had natural selection printed on their uniforms.
As usual, your utter stupidity shows through. The
tee shirt (and there was no "their uniform")
referred to a video game of the same name, you
stupid ass.
Boikat
Mark E. Miller
>
>here's a quote from a speech of hitler:
>
>>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!
>> was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless
>> love as a Christian and as a man I read through
>> the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His
>> might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple
>>the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his
>> fight against the Jewish poison.
>>
>
>from:
>
>http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Of all the quotes found on this page, this is the only one (and I have
found no others elsewhere) which even alludes to Jesus - albeit
without saying his name. And in this quote, Hitler displays his heresy
in dismissing ('not as a sufferer') Jesus' redemptive work on the
cross. You may dismiss the cross as foolishness (many have), but to be
fair you have to admit that it is at the center of the Christian
message, and here Hitler dismisses it.
>
>
>doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.
I agree!
>
>by the by...he echoes the views of martin luther...another german
>christian.
>
>i personally dont think hitler was a christian.
?? Now I'm confused - I thought that was what you were arguing for...
Mark E. Miller
Nando Ronteltap
>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>
>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
I said it's things *like* that is the main reason why many Christians
don't accept Darwinism. There are other similar things, like for
instance when weak organisms die, then Darwinists say that the
population has become better. That kind of language is just
unchristian.
>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
>
>BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
>natural selection to further their causes,
You don't get it. Lorenz, Haeckel, Galton, Darwin, the very
influential Darwinist scientists themselves spurred on application of
Darwinism to political life, they spurred on derivative ideas of
natural selection.
Lorenz, one of the main people in evolutionary science, selected out
people to be killed in the Sudetenland. You will probably have read
the works of a murderer, a murderer who legitimized his murders with
ideas derived from the works you have read.
In any case you asked a question, so you got an answer. It's things
like Lorenz's selecting, things like Darwinism being taught to the
Hitleryouth in Darwinist styled schools, and many more things like
that, which is why after 140 years many Christians still don't accept
Darwinism. You may not agree with that reason, but that is the reason
it is rejected.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
>not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
>present it. I am not holding my breath.
>
From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
10 october 1941, midday
War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
them who conquers them.
The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
from west to east.
This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
victorious.
Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness.
--Dutch text
"De oorlog is teruggekeerd tot zijn primitieve vorm. De oorlog van
volken tegen volken heeft plaatsgemaakt voor een ander soort oorlog -
een oorlog om het bezit van de grote ruimten. Oorspronkelijk was
oorlog niets anders dan een strijd om weideland. Dankzij een inherente
wet behoren deze rijkdommen aan hem die ze verovert.
De grote volksverhuizingen begonnen vanuit het oosten. Met ons zet de
eb in, van west naar oost.
Dat is in overeenstemming met de natuurwetten. Door middel van de
strijd worden elites voortdurend vernieuwd. De wet van de natuurlijke
selectie rechtvaardigt deze nooit eindigende strijd door de sterkste
te laten overwinnen.
Het Christendom is een rebellie tegen de natuurwet, een protest tegen
de natuur. Logisch tot het uiterste doorgeredeneerd, zou het
Christendom de systematische cultivering van menselijke zwakte
inhouden. "
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
nope, im arguing for the fact that christianity itself laid the
groundwork for nazi antisemitism. hitler used whatever he could to
further his power. evolution had nothing to do with christianity or
antisemitism.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>On 8 Apr 2001 20:53:12 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>here's a quote from a speech of hitler:
>>
>>>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!
>>> was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless
>>> love as a Christian and as a man I read through
>>> the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His
>>> might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple
>>>the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his
>>> fight against the Jewish poison.
>>>
>>
>>from:
>>
>>http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
>>
>>
>>doesnt sound very darwinist, nando.
>
>The fighting Aryan Jesus is Darwinist Christianity.
>
>Nando
>
ah. i see you've invented a new view of both darwin and christianity.
the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, dressed up in drag. faulty logic, as
always, nando. you decide, a priori, christianity cant be at
fault...by definition. thus anything you dont like MUST be darwinism.
yeah, thats creationism alright
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
really? perhaps you can tell us where in 'mein kampf' he mentions
natural selection.
wf...@ptd.net
>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>
>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
>
>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
because its the sin of 'omission'...you can be evil by what you dont
say as well as by what you say. nando thinks jews are just foils for
god to prove his benevolence by letting christians rescue them from
the evil evolutionists.
the belief is common among fundamentalists in the US that jews are
little ignorant robots, carrying out plans to rebuild the temple so
jesus will return. jews get murdered in the mean time, but thats
irrelevant because it shows how good the fundies are 'cuz they try to
save 'em.
>
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
you mean on their T shirts...
to nando, a T shirt is reality...
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>>
>>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
>
>I said it's things *like* that is the main reason why many Christians
>don't accept Darwinism.
no, they dont accept it because they've arbitrarily decided on a cult
view of the bible. they believe the shoah is a consequence of
evolution, not a cause. the cause of creationism is a bizarre non
biblical belief about the bible.
There are other similar things, like for
>instance when weak organisms die, then Darwinists say that the
>population has become better. That kind of language is just
>unchristian.
whatever 'better' means. nando thinks he gets to tell scientists how
to talk.
>
>>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
>>
>>BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
>>natural selection to further their causes,
>
>You don't get it. Lorenz, Haeckel, Galton, Darwin, the very
>influential Darwinist scientists themselves spurred on application of
>Darwinism to political life, they spurred on derivative ideas of
>natural selection.
and christian clergymen wrote 1/2 of all proslavery tracts in the USA.
martin luther advocated the murder of jews. he's got a church named
after him. he invented the modern german language. aint no
evolutionist around that had the influence of christian racists.
>
>Lorenz, one of the main people in evolutionary science, selected out
>people to be killed in the Sudetenland. You will probably have read
>the works of a murderer, a murderer who legitimized his murders with
>ideas derived from the works you have read.
and bishop alois hudel helped the commandant of auschwitz to escape
allied justice.
the nobel physics laureate phillip lenard said relativity was 'jewish
physics'. that had no influence on physics at all.
>
>In any case you asked a question, so you got an answer. It's things
>like Lorenz's selecting, things like Darwinism being taught to the
>Hitleryouth in Darwinist styled schools, and many more things like
>that, which is why after 140 years many Christians still don't accept
>Darwinism. You may not agree with that reason, but that is the reason
>it is rejected.
some christians hated evolution long before the shoah. they did so
because of their cult bible beliefs. and they hated jews long before
darwin. as the 170 jewish rabbis and scholars said in the sept. 2000
issue of 'first things', christianity, while not a cause of the shoah,
led the nazis to choose jews as their victims.
evolution was not involved.
George Acton
>
> foxt...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >others give the same ones or not.)
>
> It's rejected because of things like that the Nazi's teached Darwinism
> opposition to Christianity.
This is a lie. There were Biblical literalists long before the
Nazi era and no evidence that there was an increase afterwards.
Very few creationists cite the Nazis, preferring to rely on a
different set of lies.
--George Acton
Bobby D. Bryant
> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> others give the same ones or not.)
[I apologize in advance if this sounds inflamatory, elitist, and
overgeneralized, but that's where the subject matter seems to lead. At
least I won't use the N-word here.]
There are probably many factors.
One, possibly, is that we now try to educate everyone, so essentially
everyone gets exposed to a bit of science now, including people who would
have remained ignorant peasants 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago. But
not all peasants give up their peasant mentalities just because they get a
bit of schooling.
The move toward universal education has progressed a lot over the last 50
years, and alas, so has the intensity of the knee-jerk response to
evolution. The two may well be related.
Another factor probably contributing to the increasing frequency and
intensity of expressions of outrage is the general improvement in the
communications infrastructure over the past 200 years. It is much easier
now than before, for an ill-informed kook to disseminate his
disinformation, attract a following, and whip them into a frenzy. (That
has always been possible on a local basis, but it is becoming more and more
possible to do on a national or global basis.)
Yet another is probably the profusion of ignorant protestant sects in the
USA over the past couple of centuries. I say 'ignorant' deliberately,
because before that, and in the more "high church" sects, there was a
tradition of selecting the clergy from among the educated. (Indeed, many
of the early Natural Philosophers were clergymen, and conversely, our
modern notion of higher education evolved directly from the medieval
tradition of packing clerics off to the university.) But in the USA we
evolved a system where any lout could be come a preacher, or start his own
sect if the sect of his ancestors wouldn't ordain him. And even if a sect
does require some time at seminary, the profusion of sects means more and
more time has to be spent teaching the difference between "us" and "them",
and drilling on the articles of faith, rather than actually *educating* the
poor guy.
Most of the other scientific discoveries that uprooted Man's Special Place
in the universe came before the above trends were very advanced, which may
explain why they didn't provoke the same degree of outrage. Of course, the
Big Bang also threatens certain religious traditions, and has been
discovered more recently yet, but notice how it tends to get rolled into
one with evil-oution in discussions here. The big bang, abiogenesis, and
"macro" evolution are dissed because they directly call religious
traditions into question, but relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., do not
seem to threaten any religious beliefs.
Still, there is surely an element of randomness in this kind of thing. Why
have abortion and evolution been the fundamentalist hot buttons for the
past pair of decades? The first surely has a lot to do with the desire to
control sex, but you could easily list other erotic/reproductive issues
that could just as well have become the hot button. Similarly, as you
pointed out originally, other scientific issues seemingly could have become
the hot button rather than evolution.
End ramble. Maybe there's something in there worth following up on.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
WickedDyno
> the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, dressed up in drag.
You mean it's wearing pants?
I'll get my coat.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
R. Tang
>>antisemite,
>
>A lie of course.
Nope.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
R. Tang
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>>> >principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>>> >got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>>> >others give the same ones or not.)
>>>
>>> to the Hitleryouth,
>>
>>taught basic math, along with a full range of
>>other subjects which are not disputed,
>
>No they weren't.
They weren't taught basic math?
Ah....delusional, isn't this?
>> and 2)
>>evolution was opposed on religious grounds long
>>before Hitler came on the scene.
>
>The same sort of things occurred with Darwinism long before Hitler
>came on the scene.
>
>>> in Darwinist-selectionist styled schools, in
>>> opposition to Christianity.
>>
>>Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>>said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>>supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>>their uniform, don't you think?
>
>What about the SS, did they have that too?
What about the German military belt buckles, sir?
Gonna run off and hide again? Let your opponents do all the
research AGAIN?
R. Tang
A lie, as usual.
but then you don't accept that as evidence of
>anything.
>
>Nando
>
Pat James
(in message <ln12dt49gk838mhrj...@4ax.com>):
>> Oddly enough, the German military belt buckles
>> said "With God". Odd, don't you think, that
>> supposedly "anti Christians" should have that on
>> their uniform, don't you think?
>
> What about the SS, did they have that too?
the regular armed forces had the inscription "Gott Mitt Uns" on their belt
buckles. Tradition, going back to Prussia, IIRC. The Waffen-SS had the
inscription "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" (Loyalty is my Honour) on their belt
buckles, so the W-SS did not walk around saying that God was with them.
However, each and every W-SS recruit _did_ swear the following oath: (in
German, of course...)
"I swear to thee Adolf Hitler
As Fuhrer and Chancellor of the German Reich
Loyalty and bravery.
I vow to thee and to the superiors whom thou shalt appoint
Obedience unto death
So help me God."
taken from page 26 of _Hitler's Samurai_, Bruce Quarrie, Patrick Stephens
Limited, 3rd Edition (1986) ISBN 0-85059-806-0.
Hmmm. Very anti-Xian, eh?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
R. Tang
This, of course, means nothing, except that you have once again
failed to defend your anti Christian blatherings.
How can you call yourself Christian????
Mark E. Miller
OK - so I have to agree, regretfully, with your first sentence, and
wholeheartedly with the rest.
Mark E. Miller
Mark E. Miller
wrote:
>KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
>>not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
>>present it. I am not holding my breath.
>>
>
>From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
>(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
>10 october 1941, midday
>
>War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
>peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
>possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
>struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
>riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
>them who conquers them.
>The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
>from west to east.
>This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
>the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
>justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
>victorious.
>Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
>against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
>would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness.
>
>
Thanks for finding this - do you have publication information beyond
what you give above? Do you know of an English edition?
Mark E. Miller
wilkins
Bravo. Would that there were more like you.
Incidentally, I am reading George Mosse's _The Crisis of German
Ideology_ (c 1964) and he details the roots of Nazi ideology through (as
I suspected) German romanticism and Christian nationalism. The only
place he mentions "Darwinism" it is clear that he is referring to
anything *but* Darwin's views.
>
> >
> >in the book 'days of sorrow, the biography of leo baeck', the author
> >explains that none of the german churches...catholic or
> >protestant...actively opposed hitler. in fact they went so far as to
> >turn over the names of jewish converts to christianity to the nazis,
> >knowing full well what would happen to them.
>
> I have not read the above, I will at my earliest opportunity. *If* you
> have fairly characterized his message, he is perpetrating a blatant
> falsehood. If not, you are.
>
> Does the phrase 'Barmen Declaration' mean anything to you? It was the
> declaration by the Confessing Church that the 'German Christians'
> (those collaborating with Hitler) were guilty of heresy. You can read
> about the church struggle in Germany at great length (800 pp) in
> Eberhard Bethge's biography, 'Dietrich Bonhoeffer'.
>
A great book about a great man (I met his student Helmut Thielicke in
the 70s briefly) but note that the Confessing Church was never a large
part of the Lutheran communion and their declarations about what was and
was not heresy were of no real import to the wider Christian community.
Moreover, I doubt that in the accepted sense of heresy, the German
Christians were indeed heretical in any doctrinal sense (although I
recall Bonhoeffer, Barth, and Thielicke angsting over the "unforgivable
sin" - the Prohibitiva - in this connection).
--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Adam Marczyk
> KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no
evidence",
> >not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any
evidence,
> >present it. I am not holding my breath.
> >
>
> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
> (Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
> 10 october 1941, midday
>
> War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
> peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
> possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
> struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
> riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
> them who conquers them.
> The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
> from west to east.
> This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
> the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
> justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
> victorious.
Well, there's your problem right there. The principle of natural selection
says no such thing.
And for people who think Hitler's anti-Semitism was inspired by Darwin:
"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! was greatest not as a sufferer but
as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage
which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge
to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was
his fight against the Jewish poison."
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Pat James
(in message <9arg6b$spc$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>):
> In article <1l12dtolinnr63ag6...@4ax.com>,
> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>> the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>>> antisemite,
>>
>> A lie of course.
>
> Nope.
I would have to agree there. On the available evidence it would appear that
if Nando ain't an antisemite he's turning in an awfully good immitation.
Mark E. Miller
In a post above, Adam says:
"And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of
Nazism. I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any
of Hitler's other works."
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:v292dtsavol47c1g9...@4ax.com...
>> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>>
QUOTE 1:
>> (Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>>
>> 10 october 1941, midday
>>
>> War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
>> peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
>> possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
>> struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
>> riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
>> them who conquers them.
>> The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
>> from west to east.
>> This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
>> the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
>> justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
>> victorious.
So, Adam issued a challenge and Nando met it. Instead of graciously
conceding the point (the narrow point, I mean, that Hitler did indeed
at least refer to natural selection to justify his policies, not the
broader point that he was justified in doing so or that evolution was
actually a cause of Nazism), Adam replies:
>
>Well, there's your problem right there. The principle of natural selection
>says no such thing.
...but in a sense it's not Nando's 'problem', but Hitler's - he was
misusing Darwinism in (almost) exactly the same sense that the Social
Darwinists were - mistaking description for prescription.
Instead of analyzing this any further, Adam quickly changes the
subject:
>
>And for people who think Hitler's anti-Semitism was inspired by Darwin:
>
QUOTE 2:
>"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! was greatest not as a sufferer but
>as a fighter.
>
>In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage
>which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge
>to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was
>his fight against the Jewish poison."
Now, elsewhere in this thread I comment on QUOTE 2 above, arguing that
it is heretical on its face, and shows Hitler could not have been an
orthodox Christian. In any case, it is, of course, not an argument
that Hitler was not inspired by Darwin! It doesn't mention Darwin.
Here is the last part of QUOTE 1 that Adam snipped:
"Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness."
This was said in private, I gather, in the circle of his intimates, Q2
was a public declaration. Which is more likely to be a reflection of
his true beliefs?
My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
true.
Mark E. Miller
Adam Marczyk
news:3ad1cec6$0$12827$bbae...@news.net-link.net...
The quote doesn't refer to evolution per se, but I'll concede the point.
I could find several more quotes where Hitler professes his allegiance to
Christianity; I rather suspect that one quote with a vague mention of
natural selection is the best Nando can offer. But I wouldn't rush to draw a
conclusion from either side, since I doubt Hitler was anywhere near stable
mentally. The point is that Nando (or any Christian) should be very hesitant
to fight evolution by blaming the Holocaust on it -- their religion is just
as vulnerable in that department, probably more so. Christianity has a long
history of being used to justify anti-Semitism, right back to the original
writing of the New Testament. You know what they say about glass houses and
stones.
> My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
> Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
> power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
> he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
> earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
> policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
> true.
>
--
Walter Bushell
> In article <01HW.B6F635300...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:13:36 -0500, foxt...@webtv.net wrote
> >(in message <7013-3AD...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
> >> principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
> >> got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
> >> others give the same ones or not.)
> >>
> >
> >there are those who really, really, really hate the thought that all humans
> >are probably descended from African apes. I have my suspicions about whether
> >it's the 'ape' part or the 'African' part that upsets 'em the most.
>
> I thought what they *really* hated is that we are descended
> from "monkeys"?
>
> (Heroically refraining from commenting on the education of those
> who conflate african apes with monkeys)
___> Why the bad feeling about being descended from monkeys, the
Christian Totem animal is the sheep. In Chistianity being a sheep is a
good thing. Even Jesus is refer ed to as a Lamb, Whyfore is being a
primate so offensive?
Boikat
That Hitler used anything he could to justify his
actions has been pointed out to Nando several
times over. He misused "Darwinism" and
Christianity, among other things, such as
"national pride" in rallying the German population
after the defeat in WW I. The problem with Nando
is that if you look at his posts, he condemns
"Darwinism", and even if Nando accepted Darwinian
evolution or neo-Darwinism (nd I'm pretty sure he
does not), he seems to imply that the theory
should be suppressed or shunned, because Hitler
misused it, because someone else is bound to
misuse it in a similar way. The hypocrisy is that
Nando does not similarly condemn and call for the
suppression of Christianity, or any other
religion, for that matter. What Nando willfully
overlooks is that with a *better* understanding of
biological evolution, it becomes clear that humans
are the same all over. There *is* no "master
race" among humans according to biological
evolution.
> Mark E. Miller
Boikat
Ferrous Patella
says...
>
>i think this collection of Hitlers veiws on Christianity might be helpful
>
> http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
>
In particular:
The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based on
religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf; Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books,
1999, p. 119. )
--
Ferrous Patella
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and
to the same extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children smart"
HL Mencken
KMT
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
From your above quote, it can be noted that :
1. Adam stated: "there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.". The
quote above is dated 1941, well after Nazism was instituted in Germany. Please tell me
how you feel this can be a "cause" when it came after the effect. Everything written
or publicly stated by Hitler before Nazism in Germany implies a very spiritual,
Christian fellow. If as far as you're concerned, evolution can be a cause even if it
is after the effect, then what do you consider Christianity, when it is apparent that
his supportive views on Christianity came before the effect?
2. natural selection is not a "law". I hope you know that much.
3. The quote is supposedly from a secret conversation. Nothing regarding Darwin,
evolution or natural selection was ever stated publicly by Hitler that I have found.
Interesting how he mentions Christianity in a positive light in public, though. Why do
you think that is?
Get Well Soon,
Kevin
KMT
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Nando did not meet the challenge as I demonstrate in my reply to him minutes
ago. Take back your concession, Gore.
> <snip>
KMT
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
> >not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
> >present it. I am not holding my breath.
> >
>
> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
Is this how you love thy neighbor? I am appalled. Some Christian you are.
Adam Marczyk
Good point; I hadn't thought of that. Are there any quotes that indicate
Hitler's commitment to evolution _before_ the Nazis had taken over Germany?
Even if he adopted a twisted version of natural selection as an
after-the-fact rationalization, surely the more important question is what
inspired him in the first place.
Mark E. Miller
>
>That Hitler used anything he could to justify his
>actions has been pointed out to Nando several
>times over. He misused "Darwinism" and
>Christianity, among other things, such as
>"national pride" in rallying the German population
>after the defeat in WW I. The problem with Nando
>is that if you look at his posts, he condemns
>"Darwinism", and even if Nando accepted Darwinian
>evolution or neo-Darwinism (nd I'm pretty sure he
>does not), he seems to imply that the theory
>should be suppressed or shunned, because Hitler
>misused it, because someone else is bound to
>misuse it in a similar way. The hypocrisy is that
>Nando does not similarly condemn and call for the
>suppression of Christianity, or any other
>religion, for that matter.
Precisely. And again my point (I think we've been down this road
before :> ) is that the atheists in this group should feel free to
argue that Christianity (or any other religion) is not true, but not
on the basis that people misuse it. That they tend to make this
argument in response to other fallacious arguments such as Nando's
does not add any weight to it.
Mark E. Miller
David Jensen
news:3ad1cec6$0$12827$bbae...@news.net-link.net...
...
> My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
> Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
> power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
> he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
> earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
> policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
> true.
Yes, Hitler was an extraordinarily skilled man at manipulating emotions. I
doubt that Hitler cared a bit about Christianity or science or anything else
except as a tool to further his megalomanical pursuits. If only at a
visceral level, Hitler knew his constituency. Could someone else have done
something like this? Sure, Joe McCarthy, far less skilled, far more drunk,
and in a country that had just been warned about being manipulated, still
managed to create some havoc.
Mark E. Miller
>
>From your above quote, it can be noted that :
>
>1. Adam stated: "there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of Nazism.". The
>quote above is dated 1941, well after Nazism was instituted in Germany. Please tell me
>how you feel this can be a "cause" when it came after the effect. Everything written
>or publicly stated by Hitler before Nazism in Germany implies a very spiritual,
>Christian fellow. If as far as you're concerned, evolution can be a cause even if it
>is after the effect, then what do you consider Christianity, when it is apparent that
>his supportive views on Christianity came before the effect?
>
>2. natural selection is not a "law". I hope you know that much.
>
>3. The quote is supposedly from a secret conversation. Nothing regarding Darwin,
>evolution or natural selection was ever stated publicly by Hitler that I have found.
>Interesting how he mentions Christianity in a positive light in public, though. Why do
>you think that is?
Interesting. Before reading this, I made the same point in the
opposite direction:
"This was said in private, I gather, in the circle of his intimates,
Q2 was a public declaration. Which is more likely to be a reflection
of his true beliefs?"
The obvious inference (to me ) is: He was wrapping himself in the
mantle of Christianity in public, and letting his true beliefs show in
private. Or do you think he was more likely to be hypocritical in
private than in public? Why on earth?
Mark E. Miller
KMT
"Mark E. Miller" wrote:
There is question on whether he actually said the things he is attributed to in Table Talk
/ Secret Conversations.
Check out http://www.gate.net/~zardoz/HitlerSources.htm
In case that link doesn't work:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.gate.net/~zardoz/HitlerSources.htm+hitlersources&hl=en
It is very interesting that the only source of a Hitler anti-Christian stance is in these
private conversations in 1941. If they are legit, he may have been upset with various
Christian churches at the time of the Table Talk conversations, and his words reflected
this temporary mood. He had a lot to say between 1942 and 1945, but nothing I have found
confirms a Darwinist, anti-Christian stance. Whether or not he believed in a god, it could
be argued that, publicly, it was in his best interests to pander to Christians. He
certainly could have felt he was appealing to an existing bias and what he possibly
considered the lowest common denominator. If I wanted to rule the world, I would certainly
first pander to those that had a predisposition to believing what they want to hear. I
would have to work a little on the skeptics.
wf...@ptd.net
>KMT <nyc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Please try to keep up despite your impairment. Adam said, "there is no evidence",
>>not that he won't accept any evidence. Prove him wrong. If you have any evidence,
>>present it. I am not holding my breath.
>>
>
>From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>
>(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
>10 october 1941, midday
>
whats funny is nando pretends that evolution influenced hitler...even
though there's no evidence to support it. even nando's unable to come
up with a quote before 1941...which indicates hitler adopted the
language of evolution, without adopting its ideas. hitler never
mentions darwin in his book 'mein kampf', so evolution didnt figure
into his view of jews at all
christianity, however, was essential. christianity had for 1500 yrs
taught the jews were christ killers and foreigners.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>In a post above, Adam says:
>"And in any event, there is no evidence that evolution was a cause of
>Nazism. I defy you to find any such statement in _Mein Kampf_ or any
>of Hitler's other works."
>
>
>>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:v292dtsavol47c1g9...@4ax.com...
>>> From Hitler's tabletalk, you little fascist twerp.
>>>
the problem nando faces is finding any evidence that evolution
influenced hitler. there seems to be none. hitler never mentions
darwin, or natural selection, or 'origin of the species' in his 'mein
kampf'. if evolution was so influential to hitler, why didnt he
mention it?
answer: the answer is provided by nando himself. he quotes a speech
from hitler in 1941. hitler obviously learned to cloak his christian
inspired antisemitism in the language of science. antisemitism existed
in german culture long before darwin, as a result both of catholic
teaching, and luther's views that the jews should be killed.
wf...@ptd.net
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3ad129cc....@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>> the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, dressed up in drag.
>
>You mean it's wearing pants?
>
>
>I'll get my coat.
>
in this case it put on underwear...after all, everyone knows what a
true scotsman wears under his kilt...
Boikat
>
> On 9 Apr 2001 12:37:14 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >That Hitler used anything he could to justify his
> >actions has been pointed out to Nando several
> >times over. He misused "Darwinism" and
> >Christianity, among other things, such as
> >"national pride" in rallying the German population
> >after the defeat in WW I. The problem with Nando
> >is that if you look at his posts, he condemns
> >"Darwinism", and even if Nando accepted Darwinian
> >evolution or neo-Darwinism (nd I'm pretty sure he
> >does not), he seems to imply that the theory
> >should be suppressed or shunned, because Hitler
> >misused it, because someone else is bound to
> >misuse it in a similar way. The hypocrisy is that
> >Nando does not similarly condemn and call for the
> >suppression of Christianity, or any other
> >religion, for that matter.
>
> Precisely. And again my point (I think we've been down this road
> before :> ) is that the atheists
"Atheists"? What in blazes does that have to do
with it? There are many Christians (and members
of other religions) that accept evolution, and do
not want evolution suppressed.
> in this group should feel free to
> argue that Christianity (or any other religion) is not true,
Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
> but not
> on the basis that people misuse it. That they tend to make this
> argument in response to other fallacious arguments such as Nando's
> does not add any weight to it.
Sure, some go overboard, however, however, most
people argue against a particular dogma of a
particular religion, not the religion itself.
Boikat
* semyaza *
>Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>others give the same ones or not.)
Personally, I suspect that it is partly due to the fact that the
doctrine of Special Creation of Man is the last remaining "gap".
Several hundred years ago, almost all aspects of the physical world
were under the sway of the gods - planetary motion, the weather,
thunder and lightning, sickness and death, all were ascribed to the
actions of god intruding into the physical world.
With the rise of the Enlightenment, god's provenance has been slowly
but methodically shrinking. He is no longer credited with making the
wind blow, guiding the stars, or causing malaise in his enemies.
Certain devout believers view this trend with dismay. Without at least
some perceived "physical" proof of god's being, their cognitive
dissonance threatens to overwhelm them.
This is why, I suspect, they cling so doggedly to the doctrine of
Special Creation, despite the fact that it is contradicted by a
mountain of physical evidence. It is the last remaining corner of
god's domain, and they will die before they surrender it.
Ironically, the battle is already lost. The rising generation, like
those who grew up with Galileo's telescopes, will be faced at every
turn with undeniable proof of common descent thanks to the inevitable
rise of biotechnology, and the infiltration of Darwinian mechanisms
and thought into everyday technology. A paradigm shift has already
been born, and within one generation will complete a bloodless
overthrow of their unyielding forbears.
* semyaza *
-- Atheist #1915 : Just another fallen angel
http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc
ZeldaG
>From: Nando Ronteltap
>>the shoah had to do with german history and identity. nando's an
>>antisemite,
>
>A lie of course. You're a Darwinist that's true.
If you aren't an antisemite, you can explain why you suggested that the
Jewishness of the Jews was what was responsible for the Holocaust.
ZeldaG
>
>(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
>
>10 october 1941, midday
>
>War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
>peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
>possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
>struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
>riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
>them who conquers them.
>The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
>from west to east.
>This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
>the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
>justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest be
>victorious.
>Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
>against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
>would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness.
You idiot. If you had the slightest inkling of what Darwinism was about, you
would know how silly this quote is. As always, you provide the best ammo
against your own arguments. Yes, Hitler tries to point to natural selection as
a justification for his campaign of murder, but his grasp is even worse than
yours. Natural selection have nothing to do with the selection of elites, and
strength is the main factor in survival in only a fraction of selective
pressures. Hitler was oblivious to the true nature of Darwinism, just as you
are oblivious Hitler's ignorance. But that's not quite correct. It's not that
you're not oblivious. You know it quite well because it's been pointed out to
you dozens of times. You just like lying for Christ. Not that Christ needs you
to lie. You do it because you hate those who don't agree with you. No doubt if
you were a German Christian circa WWII, you'ld be doing all the things you
pretend to abhor.
ZeldaG
>"Christendom is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
>against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christendom
>would mean the systematic cultivation of human weakness."
However, Hitler only suggests that it would mean the systematic cultivation of
human weakness, within a context of "Reasoned logic." He does not say that it
is indeed the case in fact. The statement does not infer a disbelief in
Christianity on Hitler's part.
>This was said in private, I gather, in the circle of his intimates, Q2
>was a public declaration. Which is more likely to be a reflection of
>his true beliefs?
Claiming the inference that Hitler was not a Christian form this quote is pure
speculation, plainly motivated by a desire to put distance between Christianity
and Hitler's hate. It is a fool's errand, however. There are countless examples
of Christianity (and other superstitions) being interpreted as a reason to kill
and hate. The Old and New Testaments have no shortage of passages to push
borderline psychotics over the edge.
>My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
>Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
>power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
>he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
>earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
>policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
>true.
Yes, it can be argued that anti-semitic elements of German Christianity made it
easier for Hitler to carry out his policies. But you can't just say Hitler
just happened to be anti-semitic and these pre-existing attitudes worked to his
advantage. No, Hitler was anti-semitic for the same reasons that so many
Germans were anti-semitic. Those reasons being that Christianity is
significantly anti-semitic in its dogma. Anti-semitism is just part of
Christian hatred. Don't forget the hatred of those who aren't Christian, who
don't believe in God, who believe in a different form of Christianity, who
believe in Islam, who believe in Wicca, who are black, who are gay, who are
women, who have sex, etc. etc. etc. Love thy neighbor. Yeah, if he's dead.
ZeldaG
>_> Why the bad feeling about being descended from monkeys, the
>Christian Totem animal is the sheep. In Chistianity being a sheep is a
>good thing. Even Jesus is refer ed to as a Lamb, Whyfore is being a
>primate so offensive?
Humans developing from apes disproves the Fall. Without the Fall in Genesis,
Jesus isn't necessary, and Christianity is exposed as the sham that it is.
ZeldaG
>Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
Boikat, at last we disagree. Are you saying that Science is without knowledge
in regards to religion? Science acknowledges that religion not only exists, but
that as the many forms are mutually contradictory, and without any basis in
observable reality, a high probability exists that they all represent a common
and erroneous behavioral phenomenon. After all, one can never be absolutely
certain in science; that is it's strength. Moreover, science is indeed
atheistic. Atheism means "without belief". That is precisely what science is
all about. Belief is utterly eschewed in favor of tentative consideration and
tentative acceptance depending on the reliability of evidence. As we are
confronted by a pure vacuum of evidence for a spiritual universe (entirely
contradicting the claims of all religions), a pure lack of belief is an
entirely reasonable and well-supported proposition.
Mark E. Miller
>Mark E. Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Precisely. And again my point (I think we've been down this road
>> before :> ) is that the atheists
>
>
>"Atheists"? What in blazes does that have to do
>with it?
*sigh* Several posters here are self-described atheists. I'm not using
it as a cuss word. The only thing I am saying is that I have seen the
argument "Hitler was not inspired by darwinism, rather, he was
inspired by Christianity, therefore, Christianity is false." Not in
those words, mind, but that's the implication.
>There are many Christians (and members
>of other religions) that accept evolution, and do
>not want evolution suppressed.
..and I am one of those, as I am sure you realize from my posts.
>
>> in this group should feel free to
>> argue that Christianity (or any other religion) is not true,
>
>Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
Entirely true, but beside the point I am making.
>
>> but not
>> on the basis that people misuse it. That they tend to make this
>> argument in response to other fallacious arguments such as Nando's
>> does not add any weight to it.
>
>Sure, some go overboard, however, however, most
>people argue against a particular dogma of a
>particular religion, not the religion itself.
>
>Boikat
>
Mark E. Miller
ZeldaG
>From: foxt...@webtv.net
>Date: 4/8/2001 6:42 PM Pacific
>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
The fact is that anti-semitism is still just as rampant as racism, sexism,
homophobia, etc. The fundamentalists never miss an opportunity to demean and
insult Jews when it serves their purposes. Nando is an historical revisionist
and has made numerous statements slandering Jews and demeaning their religion.
He readily says things that only someone entirely insensitive to their
experience could say. This is not unusual. How often to the pro-lifers insult
Jews by calling abortion a holocaust, or insult blacks by comparing the
legality of abortion to slavery. Bigotry is an integral part of religion,
Christianity in particular.
George Acton
The "the" in "atheism" is the root for "God". Atheism means the
position that there is no God, and science has no evidence about this
one way or the other. Therefore it's agnostic. All we can say is
that we have no evidence for supernatural events that can be
verified and studied with standard scientific methids. Nor do we
have any evidence that any occurred in the past. OTOH, we have
no disproof that specific supernatural events claimed by religions
didn't occur. A statement of fact tht isn't scientifically testable
may nevertheless be true.
What upsets the people at the Discovery Institute is that
scientists aren't being good team players by interpreting their
results to produce evidence for God. As things stand, the
scientific view is conpatible with atheism. The neocoms want to
politicise science to make it rule out atheism. But there's no
reason to politicise it the other way.
--George Acton
Mark VandeWettering
>On 9 Apr 2001 21:22:44 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Mark E. Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely. And again my point (I think we've been down this road
>>> before :> ) is that the atheists
>>
>>
>>"Atheists"? What in blazes does that have to do
>>with it?
>
>*sigh* Several posters here are self-described atheists. I'm not using
>it as a cuss word. The only thing I am saying is that I have seen the
>argument "Hitler was not inspired by darwinism, rather, he was
>inspired by Christianity, therefore, Christianity is false." Not in
>those words, mind, but that's the implication.
What I see is a group of creationists playing it fast and loose
with the truth by claiming that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of
Darwin's work. That connection has been repeatedly shown to be
tenuous, and in fact it appears that the anti-semitism which
characterizes the Third Reich is much more clearly seen to have
its roots in Christianity. This doesn't make Christianity false,
nor would it have made evolution false, but it does betray poor
scholarship on the part of creationists, and an unwillingness to
face a difficult truth.
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
B. Hawkom
by over 20 years. In 1859 when they found the first Neandertal skull in
the Neander Valley in Germany (but 30 years prior to Hitler's birth in
Austria) recognized as possibly being of an apeman there was huge denial
of it being anything than the skull of a Russian cossack (chasing
Napoleon's army) or a Celtic tribesman. One Irishman, William King,
recognized the skull as possibly being of an extinct species of man, but
97% of all other people thought it was Celt, Cossack, or some other
completely human human being. Rudolf Virchow thought it was a homo
sapien sapien who had had rickets and Virchow's explanation was mostly
accepted for some of the Neandertal's strange physical characteristics.
One reason why evolution never caught on so much in people's minds as
did gravity and a non-Earth centered universe is because evolution is
not something most people deal with everyday. Most of us everyday lookup
at the sky and pick up things big or small or watch something fall down
to the ground or floor. Personally the thing I like to deal with every
day is the apes called attractive women and I thnk I'll deal with some
now. Bye.
Mark E. Miller
>>Subject: Re: How/when did evolution become The Enemy?
>>From: memi...@net-link.net (Mark E. Miller)
>
>
>>My basic point in all of this: Hitler misused both Christianity and
>>Darwinism, and anything else he could get his hands on in his lust for
>>power. Neither Christianity nor Darwinism is to 'blame' for the misuse
>>he made of them. It can be argued that anti-semitic elements in
>>earlier German Christianity made it easier for Hitler to carry out his
>>policies; as a Christian, I say with sorrow that this seems to be
>>true.
>
>Yes, it can be argued that anti-semitic elements of German Christianity made it
>easier for Hitler to carry out his policies. But you can't just say Hitler
>just happened to be anti-semitic and these pre-existing attitudes worked to his
>advantage. No, Hitler was anti-semitic for the same reasons that so many
>Germans were anti-semitic. Those reasons being that Christianity is
>significantly anti-semitic in its dogma. Anti-semitism is just part of
>Christian hatred. Don't forget the hatred of those who aren't Christian, who
>don't believe in God, who believe in a different form of Christianity, who
>believe in Islam, who believe in Wicca, who are black, who are gay, who are
>women, who have sex, etc. etc. etc. Love thy neighbor. Yeah, if he's dead.
GOOD GRIEF! Where do you meet these people who believe these
things?? I'm glad I don't live where you do. I've never heard *any*
Christian say anything like what you refer to above. Saturday night I
led a Seder at our church, for the 18th straight year. That's how
anti-semitic we are.
jonas
>I can understand why observations of the solar system met such
>resistance; it was the first time that Christian faith had been
>challenged by the squelching weight of objective observation and logic,
>instead of just other assorted faiths. Christianity didn't know how to
>respond to such a challenge.
>
>When other comparable discoveries of how the world works came along,
>there was little objection to them even though they still sometimes
>really shook up people's older concepts of the way things are and/or
>left questions unanswered.
>
>Nobody hollered about how the myriad of different substances couldn't
>come from the simplicity of the atomic model because that would be too
>much of an information increase, or that God didn't know how to make
>things without always reverting back to the same limited set of parts.
>
>Nobody screamed at Newton that his observations of objects' movements
>were clearly false because they didn't account for the Hand of God
>pushing everything around, or because there were some questions his
>equations couldn't answer and some interactions he couldn't perfectly
>predict.
>
>Nobody called Mendeleëv a heratic or Satanist because his periodc
>table limited God's imagination to simple categories and
>ascending/descending numerical scales, or claimed that the table's
>accurate prediction of the properties of a previously undiscovered
>element didn't count because the element's discoverers had only managed
>to "conveneiently find what they were looking for".
>
>By the time Darwin came along, Christians worldwide had even accepted
>the fact that the Earth was thousands, perhaps over a million, of times
>older than they'd previously thought, even though that seems to conflict
>with what we're now told the Bible says. It would seem that, after that
>first little solar-system incident, Christianity had learned to face
>facts about God's world when they were discovered.
>
>Now look at evolution, an observed fact that gets persistently denied,
>and natural selection, a ridiculously simple, inevitable law with
>titanicly overwhelming evidence pointing to it, accused of being a wild,
>unproven guess. It's a shame that discussion groups like this need to
>even exist; young-earth Creationism and anti-evolutionism are as
>scientifically dead as anything could be, right along with the
>Earth-centered and flat-Earth models of the world and atomless models of
>matter, but still there are these stragglers that just won't admit they
>lost over a century ago. The internet and religious radio and TV
>channels are inundated with nonsense and lies from people who act like
>they're on drugs, trying to tell us the equivalent of "The sky isn't
>blue, it's plaid."
>
>Why? Where did this silliness in response to just a few scientific
>principles come from, when most others are accepted as they are? (I've
>got a few potential answers of my own, but first I'd like to see whether
>others give the same ones or not.)
Hi foxtail,
you've posed a very interesting question and IMHO you really do
deserve better than this Goodwin's-Law invoking BS "Hitler was a
Darwinist! - Was a Catholic! - Was both! - Was not! - Was!! repeat ad
infinititum"
As far as I know about church history and science history, the more
scientific minded circles of the RCC hierarchy during the
geocentricity contoversy were well aware of the arguments in favour in
favour of Copernicus' theory, but heavyhandedly intervened every time
the publishing of these findings threatened the RCC's position as sole
dispenser of truth. They probably wanted a waterpoof case for
heliocentricity before officially amending church dogma instead of a
lengthy scientific dispute with a lot of philosophical speculations
thrown in (the latter, and not his scientific claims are often seen as
the reason that brought Giordano Bruno to the stake of the
inquisition). But basically the church could adapt heliocentricity for
its own use as soon as they wanted, because there was no authority to
overrule official church dogma. It was probably all about power and
not about scientific or religious substance.
The situation in the late 19th and early 20th century was completely
different. There was no unified church anymore fighting for worldly
power with kings and philosophers, but lots of bigger and smaller
churches, seeing some of there traditional teachings endangered by
modern theological methods, introducing a critical questioning of
interpretations and even biblical texts. While most churches carefully
and slowly accepted these disciplines as a tool to discover faith in a
modern and pluralist world, some believers saw their very basis of
believe threatened and drafted declarations of faith, condemning any
kind of modern thinking seen as un-Christian. One of the most famous
among them was the Declaration of Fundaments, finally giving this
movement the name Fundamentalism (yes, US protestants and not Shiite
mullahs invented Fundamentalism), the first in a long list of
declarations on biblical inerrancy. While lots of theologians and
ordinary believers before might have thought of the bible as the most
authorative book in existence (Martin Luther comes to mind), never
before inerrancy has been elevated to be the lynchpin of faith,
basically ditching faith in Christ in favour of faith in the bible.
As the bible's very clearly stating an antique version of cosmology
and biology, and the Fundamentalists were shying away from allegorical
or historic-critical interpretations as atheist modernism, they had to
oppose modern science. The passages about a flat earth and
geocentricity were already too far out (and not part of any church
tradition for several centuries), so they had to be hand-waved away,
which wasn't too hard, as they weren't an emotionally loaded topic
with most believers - who cares about the exact shape or position of
the earth?
Evolution on the other hand was relatively new, not very well
estabished in the mind of the ordinary person, emotionally offensive,
as animals were seen as dirty and stupid by many and very clearly
contradicting long and well know passages in Genesis. And thus
Evolution became the penultimate modernist bogeyman of Biblicism (not
that the notion of 'disproofing' god using evolution or cosmology has
helped much, but that didn't start that row).
Hope that was more on topic, Jonas
---
"Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said, "...And thou, Melkor, shalt see
that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in
me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that
attempteth
this shall prove but my instrument in the devising of things more
wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
- The Silmarillion
remove '.no-spam' to reply
jonas
>Well, I see this thread has promptly shifted from the original question
>to Nando's odd claims about Naziism.
>
>Would it even be chronologically POSSIBLE for this to be the answer to
>my question (that the anti-evolution thing is because Creationists THINK
>there's an association with Naziism)? Did the anti-evolution campaign
>begin AFTER knowledge of the Holocaust became widespread?
>
>Not to defend Nando, but I am confused by one of the accusations against
>him here: if he's anti-Semitic, then why does he use the Nazis as the
>symbol of absolute evil to associate evolution with?
>
>BTW, even if the Nazis HAD used some goofball malinterpretation of
>natural selection to further their causes, that would mean nothing for
>the real natural selection anyway. They also tried to hold up Friedrich
>Nietzsche as a great German patriotic philosopher and supporter of their
>beliefs. But in fact he was full of praise for Jews and criticism of
>German culture, and his discussion of the "übermann" was about
>individuals rising above the crowd, not one crowd exterminating another.
>So if you reject Nietzsche because of the supposed Nazi connection, you
>might be rejecting works that you'd appreciate a lot if you read what
>they really are insted of listening to Nazi lies about them.
>
>If Nando wants to reject things based on the Nazis having coincidentally
>been among the participants, fine for him. Personally, I can't imagine
>going the rest of my life without potato salad.
Amen to that! If one wants to shun away from all the things the Nazis
abused in their propaganda or as part of their ideology, one would
definitively give them more credit than they do deserve.
They used most classical German componists (especially Wagner) as
soundtrack for their dictatorship, but it still remains good music;
they mangled Nietzsches vision of the dangers and possibilities of a
post-conformist world into tools of suppression (the most extreme form
of conformism) and mass murder; they highjacked anti-judaist and
pro-authority traditions in Christianity, while bashing their
critical, non-nationalistic or charitable counterparts, they used a
badly understood version of popular Darwinism ('the weak and bad have
to be weeded out') to push home their point in propaganda on
euthanasia or racism.
I really don't know which of these notions refect Hitler's or someone
elses twisted worldview, but I won't let them dictate my worldview.
Hitler for example definitely did think that being truly German meant
being a Nazi - and for obvious reasons I won't buy that.
Tom
Boikat stated..."
[...snip...]
>Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
I'm sorry, I must disagree with you.
Some religions are in conflict with science. For example, some
of the beliefs of the Classical Greco-Roman religions are difficult,
if not impossible, to reconcile with science.
My favorite example is the story of Persephone. There is an
explanation for the coming of spring, that the goddess Persephone
is returning to the world of the living, from her stay in the
Underworld as the bride of Hades. It seems clear to me that this
particular religious belief is incompatible with the modern
scientific explanation for spring.
Belief in nature-gods, gods as explanations of natural events,
is always threatened by scientific explanations of those events.
Whether the particular god in question is Thor, who throws his
hammer and causes lightning, or a god who/which designs flagella.
Tom
Boikat
>
> >Subject: Re: How/when did evolution become The Enemy?
> >From: Boikat boi...@bellsouth.net
>
>
> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
>
> Boikat, at last we disagree. Are you saying that Science is without knowledge
> in regards to religion?
No, I said "Science is agnostic with regards to
religion". Science cannot make any claims one way
or the other about any religion, used in this
sense as "religious belief". It can make claims
against certain religious dogma's (such as a world
wide flood that supposedly occurred about 5000
years ago), but even then, that would not be an
absolute claim, if there is a deceitful god that
erased all evidence, magically.
> Science acknowledges that religion not only exists, but
> that as the many forms are mutually contradictory, and without any basis in
> observable reality, a high probability exists that they all represent a common
> and erroneous behavioral phenomenon. After all, one can never be absolutely
> certain in science; that is it's strength.
Which is why science is agnostic towards religion
(beliefs)
> Moreover, science is indeed
> atheistic. Atheism means "without belief". That is precisely what science is
> all about. Belief is utterly eschewed in favor of tentative consideration and
> tentative acceptance depending on the reliability of evidence.
That can also apply to "agnostic". The point
being the degree of strength behind "we don't know
if there is a great sky spirit".
> As we are
> confronted by a pure vacuum of evidence for a spiritual universe (entirely
> contradicting the claims of all religions), a pure lack of belief is an
> entirely reasonable and well-supported proposition.
Lack of evidence does not mean lack of existence.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> On 9 Apr 2001 21:22:44 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark E. Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Precisely. And again my point (I think we've been down this road
> >> before :> ) is that the atheists
> >
> >
> >"Atheists"? What in blazes does that have to do
> >with it?
>
> *sigh* Several posters here are self-described atheists.
That's their business.
> I'm not using
> it as a cuss word.
No, you are using it as a "Blanket statement".
> The only thing I am saying is that I have seen the
> argument "Hitler was not inspired by darwinism, rather, he was
> inspired by Christianity, therefore, Christianity is false." Not in
> those words, mind, but that's the implication.
I've *never* seen that argument made, which is
hypocritical when it's the same argument used by
anti-evolutionists when they attempt to directly
link evolution to nazism. Why is that?
>
> >There are many Christians (and members
> >of other religions) that accept evolution, and do
> >not want evolution suppressed.
>
> ..and I am one of those, as I am sure you realize from my posts.
> >
> >> in this group should feel free to
> >> argue that Christianity (or any other religion) is not true,
> >
> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
>
> Entirely true, but beside the point I am making.
It falls right in with your statement, so how can
it be "beside the point"?
>
> >
> >> but not
> >> on the basis that people misuse it. That they tend to make this
> >> argument in response to other fallacious arguments such as Nando's
> >> does not add any weight to it.
> >
> >Sure, some go overboard, however, however, most
> >people argue against a particular dogma of a
> >particular religion, not the religion itself.
> >
> >Boikat
> >
>
> Mark E. Miller
Boikat
Boikat
>
> "On 9 Apr 2001 21:22:44 -0400, in article <3AD2616B...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
> [...snip...]
>
> I'm sorry, I must disagree with you.
>
> Some religions are in conflict with science. For example, some
> of the beliefs of the Classical Greco-Roman religions are difficult,
> if not impossible, to reconcile with science.
>
> My favorite example is the story of Persephone. There is an
> explanation for the coming of spring, that the goddess Persephone
> is returning to the world of the living, from her stay in the
> Underworld as the bride of Hades. It seems clear to me that this
> particular religious belief is incompatible with the modern
> scientific explanation for spring.
How do you know that Persephone isn't using
biological processes to make the flowers bloom?
>
> Belief in nature-gods, gods as explanations of natural events,
> is always threatened by scientific explanations of those events.
No, since those nature gods may be using natural
processes to do whatever it is they are doing.
> Whether the particular god in question is Thor, who throws his
> hammer and causes lightning, or a god who/which designs flagella.
The thing is, that with omnipotent beings, no
absolute claims can be made against their
existence. That is why science is agnostic, not
atheistic.
If you flip a coin, and pray to the God of Coin
Flipping for "heads", and the coin lands heads,
how do you know it wasn't due to the influence of
the God of Coin Flipping? If it comes up tails,
does that disprove the existence of the God of
Coin Flipping, or that if there is one, he was
momentarily distracted or that you cheezed him off
somehow and he denied your prayer for "heads"?
Can you provide a method for testing this, one way
or the other?
>
> Tom
Boikat
ZeldaG
I'll concede you are largely correct from a certain point of view. "the" does
derive from the "God" concept, but theism means belief in a god, and atheism
then refers to someone who is without belief. That is the position of most
atheists I know of. I consider their view as to how the term should be defined
to take precedence over the definitions of non-atheists, who typically define
it as you did.
For the most part, the theists have demonized atheism to the point where those
who don't believe are obliged to conceal their views for the sake of political
correctness. Heaven forbid that a believer be confronted with the awful
possibility that their god doesn't exist, or that obeisance is a selfish and
immoral absurdity. The theists would have us believe that coming out of the
closet amounts "to politicising it the other way." I don't believe it and
neither should you.
As for there being no evidence one way or the other, as I indicated, theists of
various stripes make claims, not only for the existence of God, but for all
manner of psychic, supernatural and superstitious phenomena. None of these
from any religion yield even a hope of truth, including the many claims that
one would expect to be available for inspection.
ZeldaG
>From: Boikat boi...@bellsouth.net
>> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
>>
>> Boikat, at last we disagree. Are you saying that Science is without
>knowledge
>> in regards to religion?
>
>No, I said "Science is agnostic with regards to
>religion". Science cannot make any claims one way
>or the other about any religion, used in this
>sense as "religious belief". It can make claims
>against certain religious dogma's (such as a world
>wide flood that supposedly occurred about 5000
>years ago), but even then, that would not be an
>absolute claim, if there is a deceitful god that
>erased all evidence, magically.
And to the extent that a Loki style God is at odds with a Judeo-Christian style
God, the highest likelihoods are that the Judeo-Christian claims of a flood, an
Eden, a Fall, and a Savior, are all vanishingly small in probability.
David Copperfield may be God, but our experience enables us to assign that
likelihood to be a virtually null hypothesis as well.
>> Science acknowledges that religion not only exists, but
>> that as the many forms are mutually contradictory, and without any basis in
>> observable reality, a high probability exists that they all represent a
>common
>> and erroneous behavioral phenomenon. After all, one can never be
>absolutely
>> certain in science; that is it's strength.
>
>Which is why science is agnostic towards religion
>(beliefs)
I suppose this is a matter of sematics. It is true that science cannot be said
to know with absolute certainty. However, even the stanchest Christian cannot
say that they know with absolute certainty without lying. The possession of
Absolute Certainty is outside the the domain of subjective experience. Thus,
even the Christian is agnostic.
By the atheists definition of atheism, which is to be without belief, I suggest
that science does qualify. Moreover, to the extent that science mostly deals in
probabilities and reliabilities of hypotheses, as much can be said about and
against religion as any other set of bad guesses. We can't know for certain
that Velikovsky and Lysenko were wrong, but everything we know contradicts them
and nothing supports them. The same is essentially true of religions.
>> Moreover, science is indeed
>> atheistic. Atheism means "without belief". That is precisely what science
>is
>> all about. Belief is utterly eschewed in favor of tentative consideration
>and
>> tentative acceptance depending on the reliability of evidence.
>
>That can also apply to "agnostic". The point
>being the degree of strength behind "we don't know
>if there is a great sky spirit".
>
>> As we are
>> confronted by a pure vacuum of evidence for a spiritual universe (entirely
>> contradicting the claims of all religions), a pure lack of belief is an
>> entirely reasonable and well-supported proposition.
>
>Lack of evidence does not mean lack of existence.
Strictly speaking, that may be so. However, science does operate as a matter of
probabilities and likelyhoods. When there is a complete lack of evidence for a
set of particularly grandiose claims, one may conclude that the probability for
those claims is vanishingly small.
Even if God does exist, the utter lack of reliable evidence in any direction
demonstrates that religionists claims of what God "wants" are devoid of merit.
Hallvard B Furuseth
> Humans developing from apes disproves the Fall. Without the Fall in
> Genesis, Jesus isn't necessary, and Christianity is exposed as the
> sham that it is.
Somehow I don't think that's how those Christians put it:-)
The way I've seen it stated is that evolution is incompatible with
Original Sin, which is central to Christian ethics. Try a Google search
+"original sin" +evolution +incompatible
Naturally, some of the results will be explanations by Christians of why
that claim is wrong...
--
Hallvard
Hallvard B Furuseth
> By the atheists definition of atheism, which is to be without belief,
No it isn't. Try a dictionary. Here are the Webster definitions:
atheist:
one who denies the existence of God
That is a *belief* - the belief that God does not exist.
Admittedly, one of webster's entries (2a) for "atheism" can sorta be
read like yours:
1. archaic: Ungodliness, wickedness
2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
2b: the doctrine that there is no deity
but 2b is the normal definition.
agnostic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
*That* is to be without belief. Unless you meant to say "without belief
in God", but that's still not atheism - it fits e.g. Buddhism as well.
--
Hallvard
Tom
Boikat stated..."
>
>Tom wrote:
>>
>> "On 9 Apr 2001 21:22:44 -0400, in article <3AD2616B...@bellsouth.net>,
>> Boikat stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> I'm sorry, I must disagree with you.
>>
>> Some religions are in conflict with science. For example, some
>> of the beliefs of the Classical Greco-Roman religions are difficult,
>> if not impossible, to reconcile with science.
>>
>> My favorite example is the story of Persephone. There is an
>> explanation for the coming of spring, that the goddess Persephone
>> is returning to the world of the living, from her stay in the
>> Underworld as the bride of Hades. It seems clear to me that this
>> particular religious belief is incompatible with the modern
>> scientific explanation for spring.
>
>How do you know that Persephone isn't using
>biological processes to make the flowers bloom?
I don't have a demonstration that there is no Persephone. But
I think that it is extremely difficult for someone who accepts the
scientific explanation for the seasons to believe in Persephone.
>
>>
>> Belief in nature-gods, gods as explanations of natural events,
>> is always threatened by scientific explanations of those events.
>
>No, since those nature gods may be using natural
>processes to do whatever it is they are doing.
>
>> Whether the particular god in question is Thor, who throws his
>> hammer and causes lightning, or a god who/which designs flagella.
>
>The thing is, that with omnipotent beings, no
>absolute claims can be made against their
>existence. That is why science is agnostic, not
>atheistic.
[...snip...]
There is a long history of *monotheists* using naturalistic
explanations against the "gods of the nations". For example in
the addition to the Book of Daniel called "Bel and The Dragon",
the hero, Daniel, demonstrates that the idol Bel is false. It
is barely possible that the idolaters could have responded, "Yes,
you gave a probable explanation for the feats of Bel, but you
haven't proved that he is real". Or, the 9th century Christian
Boniface attempted to demonstrate that Thor was a false god by
chopping down the oak tree which was sacred to him.
As a matter of reality, people do lose faith in nature-gods
when there is a scientific explanation to take their place. Do
you really think that there is someone who is so purist a scientist
that they would say, "Persephone is a possible explanation for
spring"?
Likewise, when people find a scientific explanation for the
diversity of life on earth (that is, evolution), the existence
of a nature-god, whose only function is to design life-forms, is
legitimately called into question.
Early Christians were called "atheists" because they didn't
believe in these nature-gods. The 19th century scholar, Max Muller,
suggested the term "adevist" for those who don't believe in that
kind of god. To paraphrase Dawkins, then, Darwin has made it
possible to be an intellectually satisfied adevist.
Tom
Boikat
>
> >Subject: Re: How/when did evolution become The Enemy?
> >From: Boikat boi...@bellsouth.net
> >> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
> >>
> >> Boikat, at last we disagree.
BTW, was that a goal? :}
>> Are you saying that Science is without
> >knowledge
> >> in regards to religion?
> >
> >No, I said "Science is agnostic with regards to
> >religion". Science cannot make any claims one way
> >or the other about any religion, used in this
> >sense as "religious belief". It can make claims
> >against certain religious dogma's (such as a world
> >wide flood that supposedly occurred about 5000
> >years ago), but even then, that would not be an
> >absolute claim, if there is a deceitful god that
> >erased all evidence, magically.
>
> And to the extent that a Loki style God is at odds with a Judeo-Christian style
> God, the highest likelihoods are that the Judeo-Christian claims of a flood, an
> Eden, a Fall, and a Savior, are all vanishingly small in probability.
Vanishingly small relative to what? Remember,
gods are *supernatural* in nature (if they exist).
Science can only address what is at hand.
>
> David Copperfield may be God, but our experience enables us to assign that
> likelihood to be a virtually null hypothesis as well.
Which does not preclude the possibility, if an all
powerful being chose to manifest him or her self
as a mortal magician.
>
> >> Science acknowledges that religion not only exists, but
> >> that as the many forms are mutually contradictory, and without any basis in
> >> observable reality, a high probability exists that they all represent a
> >common
> >> and erroneous behavioral phenomenon. After all, one can never be
> >absolutely
> >> certain in science; that is it's strength.
> >
> >Which is why science is agnostic towards religion
> >(beliefs)
>
> I suppose this is a matter of sematics. It is true that science cannot be said
> to know with absolute certainty. However, even the stanchest Christian cannot
> say that they know with absolute certainty without lying. The possession of
> Absolute Certainty is outside the the domain of subjective experience. Thus,
> even the Christian is agnostic.
Oh? I don't know about that. I've seen some come
marching through here that were pretty sure of
their beliefs.
>
> By the atheists definition of atheism, which is to be without belief, I suggest
> that science does qualify. Moreover, to the extent that science mostly deals in
> probabilities and reliabilities of hypotheses, as much can be said about and
> against religion as any other set of bad guesses.
That's great for those of us stuck in this
"reality domain", but it all goes out the window
if you have Loki running loose.
> We can't know for certain
> that Velikovsky and Lysenko were wrong, but everything we know contradicts them
> and nothing supports them. The same is essentially true of religions.
No, because unlike deeds performed by supernatural
deities, via the "Poof, and it was so..",
methodology of religion, Velikovsky did not depend
upon supernatural causality (Neither did Lysenko,
AFAIK)
>
> >> Moreover, science is indeed
> >> atheistic. Atheism means "without belief". That is precisely what science
> >is
> >> all about. Belief is utterly eschewed in favor of tentative consideration
> >and
> >> tentative acceptance depending on the reliability of evidence.
> >
> >That can also apply to "agnostic". The point
> >being the degree of strength behind "we don't know
> >if there is a great sky spirit".
> >
> >> As we are
> >> confronted by a pure vacuum of evidence for a spiritual universe (entirely
> >> contradicting the claims of all religions), a pure lack of belief is an
> >> entirely reasonable and well-supported proposition.
> >
> >Lack of evidence does not mean lack of existence.
>
> Strictly speaking, that may be so. However, science does operate as a matter of
> probabilities and likelyhoods.
And evidence.
> When there is a complete lack of evidence for a
> set of particularly grandiose claims,
Claims like the flood? Yes, there is no
evidence. But maybe Loki is peaking around the
corner, laughing his arse off.
> one may conclude that the probability for
> those claims is vanishingly small.
From the strictly *scientific* POV, yes, however,
science cannot rule out something for which it
lacks supporting evidence. We have no direct
evidence of life under the ice of Europa, yet we
cannot rule out the possibility.
>
> Even if God does exist, the utter lack of reliable evidence in any direction
> demonstrates that religionists claims of what God "wants" are devoid of merit.
True, but that only means that they have different
ways of interpreting the Bible, or that "tiny
voice inside their head". That only means that
the religious dogma or tenets are suspect, but
cannot be used as "evidence of the nonexistence of
any god or gods. If two people read something you
wrote, and both came to different conclusions as
to what you meant, that does not mean that you
disappear in a puff of disagreement.
Boikat
Boikat
>
> "On 10 Apr 2001 22:54:02 -0400, in article <3AD3C864...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat stated..."
> >
> >Tom wrote:
> >>
> >> "On 9 Apr 2001 21:22:44 -0400, in article <3AD2616B...@bellsouth.net>,
> >> Boikat stated..."
> >> [...snip...]
> >> >Science is agnostic with regards to religion.
> >> [...snip...]
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, I must disagree with you.
> >>
> >> Some religions are in conflict with science. For example, some
> >> of the beliefs of the Classical Greco-Roman religions are difficult,
> >> if not impossible, to reconcile with science.
> >>
> >> My favorite example is the story of Persephone. There is an
> >> explanation for the coming of spring, that the goddess Persephone
> >> is returning to the world of the living, from her stay in the
> >> Underworld as the bride of Hades. It seems clear to me that this
> >> particular religious belief is incompatible with the modern
> >> scientific explanation for spring.
> >
> >How do you know that Persephone isn't using
> >biological processes to make the flowers bloom?
>
> I don't have a demonstration that there is no Persephone.
You can't prove a negative anyway.
> But
> I think that it is extremely difficult for someone who accepts the
> scientific explanation for the seasons to believe in Persephone.
Why? If Persephone uses natural processes to make
flowers bloom, how would anyone know any
different?
>
> >
> >>
> >> Belief in nature-gods, gods as explanations of natural events,
> >> is always threatened by scientific explanations of those events.
> >
> >No, since those nature gods may be using natural
> >processes to do whatever it is they are doing.
> >
> >> Whether the particular god in question is Thor, who throws his
> >> hammer and causes lightning, or a god who/which designs flagella.
> >
> >The thing is, that with omnipotent beings, no
> >absolute claims can be made against their
> >existence. That is why science is agnostic, not
> >atheistic.
> [...snip...]
>
> There is a long history of *monotheists* using naturalistic
> explanations against the "gods of the nations". For example in
> the addition to the Book of Daniel called "Bel and The Dragon",
> the hero, Daniel, demonstrates that the idol Bel is false. It
> is barely possible that the idolaters could have responded, "Yes,
> you gave a probable explanation for the feats of Bel, but you
> haven't proved that he is real". Or, the 9th century Christian
> Boniface attempted to demonstrate that Thor was a false god by
> chopping down the oak tree which was sacred to him.
The irony is that the same arguments can be used
against monotheism.
>
> As a matter of reality, people do lose faith in nature-gods
> when there is a scientific explanation to take their place.
Loosing faith does not mean that if the deities
*do* exist, that they would cease to exist.
> Do
> you really think that there is someone who is so purist a scientist
> that they would say, "Persephone is a possible explanation for
> spring"?
Not as a *scientific* explanation, of course not.
But that's different than absolutely ruling it
out.
>
> Likewise, when people find a scientific explanation for the
> diversity of life on earth (that is, evolution), the existence
> of a nature-god, whose only function is to design life-forms, is
> legitimately called into question.
Unless that nature god influence events in such a
manner as to be indistinguishable from the
"chance" element.
>
> Early Christians were called "atheists" because they didn't
> believe in these nature-gods. The 19th century scholar, Max Muller,
> suggested the term "adevist" for those who don't believe in that
> kind of god. To paraphrase Dawkins, then, Darwin has made it
> possible to be an intellectually satisfied adevist.
Which still does not mean that science can rule
out any supernatural entity. Pure and simple,
since the supernatural is outside the domain of
empirical evidence, science cannot make claims one
way or the other without qualification.
>
> Tom
>
Boikat
Aron-Ra
> Admittedly, one of webster's entries (2a) for "atheism" can sorta be
> read like yours:
> 1. archaic: Ungodliness, wickedness
> 2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 2b: the doctrine that there is no deity
> but 2b is the normal definition.
Mine: Makes no assumptions without reason or evidence.
(the instant evidence is detected, related probabilities will be
considered).
This is a lack of belief.
> agnostic:
Mine: May be open to spiritual belief, but only if they make sense.
(often a perpetual work in progress)
This too is a lack of belief, but contains a hope for one.
> a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
> unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to
> believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
> *That* is to be without belief. Unless you meant to say "without belief
> in God", but that's still not atheism - it fits e.g. Buddhism as well.
Buddhists believe in a single universal spirit much like the Force in Star
Wars. This supreme omnipresent conciousness is exactly what a god is,
right?
Or does a god have to have a human body, wear a toga, and depend on magical
animals for transportation?
(six-legged horse, pegasi, cherubim, bronze bull, eight tiny reigndeer, etc)
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> > >How do you know that Persephone isn't using
> > >biological processes to make the flowers bloom?
> >
> > I don't have a demonstration that there is no Persephone.
>
> You can't prove a negative anyway.
>
> > But
> > I think that it is extremely difficult for someone who accepts the
> > scientific explanation for the seasons to believe in Persephone.
>
> Why? If Persephone uses natural processes to make
> flowers bloom, how would anyone know any
> different?
You wouldn't unless you couldn't rationalize how she tilts the entire planet
over whenever she comes out of her hole. Of course it would be awfully hard
to maintain such a belief when you realize that if she chose not to come
out, that the planet's tilt at that point in its orbit would be unaffected.
Its the little things, ya know?
Aron-Ra