The Darwinist Hitler Youth
nando_r...@yahoo.com
http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Handbook_For_Schooling_the_Hitler_Youth.pdf
"The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
perception of the unlikeness of men."
"The Christians, above all the Roman Church, reject the race idea with
the citation: Before God all men are equal."
"Now why do we find in Free Masonry, Marxism, and the Christian church
this mistaken teaching of the equality of all men? All three are
striving more or less for power over the whole earth. therefore they
must necessarily be international. They can never acknowledge the
human ties of race, community, or nation if they do not wish to give
up their own aims. In spite of this powerful opposition, however, the
race idea goes on gaining ground. The truth gradually prevails."
"The conclusion has been drawn that the types today have developed
gradually out of older forms. This assumption is in fact generally
accepted today after experiments have also demonstrated that race and
consequently species transformations occur on the earth. The study
which has to do with this question is called the study of evolution.
Closely associated with it is the name of the Englishman Charles
Darwin (1809-1882)."
" Several clusters of hereditary carriers can remain in one cell. All
these changes are enormously important. They actually bring about
externally visible changes which are inheritable. In that way new
races can appear. These changes, which are called mutations (after the
Latin word MVTATIO = change), are not always a good thing for living
beings. They often lead to damaging transformations. Above all sexual
power is often lost. Also, externally stunted forms are frequent. In
this case the process of selection sets in. Only that which is of
value in the struggle for life remains permanent."
"The hereditary welfare measures heretofore explained are for the
purpose of preventing the further spread of existing hereditary
defects and gradually doing away with them altogether. A completely
effective welfare program of this kind is not sufficient, however. The
selection and fostering of the sound part of our people must go along
with the wiping out of hereditary defects."
"The fighting period, by reason of its daily sacrifice of blood and
goods, naturally brought with it the severest process of selection.
Today the process of selection must take place along other lines. The
numerous schools for leaders, especially the Ordensburgen and the
Adolf Hitler schools, have taken over these tasks. Here character,
willingness to serve the community, power of decision, ability to do
are tested as they once were during the fighting period. The
fundamental principle of the socialistic process of selection likewise
applies here."
"Wiping out of the less worthy and selection of the best are the means
for raising and maintaining the racial values of our people.
Selection, however, is possible only when a sufficiently large number
of persons is at hand. Therefore, it is the duty of the leaders of a
people who are conscious of their responsibility to be concerned about
having as large a population as possible. This is the objective of our
population policy."
-------
How Darwinism causes Nazism.
1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
to succeed in this struggle.
2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example according
to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value. In
normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
will, or creationism.
3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
spiritual domain. Instead of being subjective about what is good and
evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
Regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Burkhard
Alber speer, from his memoirs:
“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by
the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long
run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions
of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives,
so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...
>
> "The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
> perception of the unlikeness of men."
who is the leading holocaust denier on earth today?
the leader of the ISLAMIC republic of iran
islamists such as yourself routinely deny the shoah ever happened.
you're not doing yourself much good with this argument...
>
> How Darwinism causes Nazism.
1. if it DID cause nazism, so what? if the theory is TRUE then its
consequences are IRRELEVANT
2. i suggest you read 'dabru emet' a document prepared by 200 JEWISH
historians and rabbis. in that document they state that, although
christianity did not CAUSE the shoah, without the existence of
CHRISTIAN antisemitism, the shoah could NEVER HAVE HAPPENED
3. the leading purveyors of antisemitic filth in today's world are the
saudi and egyptian governments which publish, at govt expense, 'the
protocols of the elders of zion' and other lies about jews
4. the leading killers of jews today are islamist fundamentalists who
are also creationists.
>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas.
darwin didn't. in fact the leading pro slavers of darwins day were
creationists. ALL slave owners in the US were creationists. many of
them wrote pro-slavery tracts based on creationism.
When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.
this is rationalization in defiance of evidence.
>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum.
blah blah blah. there is no freedom in an islamic republic. there is
no freedom in a religious state. creationists have NEVER shown
themselves capable of supporting freedom. the slaveowners of the south
didn't and they were creationists.
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.
gee. so does chemistry and physics.
Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
>
how do you know what 'they' believe at all?
you're a liar, nando. a bald faced liar
wf3h
>
> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)- Hide quoted text -
>
excellent info...thanks much.
it's amazing how creationists distort history to make their lies
palatable...
Erwin Moller
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youth
> http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Handbook_For_Schooling_the_Hitler_Youth.pdf
>
No thanks, I stopped reading Hitlers work when I discovered the Quran:
Read for yourself:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Does the Qur'an really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?
Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with
nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads
and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who
do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will
send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context
is not embedded within the surrounding text (as are nearly all of the
Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal,
unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything
else in the Qur'an.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to
abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be
fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to
Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's
own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world
history.
The Qur'an:
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive
them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of
Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them
until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a
good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage
is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However,
there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that
the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a
qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting
may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad
is not reassuring.
etc. etc. etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
end quote.
For dozens more vivid examples, visit:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
As to your ending:
> How Darwinism causes Nazism.
>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.
So, Nando, does that mean that BEFORE Darwin published his work we had
no racism? No facism?
A blatant lie. Human history is filled with examples.
What's more: You accuse ALL people that think evolution is true to be
racists and genocidal!
You are such an idiot.
Most genocides I know of have a religious component.
>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom
Aaah, your infamous "knowledge about freedom" hollow phrase again.
Did you notice nobody in here has clue what that means?
We keep asking and asking, but you never deliver. :-(
> by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example according
> to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
> every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value. In
> normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
> Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
> Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
> will, or creationism.
'Darwinists'?
Do you really think that people who understand biology/evolution have
some secret church somewhere?
"Oh all hail Darwin now! On your knees and pray to the Great omnipotent
Darwin with his Wise Long beard! Charles, we all love you!"
Grow up.
Evolution is science, not some mumbo-jumbo-religion.
And do you really think 'Darwinists' are always calculating their
actions in the light of evolution to create an optimal offspring.
Tell me then, you nutcase: Why do I smoke?
I am clearly a 'Darwinist', and smoking is not excactly associated with
optimal choosing, is it?
So why do I do it?
Doesn't make the slightest sense according to your own little pettheory.
Also: You still seem under the delusion that people who are religious
always think evolution is a lie.
I would like to point you here:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
Being relious doesn't mean automatically you deny reality, as appears to
be the case in your situation.
You have so much to learn.
>
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.
Bullshit.
Darwin was a biologist that started the whole scientific field of evolution.
He has nothing to do with the 'spiritual domain'.
He has nothing to do with atheism, theism, god, the afterlife, ghosts,
goblins, dragons, or the origins of the universe.
NOTHING.
Darwin/evolution --> biology.
Get that into your head....
Doesn't it bother you in the least you write and write, but never touch
reality?
You just make things up.
> Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
Indeed. Genes and environment do define what you consider good and evil.
You are under the delusion 'good' and 'evil' are concrete concepts
somehow, defined in an objective manner.
Suprise! They are not.
Good and evil are human concepts, highly varying from culture to culture.
For example: In my culture we consider female humans 100% mature/full
humans, capable of making their own decisions.
In yours their are inferior and a possesion.
I consider your culture as 'evil' for that reason, and you consider mine
'evil'.
In my culture most consider you a dangerous nutcase with dangerous ideas.
In your culture the mad and insane are considered in touch with God.
Do you see the differences that can arise concerning good and evil, and
how they depend on the culture you happened to be born in?
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Erwin Moller
PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
and arrogant to change that.
So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
facism.
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Erwin Moller
Dito!
Excellent response by Burkhard. :-)
Be asured that Nando will ignore this, or sidestep the issue.
Nando doesn't care too much for facts.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence
<snip>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
I fixed it for you by removing the errors and lies. This is, after
all, the essence of the science vs anti-science debate.
HTH.
Kermit
Friar Broccoli
Iain
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<crap>
If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.
Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.
Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.
In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.
Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
--Iain
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...
>
<snip attempt at guilt by association. Logic was never your strong
point, nando.
> -------
>
> How Darwinism causes Nazism.
>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas.
False.
> When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.
Question. Are there genetic differences between you and a dog? Ho
about you and a bullfrog? How about between you and a chimp? Are the
differences equal, ora re you more genetically similar to a chimp than
you are to a bullfrog?
>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum.
What the hell does that mean, in english?
> For example according
> to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
> every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value.
I chose to have beakfast at Shoney's this morning, and none of that
even vaguely crossed my mind. Therefore, you are full of shit, as
usual.
> In
> normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
> Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
So, there's some problem where a choice is possible, choosing a course
that will achieve optimum outcome is bad?
> Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
> will, or creationism.
It's highly dishonest of you to group those three concepts together
and claim those that accept some of them reject all of them. Fore
example, one can full well accept the concept of free will, adn reject
creationism. One is a philosophical outlook which expresses the
individuals ability to take responsibility for his or her actions, the
other is a religious dogma. Do you have enough un-druged brain cells
left to figure out which is which?
>
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.
And how is that a problem?
> Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil,
So, you reject moral absolutes? I thought that was what you fundy's
claimed was a fault of "atheists" which usually includes anyone who
accepts the ToE. Now here you are, apparently finding fault because
the ToE *destroys* subjective morality. Will you be so kind as to
make up your little mind?
> they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
Are you saying that genes and environment do not influence people's
perceptions of good and evil? It looks like you are trying to think
too hard, and just painted youself into a moral corner, especially
since, where humans are concerned, local religious beliefe are part of
the social environment, which is pretty much inseparable from the
physical environment in which a person lives. That sort of shoots
down whatever it is your trying to blame on the ToE, which is a valid
scientific theory, no matter how it's missused, or who missused it to
ay extent.
Boikat
Nashton
>
> Alber speer, from his memoirs:
>
> “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
> learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
> penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
> his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
> Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
> today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by
> the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
> peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
> perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
> conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long
> run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions
> of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives,
> so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
> the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
>
> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>
So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.
Nashton
>
> Erwin Moller
>
> PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
> deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
> You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
> You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
> and arrogant to change that.
> So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
> my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
> facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
> facism.
>
>
>
You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.
Nashton
This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
Period.
This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
respective motives.
Burkhard
" I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour 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 the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
greatest not as sufferer but as 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 of adders. How terrific was His
fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was
driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
* Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922
wf3h
> Burkhard wrote:
>
>
> > “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> > ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> > didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> > the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> > have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> > to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
> > Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>
> So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.-
so much for hitler being inspired by evolution
religion seems to make you crazy. not science
e
Nashton
The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
ensue.
Mitchell Coffey
> Iain wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <crap>
>
> > If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.
>
> > Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
> > sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
> > be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.
>
> > Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
> > adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.
>
> > In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
> > improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.
>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
>
> Period.
Are you familiar with instance where Hitler quoted or discussed
Darwin?
Are you familiar with instance where Darwin cited survival of the
fittest as an ideal?
wf3h
> Iain wrote:
>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
>
> Period.
really? rather strange in that:
-hitler never mentions darwin in his 'mein kampf'
-hitler never mentions natural selection in 'mein kampf'
-in his 'tabletalk' diaries, hitler told the bishop of cologne to stop
complaining about the jews since he was only doing what christians had
been doing to jew for centuries
-in 'die bucherei' archive at the u. of arizona, there is a list of
nazi banned books. banned books included
-anything by darwin since darwin was considered an 'enlightment'
thinker
-anything critical of the christian religion
so nashton is a liar.
period
>
> This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
> murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
> respective motives.-
they were massive murderers because of technology. stalin had been an
orthodox seminarian. antisemitism was rife in both germany and russia.
nashton is, again, a liar
Hatunen
>Burkhard wrote:
[...]
>> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
>> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
>> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
>> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
>> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
>> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
>> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>>
>
>So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.
He never claimed to be. He wanted to set up a German religion
based on the old German mythology.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
>This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
>from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
>highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" was an invention of the social
Darwinists, and the phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer.
Darwin did use it later, but as a synonym for "natural
selection".
'Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate,
local environment", not the common inference of "in the best
physical shape"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
>This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
>murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
>respective motives.
Well, not "nothing", at least for Hitler. But this raises the
question of whetehr persecuting the Jews is a religious or
"racist" activity.
Burkhard
In the same way one could argue that his unsystematic and mistaken
references to Darwin are a propaganda tool to give his eschatological
ideology the veneer of scientific respectability, i.e. a propoganda tool.
Now I would say the Nazis never particularly bothered to develop a
consistent ideology, and I don't think that Christianity was a dominant
causal factor for them - but if someone were to debate where they got
more of their inspiration from, I _do_ think that it is much easier to
demonstrate how fringe Christian beliefs, in particular millenianism in
the de Fiore tradition, shaped their view of the world than Darwinism.
As always with the lunatic fringe, distinctions with other schools and
ideals get blurred. Note e.g. from the previous post that what he
admired in Islam, and what he woudl have liked the Christian church to
be, is rather similar to the "reworded" bible suggested by
conservapedia, where the "soft and touchy feely" elements are purged as
"later additions driven by a liberal agenda".
> Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>
Gives you a "true Scotsman" problem - there is of course a long and
well documented history of prosecution of Jews in Europe by Christians
and their various churches. You might say that in your reading of the
bible, this is incompatible with "true Christianity" - but then so is
his mangled and rather haphazard and unsystematic references to Darwin -
and it is easier to show that his ideas of breeding to an _absolute_
ideal of human perfection is incompatible with key tenets of the ToE
than it is
> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>
> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
> ensue.
>
Again you are either making a true Scotsman fallacy or your argument
can just as easily applied to the misuse of science by ideologues
Burkhard
"the fittest". In particular, he believed that "the fittest" is an
absolute term (physical strength, risk taking, aggression) and that
there was a telos in human history to bring these characteristics about.
Both the idea of a telos and the idea of absolute, context independent
values is of course a notion found in religious discourse, but not in
science. He would obviously have been aghast by the idea for instance
that depending on the environment, "running away from the enemy really
really fast" can make you the fittest.
Boikat
Well, someone's selling propahanda, that's for sure. Isn't it odd,
how Hitler will flat out claim that he felt that his actions were on
behalf of his "lord and saviour" (not Darwin, BTW), and cretins like
you pass it off as propaghanda used to sucker in the general
population, yet if he says something that even hints of an element of
biologial evolution, you fuckers are all over it, claiming that the
ToE is the basis for his actions, NAZIism, Communism, Facisim, and the
common fucking cold.
>
> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>
And *NOT* the theory of evolution. Please correct nando.
> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides.
Bullshit.
> It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
> ensue.
Denial is not he name of a river in Egypt. Wars fought for religious
reasons: Hundreds, if not thousands. Wars fought in the name of
Darwin: Goose-egg, zero, nada, none, zip. You can add zilch and
nill, to that too.
Boikat
John Stockwell
If the Nazis had an accurate understanding of evolution, they
would have advocated the increase of genetic diversity in the
German population through intermarriage with non "aryans".
Instead, they advocated the reduction of the fitness of their
population
by discouraging genetic diversity.
-John
On Oct 14, 6:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...
Boikat
> Iain wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <crap>
>
> > If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.
>
> > Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
> > sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
> > be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.
>
> > Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
> > adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.
>
> > In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
> > improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.
>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
And that his ideals for what constituted "fittest" was based upon
religious beliefs.
>
> Period.
>
Except for the parts you ignore, like religious influences.
> This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
> murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
> respective motives.
You're so full of crap it's amazing. You should be in a circus.
Boikat
Burkhard
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:35:51 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>> Burkhard wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
>>> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
>>> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
>>> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
>>> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
>>> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
>>> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>>>
>> So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.
>
> He never claimed to be.
Quite often, as a matter of fact - of course this does not mean he was
sincere
He wanted to set up a German religion
> based on the old German mythology.
>
No, that is more Hollywood than history, Wagner is always good as a
backdrop for films. There was a Norse revival element in the NSDAP,
especially in the early years and the Thule society, but not more really
than in other European countries at the time, most notably Britain
(Tolkien, anyone?) While they had in Himmler a high ranking supporter,
they were an irrelevant fringe in the party and Hitler, Goebbels,
Borman and the other Nazi dukes scoffed at them. Some of the traditional
festivities like Jul were briefly revived, maionly for the youth
organisation, but without the deities and as a part of Hitler's
personality cult.
See e.g.
Stefanie von Schnurbein: Göttertrost in Wendezeiten. Neugermanisches
Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, München 1993
Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12
Iain
Indeed, just as some Nazis used Darwin in order to give his politics a
scientific feel.
Just as he called his party a 'workers'' party in order to appeal to
the working class majority.
Et cetera.
--Iain
wf3h
>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews.
as christians had done since virtually the very inception of their
religion. many of the 'nuremburg' laws were derived from christian
laws agains jews, such as those promulgated by the 4th lateran council
of 1215
Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
bullshit. christians expelled jews from every single country in europe
at one time or another, starting with the english in 1255. chaim
raphael points out in his book 'up from bablyon' that spanish
christians murdered about the same percentage of spanish jews as
hitler murdered european jews.
your fairy tale view of 'christian principles' is simply a lie and
does not square with christian history.
>
> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
again, bullshit. why is it christian 'principles' when people behave
nice due to religion, but NOT christian principles when they do evil
things due to religion?
you're engaging in a circular argument
>
> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
> ensue.-
again, bullshit. people believe many things about religion. not all of
them nice. our current world situation vis a vis islamism is a perfect
example
other than your self aggrandizing assertions....each of which is
wrong...is there ANY evidence to support your claims?
you have NO evidence at all.
John Wilkins
<e372c8b3-b5a7-4786...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the Nazis had an accurate understanding of evolution, they
> would have advocated the increase of genetic diversity in the
> German population through intermarriage with non "aryans".
> Instead, they advocated the reduction of the fitness of their
> population
> by discouraging genetic diversity.
They would also have recognised that the more successful, in terms of
reproduction, groups, like Slavs, were *by definition* more fit than
the wimpy Aryans that had fewer progeny...
John Wilkins
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Stefanie von Schnurbein: G�ttertrost in Wendezeiten. Neugermanisches
> Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, M�nchen 1993
>
> Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
> Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
> Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12
>
Thanks, Burkhard, that matches the feeling I have long had that there
really wasn't a "Germanic" philosophy (or Volksphilosophie, as it was
called in one book that I read on the foundations of Nazism) on which
they depended.
Mitchell Coffey
Nashton should not be patronize; he should be expected to support his
clains. I was looking for Nashton to produce quotes, not assertions
or even, as you do above, sophisticated discussion. N.B., it was
Nashton who said we can for his purposes ignore the "fine print" in
Darwin. Nashton wrote "Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest." I
actually gave Nashton more room than he deserved; I should have just
asked him to defend his claim that survival of the fittest was
"Darwin's ideal" with quotes from Darwin.
Mitchell Coffey
wf3h
>
> You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.- Hide quoted text -
>
you and nando are taking quite an asskicking with your lies about
evolution and nazism
care to comment?
the floor...which was recently cleaned by you and the idiot
islamist...is yours
Steven L.
Seconded!
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <hb57u1$v...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Hatunen wrote:
> > Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, München 1993
>
> > Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
> > Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
> > Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12
>
> Thanks, Burkhard, that matches the feeling I have long had that there
> really wasn't a "Germanic" philosophy (or Volksphilosophie, as it was
> called in one book that I read on the foundations of Nazism) on which
> they depended.
There was a misty northern-European centric ideology that began
puffing up in the 18th century in England (or, I recall something,
Scotland?). It didn't as a rule seek to supplant Christianity, though
there were some Nazis who did. Hitler didn't encourage them, but was
generally tolerant of sub-ideologies withing Nazism, which has given
room for generalization for people who wish to locate Nazism outside
Christian tradition.
Regarding Wf3h's quote dealing with Islam, there's a similar one
somewhere in Hitler's Table Talk. With that and all Hitler scraps, it
should be kept in mind that Hitler did like to talk - really enjoyed
it! - which has given all sort of liberties to the sort of people who
think one can fathom the core of a man with a long and vocal public
career by excitedly copying what he said on 13 March, 1937, later in
the afternoon, over coffee with some general.
One thing I don't know what to make of is the facts that Darwin was a
moderately well-known guy in Germany, and "natural selection" was a
common catch phrase (I don't know about the popularly at the time of
the German equivalent of "survival of the fittest). And not only did
Hilter talk a lot, he wrote two books, made many, many speeches, and
his blatherings were widely jotted down in dictation or record on
film, or in memoirs by various witnesses. Nonetheless, Hitler seems
to have spake the term "natural selection" twice, and uttered the name
Darwin once, as a term of disparagement, in a probably spurious
conversation. I don't know what to make of these facts.[*]
Tolkien, I know from inside-information, is for reasons Burkhard
suggested not popular at the US Holocaust Museum.
Note: the Thule Society was suppressed by the Nazis. Neither was it
much of a thing far into the '20s. It's inclusion in some pantheon of
mystic Nazi influence has to do with the Hollywood pseudo-history of
Nazism, which seeks to comfort the souls of white folks by making
Nazism have its sources in - ironically - the other.
[*] What is the name of this rhetorical device, where one pretends not
to know what to make of certain selected facts he has just cited, thus
trying to hide from truly defending his argument? It's sort's like
Socratic irony, but one thing I know is how ignorant I am of such
things.
Mitchell
John Wilkins
<48f9124f-7e01-4cf5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> [*] What is the name of this rhetorical device, where one pretends not
> to know what to make of certain selected facts he has just cited, thus
> trying to hide from truly defending his argument? It's sort's like
> Socratic irony, but one thing I know is how ignorant I am of such
> things.
I can't say...
Dwib
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Mohammad, you ignorant slut.
Erwin Moller
Thanks for your advice, but I stopped dancing like 15 years ago. ;-)
While I can easily handle guys like you, Madman, and the like, this
Nando manages to really piss me off every time I read his crap.
I think it is his sincere arrogance that causes it.
Arrogance + stupidity.
Somehow that combination irritates me deeply.
I also dislike being called a facist.
But you are right: I shouldn't let him irritate me that much.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Rolf
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youth
>>
http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Handbook_
For_Schooling_the_Hitler_Youth.pdf
Just as we cannot make Lise Meissner, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Edward
Teller, Albert Einstein and the rest of them responsible for the fact of
nuclear physics and radioactivity, we cannot blame Darwin for the fact of
evolution. Or Alfred Nobel for dynamite. Who can we blame for Osma Bin Laden
and Taliban? Yes, we have a grudge aginst the Bible too.)
> Alber speer, from his memoirs:
>
> �Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
> learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
> penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
> his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
> Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
> today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith
> by
> the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
> peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
> perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
> conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the
> long
> run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and
> conditions
> of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous
> natives,
> so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
> the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
>
> �Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Q does identifying yourself as being a part of natural selection,
differential reproductive success, makes you come up with racist, and
genocidal ideas
A yes
evidence:
try it
Q do darwinists deny all principles based on freedom such as free will
and creationism
A yes
evidence:
- no single Darwinist on the forum ever uses the logic of things
turning out alternative ways in a theory about behaviour, or anything
else, and they regularly oppose it, especially creationism they oppose
Q Do Darwinists demand objective evidence for spiritual claims such as
for instance, the existence of God, or the goodness of people
A yes
evidence:
Already 1 Darwinist posted in the thread that goodness and evil are
material and objective.
What the Darwinists give you about Nazism is stories about Islam and
Christianity, which many of them despise. What I give you is easily
checked direct evidence.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
VoiceOfReason
Wow! That's some of the most flagrant denial of history I've seen in
a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_wars
VoiceOfReason
Erwin Moller wrote:
> Nashton schreef:
> > Erwin Moller wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Erwin Moller
> >>
> >> PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
> >> deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
> >> You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
> >> You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
> >> and arrogant to change that.
> >> So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
> >> my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
> >> facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
> >> facism.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.
> >
>
> Thanks for your advice, but I stopped dancing like 15 years ago. ;-)
> While I can easily handle guys like you, Madman, and the like, this
> Nando manages to really piss me off every time I read his crap.
>
> I think it is his sincere arrogance that causes it.
> Arrogance + stupidity.
> Somehow that combination irritates me deeply.
> I also dislike being called a facist.
>
> But you are right: I shouldn't let him irritate me that much.
You know, I've noticed that over the years. How is it that some
stupid people can be so arrogant? Are they so totally clueless that
they don't realize their own limitations? Is it the hope they can BS
their way past other people with empty bombast?
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FACTCHECK
>
> Q does identifying yourself as being a part of natural selection,
> differential reproductive success, makes you come up with racist, and
> genocidal ideas
> A yes
> evidence:
> try it
OK..hold on
nope. it didn't. NOW let me try thinking like an islamist fanatic
gee...where's the airport? do they have flying lessons?
>
> Q do darwinists deny all principles based on freedom such as free will
> and creationism
> A yes
> evidence:
> - no single Darwinist on the forum ever uses the logic of things
> turning out alternative ways in a theory about behaviour, or anything
> else, and they regularly oppose it, especially creationism they oppose
and we don't apply evolution to ballet dancing either...or trading
baseball cards...
makes as much sense
>
> Q Do Darwinists demand objective evidence for spiritual claims such as
> for instance, the existence of God, or the goodness of people
> A yes
> evidence:
> Already 1 Darwinist posted in the thread that goodness and evil are
> material and objective.
nope. no one cares about whether god exists or not
>
> What the Darwinists give you about Nazism is stories about Islam and
> Christianity, which many of them despise. What I give you is easily
> checked direct evidence.
>
ditto. in afghanistan right now there are 68,000 US troops and 30,000
other NATO troops fighting islamist killers
in pakistan the army is getting ready to launch an offensive against
islamist killers
in iraq, 80,000 people have been killed by islamist murderers
and nando is here to tell us how wonderful islamism is, and what a
danger evolution is.
Bill
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...
>
> "The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
> perception of the unlikeness of men."
When you haven't got a single persuasive argument, compare your
opponent to Hitler.
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Mark Evans
>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
Clearly you have not talked to many Christians, especially the ones
who refer to Jews as "Christ-killers" and who tend to get red-faced
when reminded that their religion is supposed to be based on the
teachings of a Jew.
Mark Evans
heekster
>The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
>Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
>in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
>that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
>Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>
>Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
>definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
>underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>
>Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
>and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
>of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
>ensue.
What is crusade?
What is jihad?
Damn, you're ignorant.
AusShane
1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process
of
natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
to succeed in this struggle.
The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.
2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example
according
to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value.
In
normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
will, or creationism.
The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.
3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
spiritual domain. Instead of being subjective about what is good and
evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.
Regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Do you get it yet?????
William Morse
paragraph. I would agree that calculations of self-interest (you refer
to them as "politics and imperialism") explain much about war. But
religion clearly was behind the Inquisition, just as it currently fuels
Al-Quaeda. And I challenge you to come up with a genocide conducted
based on a lack of religion.
Wombat
As someone who read "The Hobbit" followed by "The Lord of the Rings"
to my young daughter as bedtime stories, that is intriguing. Could
you be more precise, please.
Wombat
shuttlt
I just wanted to draw the attention of this thread to the long
discussion we had with Nando over at the James Randi forum (http://
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152078). We spent 1000 posts mainly
working on a definition of what in the world Syamsu/Nando meant by
choosing and freedom. He left the thread at a point where I felt we
were starting to get things pinned down.
For a while he seemed to agree with the following:
****************************************************************************************************************
Choosing
Choosing is an explanation for the apparent randomness in quantum
mechanics. "Choosing" agrees with the information interpretation of
quantum mechanics. The formula's of quantum mechanics describe the
statistical properties of choosing. In the example of the bomb test
the choice will tend to 50% path A, 50% path B on average. The cause
for a choice to go one way instead of another is 'spiritual'. The
operator cannot influence or increase the likelihood in any way of the
photon taking one path over the other. The fact that information can
be obtained about what could have happened alternatively.
Freedom
Something is free, in the sense of freewill, if it can take actions
that are outside the causal chain.
The spiritual
The cause of events that lack a physical cause.
****************************************************************************************************************
By the way, does anybody know if Nando is a Sunni, Shia or some other
form of Muslim. His notion of free will and choosing doesn't seem to
me compatible with a notion of God as omniscient in the sense that my
limited knowledge of Islam makes me think Sunni and Shia believe.
Burkhard
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Mhh, thanks guys, but can an author "unsecond" his post?. This one had
zero input from me, and it took me not more than 2 min to locate an
English translation of the quote - appropriate reply to Nando's smear
job, but hardly a noteworthy contribution to the ToE debate, and as
Mitchell rightly says, if it were not in the context of Nando being
his annoying self, close to a quote mine.
Friar Broccoli
I will un-nominate.
Sometimes I react too quickly to ideas I find interesting.
I was nominating the information, not your post.
Burkhard
however robustly rebuffed:
A German publisher in 1938 wanted to translate his work into German,
and had inquired in his letter if Tolkien was "arisch" (Aryan)
Tolkien's reply:
"Thank you for your letter ... I regret that I am not clear as to what
you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-
Iranian; as far as I am aware noone (sic) of my ancestors spoke
Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to
understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can
only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that
gifted people."
So what is left is a somewhat unfair guilt by association. From the
late 19th to early 20 century, you find across Europe (don't know
about the US) a general Norse revival, as a follow up of the
romanticist movement. Nothing organised or systematic, and as a result
you got also groups where this was mixed with racism and extreme
nationalism. The Nazis went a bit further in misappropriating this
movement - and from this point onwards, it became difficult
("politically incorrect would be the term today) to also use these
symbols and narratives. If as in Tolkien , the Heroes are described
(in some detail) as tall, blond and beautiful, and the villains black
and ugly , that did not help.
Tolkien eventually felt the need to make a public statement: [I have
a] burning private grudge against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf
Hitler for "ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever
accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to
Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true
light."
Wombat
Thank you for that explanation. BTW, were the Rohirrim Anglo-Saxon
Huscarls
who had learned to fight on horseback?
Wombat
Jim
<snip>
> You know, I've noticed that over the years. How is it that some
> stupid people can be so arrogant? Are they so totally clueless that
> they don't realize their own limitations? Is it the hope they can BS
> their way past other people with empty bombast?
It's just an irritating corollary of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
G
>> 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 the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
>> greatest not as sufferer but as 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 of adders. How terrific was His
>> fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
>> thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
>> ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
>> blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
>> be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
>> And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
>> suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
>> ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was
>> driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
>>
>> * Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922
>>
>
>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>
This doesn't make any sense.
If the "notion that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is
incompatible with Christian ideals", using Christianity as a propaganda
tool would have failed miserably. It didn't and it isn't (or at least it
wasn't at the time).
G
Walter Bushell
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Now I would say the Nazis never particularly bothered to develop a
> consistent ideology, and I don't think that Christianity was a dominant
> causal factor for them - but if someone were to debate where they got
> more of their inspiration from, I _do_ think that it is much easier to
> demonstrate how fringe Christian beliefs, in particular millenianism in
> the de Fiore tradition, shaped their view of the world than Darwinism.
>
> As always
And the traditional hatred of Jews in Christian thought. Read Martin
Luther, for example. One thing, is that Christians could never
understand why Jews would not embrace Christianity. The only explanation
had to be malice, because, of course, Christianity was so self evidently
true.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<46d19dd5-b75a-458c...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Denial is not he name of a river in Egypt. Wars fought for religious
> reasons: Hundreds, if not thousands. Wars fought in the name of
> Darwin: Goose-egg, zero, nada, none, zip. You can add zilch and
> nill, to that too.
>
> Boikat
>
We hardly every even beat up a creationist. Hmm, creationists have been
know to trash someone's car for the wearing of a Darwin Fish sticker.
Boikat
"Logic" was never Nashty's strong point.
Boikat
Walter Bushell
William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I am unaware of any historical facts that would support your last
> paragraph. I would agree that calculations of self-interest (you refer
> to them as "politics and imperialism") explain much about war. But
> religion clearly was behind the Inquisition, just as it currently fuels
> Al-Quaeda. And I challenge you to come up with a genocide conducted
> based on a lack of religion.
The leaders may and often do start religious wars for mundane ends.
However to get the troops to fight religious fever certainly helps.
Walter Bushell
<4f246d40-5519-4aae...@f21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Evans <markev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who only opened his religion to non-Jews after he was dead. Lead by a
man who met Jesus, who was long dead, on the road to Damacus. How in the
Sam Hill he recognized someone he had never met in life, I don't know.
Hamlet had a hard problem identifying the ghost he saw as his father or
not and Hamlet was familiar with his father from long association. And
Saul admitted that there were many Jesuses.
I don't see any basis for a belief that the "Jesus" Saul saw was the
same as was worshiped by the Jerusalem Christians.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Thanks, Burkhard, that matches the feeling I have long had that there
> really wasn't a "Germanic" philosophy (or Volksphilosophie, as it was
> called in one book that I read on the foundations of Nazism) on which
> they depended.
But they would trot one out or rather the ideal of one, when they could
gain traction with it.
The Nazis did not have idea or ideals they *used* them. Besides expand
Germany, racial purity and
VoiceOfReason
Nashty isn't very history-literate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
nando_r...@yahoo.com
this stuff, eventhough I corrected it numerous times.
On 15 okt, 11:00, shuttlt <shut...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to draw the attention of this thread to the long
> discussion we had with Nando over at the James Randi forum (http://
> forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152078). We spent 1000 posts mainly
> working on a definition of what in the world Syamsu/Nando meant by
> choosing and freedom. He left the thread at a point where I felt we
> were starting to get things pinned down.
>
> For a while he seemed to agree with the following:
> ****************************************************************************************************************
> Choosing
> Choosing is an explanation for the apparent randomness in quantum
> mechanics. "Choosing" agrees with the information interpretation of
> quantum mechanics. The formula's of quantum mechanics describe the
> statistical properties of choosing. In the example of the bomb test
> the choice will tend to 50% path A, 50% path B on average. The cause
> for a choice to go one way instead of another is 'spiritual'. The
> operator cannot influence or increase the likelihood in any way of the
> photon taking one path over the other. The fact that information can
> be obtained about what could have happened alternatively.
>
> Freedom
>
> Something is free, in the sense of freewill, if it can take actions
> that are outside the causal chain.
>
> The spiritual
>
> The cause of events that lack a physical cause.
> ****************************************************************************************************************
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is not representative of my viewpoint. Shuttit keeps repeating
> this stuff, eventhough I corrected it numerous times.
>
been corrected several times.
how's it feel to be hoist on your own petard?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
- they cause people to think in racist and genocidal terms of
struggle
- they cause the destruction of the knowledge about freedom
- they cause spiritual qualities to be understood as material
heritable attributes.
So then the Darwinists argue that they are innocent per definition,
that responsibility for their actions doesn't apply to them, because
they are scientists.
I am Syamsu, I am also innocent per definition, because I am Syamsu.
Yeah, that's logic for you....
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science says the Darwinists did it, it's what the facts show.
>
> - they cause people to think in racist and genocidal terms of
> struggle
> - they cause the destruction of the knowledge about freedom
> - they cause spiritual qualities to be understood as material
> heritable attributes.
>
> So then the Darwinists argue that they are innocent per definition,
> that responsibility for their actions doesn't apply to them, because
> they are scientists.
meaningless. nature is nature. there is no 'guilt' or 'responsibility'
in nature. evolution is part of nature. you religious fanatics have
insisted for thousands of years that nature reflects morality
it doesn't.
John Stockwell
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is not representative of my viewpoint. Shuttit keeps repeating
> this stuff, eventhough I corrected it numerous times.
No Syamsu. We were working towards an agreed set of definitions. It
was a tortuous process. The definition of Choosing in particular was
one that we reached some kind of agreement on. Remember when you said
of the definition:
"That's a fair enough explanation, except you should add the bomb test
experiment proves that alternatives in a choice are real, by getting
information about what could have happenned."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5151697#post5151697
The problem was that 300 posts later you suddenly changed the
definitions to:
******************************************************************************************
Choosing
Is the act of realizing an alternative. According to the information
interpretation of quantum mechanics, the randomness of particles is
based on choosing . In the information interpretation of quantum
mechanics information is the fundamental unit of existence, not
particles or energy. In a choice the information which way a choice
turns out is created from nothing. The formula's of quantum mechanics
describe the statistical properties of choosing. In the example of the
bomb test the choice will tend to 50% path A, 50% path B on average.
What does the job of deciding can't be objectively identified, and is
referred to as "spiritual". The operator cannot influence or increase
the likelihood in any way of the photon taking one path over the
other. The fact that in the bomb-testing experiment information can be
obtained about what could have happened alternatively proves that it
was a real choice, and not just chaotic randomness.
Freedom
Something is free, in the sense of freewill, if it has alternatives to
choose from.
The spiritual
Is what does the job of realizing the one alternative and discarding
the other in a choice.
******************************************************************************************
I'm happy to use those as a basis for further discussion, but to my
mind they contain two many other terms whose meaning is disputed. For
example you talk about the Information Interpretation of quantum
mechanics. As far as I can see information means something very
specific in this context. It is purely a statement about the odds of a
particular set of symbols, or events occurring. You seem to be
implying that information is synonymous with meaning. In Information
Theory a meaningless message can carry more information than a
meaningful one. The final sentence in the definition of Choosing is
also disputed. As for your definition of the spiritual, it seems to me
to be equivalent to my definition, but in less clear language.
I'm really not trying to trick you, or misinform anybody Syamsu. All I
want is some definitions in which the meanings of all the terms are
known and agreed. 1000 posts and we're not quite there. Don't you want
a definition that other people can readily understand?
shuttlt
stand so long as we can get 'Choosing' sorted.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
a minute do a buy it that you have honest motives Shuttit. I can see
that you have no knowledge about free will on an intellectual level of
your own, and are trying to destroy credibility in what I say about
free will, through all kinds of debating tricks. If you had
comprehensive knowledge of your own, then I might believe your motives
are good. Then we are just having a difference of opinion about free
will. But you do not have any comprehensive knowledge of your own, so
I can only concluded that you are out to destroy knowledge about free
will wholesale, just like all these Darwinists here. And as the first
post in the thread shows, the results of such destruction of knowledge
about freedom are not good for intellectual climate of opinion. It
simply means people will stop believing free will is real, disregard
it, and believe in genetic predisposition instead.
On 15 okt, 20:43, shuttlt <shut...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 4:32 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That is not representative of my viewpoint. Shuttit keeps repeating
> > this stuff, eventhough I corrected it numerous times.
>
> No Syamsu. We were working towards an agreed set of definitions. It
> was a tortuous process. The definition of Choosing in particular was
> one that we reached some kind of agreement on. Remember when you said
> of the definition:
>
> "That's a fair enough explanation, except you should add the bomb test
> experiment proves that alternatives in a choice are real, by getting
> information about what could have happenned."http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5151697#post5151697
>
> The problem was that 300 posts later you suddenly changed the
> definitions to:
>
> ******************************************************************************************
> Choosing
> Is the act of realizing an alternative. According to the information
> interpretation of quantum mechanics, the randomness of particles is
> based on choosing . In the information interpretation of quantum
> mechanics information is the fundamental unit of existence, not
> particles or energy. In a choice the information which way a choice
> turns out is created from nothing. The formula's of quantum mechanics
> describe the statistical properties of choosing. In the example of the
> bomb test the choice will tend to 50% path A, 50% path B on average.
> What does the job of deciding can't be objectively identified, and is
> referred to as "spiritual". The operator cannot influence or increase
> the likelihood in any way of the photon taking one path over the
> other. The fact that in the bomb-testing experiment information can be
> obtained about what could have happened alternatively proves that it
> was a real choice, and not just chaotic randomness.
>
> Freedom
>
> Something is free, in the sense of freewill, if it has alternatives to
> choose from.
>
> The spiritual
>
> Is what does the job of realizing the one alternative and discarding
> the other in a choice.
> ******************************************************************************************
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I can only concluded that you are out to destroy knowledge about free
> will wholesale, just like all these Darwinists here. And as the first
> post in the thread shows, the results of such destruction of knowledge
> about freedom are not good for intellectual climate of opinion. It
> simply means people will stop believing free will is real, disregard
> it, and believe in genetic predisposition instead.
>
nando ignores the evidence....as do all creationists.
the leading threat to world peace today are islamists. like nando.
it doesn't matter what fairy tales he tells, what dreams he dreams,
what hallucinations he has about darwin
the objective fact is the world's armies and police forces are lined
up against people who believe exactly as nando does
so tell us, which is the greater threat? 'darwinists' or nuclear armed
islamists?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
says morality is reflected in the brain chemistry of people, which is
nature, and wf3h has said the exact same thing on numerous occasions.
He does not believe in a subjective spiritual goodness AT ALL, only in
objective material good and bad.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
is very popular in some predominantly muslim area's, I have a Quran of
the 1930's that is evolutionary, I also met a muslim once who led
their life guided by natural selection theory.
gregwrld
You have neither credibility nor coherent
argument. Your definitions are irrelevant.
Your contributions here amuse us and at
that you succeed well, if not nobly.
gregwrld
shuttlt
terms, in particular 'information' are not very clearly defined.
>Not for a minute do a buy it that you have honest motives Shuttit.
That's a pity.
>I can see that you have no knowledge about free will on an intellectual level of
> your own, and are trying to destroy credibility in what I say about
> free will, through all kinds of debating tricks.
On the contrary, I'm starting to get a much better idea of what you
mean by free will. Certainly I get frustrated from time to time and am
rude as a consequence. I don't think sharing your definitions of your
terms though is a debating trick. My expectation is that if you are
forced to actually say specifically what you mean so that you are
pinned to a well defined definition then many of your claims will
evaporate. If I'm trying to trick you, that's it.
>If you had comprehensive knowledge of your own, then I might believe your motives
> are good.
By knowledge do you mean that I know things about it, or that I KNOW
in the sense of have a direct experience in it, like when people say
the KNOW Christ. I would say I have knowledge in the former sense, but
not in the latter.
>Then we are just having a difference of opinion about free will.
We are. The problem I find is that you simultaneously dismiss all
opinions other than your own, and also resist attempts to clearly
define your opinions.
>But you do not have any comprehensive knowledge of your own, so
> I can only concluded that you are out to destroy knowledge about free
> will wholesale, just like all these Darwinists here.
Are you saying that I'm trying to destroy knowledge of something that
I don't know about, and doubt the existence of? What would motivate me
to do this?
> And as the first
> post in the thread shows, the results of such destruction of knowledge
> about freedom are not good for intellectual climate of opinion.
You believe it shows that, others disagree.
> It simply means people will stop believing free will is real, disregard
> it, and believe in genetic predisposition instead.
Genetics really don't explain freewill, or specific notions of Good
and Evil, or God, whether it exists or not. We are a lot more than our
genes. Look at all of the different notions of these things that have
existed over the past 10,000 years. There's a lot of culture between
us and our genes.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science says the Darwinists did it, it's what the facts show.
>
> - they cause people to think in racist and genocidal terms of
> struggle
That is a lie.
> - they cause the destruction of the knowledge about freedom
That is not only a lie, it's utter bullshit.
> - they cause spiritual qualities to be understood as material
> heritable attributes.
Another lie.
>
> So then the Darwinists argue that they are innocent per definition,
> that responsibility for their actions doesn't apply to them, because
> they are scientists.
Meaningless bullshit.
>
> I am Syamsu, I am also innocent per definition, because I am Syamsu.
> Yeah, that's logic for you....
You and "logic" go together like chocolate cake and mustard.
Boikat
Boikat
> says morality is reflected in the brain chemistry of people, which is
> nature, and wf3h has said the exact same thing on numerous occasions.
> He does not believe in a subjective spiritual goodness AT ALL, only in
> objective material good and bad.
"Subjective spiritual goodness", Is that the justification for mass
murder in the Muslim mind? No wonder you have so much in common with
Hitler.
Boikat
>
shuttlt
be that it was particular to an individual and a context. My notion of
spiritual goodness is different to yours. I might have no moral
problem stealing, but turn my nose up at cannibalism, you might do the
reverse. Since there is no objective standard by which our subjective
notions can be judged. In normal language, isn't Nando claiming that
there is such a thing as 'objective spiritual goodness' and we're
claiming it's subjective.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> They would also have recognised that the more successful, in terms of
> reproduction, groups, like Slavs, were *by definition* more fit than
> the wimpy Aryans that had fewer progeny...
> >
Not after the Nazi reduced the population.
Chris Krolczyk
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As often said, there are many Darwinist muslims. Hitler's Mein Kampf
> is very popular in some predominantly muslim area's,
I'm sure that _Mein Kampf_ *is* popular
in certain Muslim circles, but that has
everything to do with certain tendencies
in Muslim society you're not willing to
admit to.
> I have a Quran of
> the 1930's that is evolutionary, I also met a muslim once who led
> their life guided by natural selection theory.
Well, then, there's three possibilities:
1) You're lying;
2) Someone said something about understanding
the ToE, and you automatically misinterpreted
it to mean that he was "guided" by it;
3) That "evolutionary" Koran you mentioned
is a rarity, since I don't recall *any* Muslim
being allowed to re-edit the original text of
the Koran for any purpose. Interpretations
of it, yes. But the actual text of the Koran,
no.
Given the preponderance of liars like "Harun
Yahya" and the like in the Islamic world,
my vote is 1).
BTW, I've been bickering on other newsgroups
about a glaring misuse of the DMCA by a legendary
net.kook, and I only recently popped back here
to nose around and see what was happening.
I took one look at the subject line of this
thread and took a wild guess as to who
started it.
Congratulations on winning the booby prize.
-Chris Krolczyk
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As often said, there are many Darwinist muslims. Hitler's Mein Kampf
> is very popular in some predominantly muslim area's, I have a Quran of
> the 1930's that is evolutionary, I also met a muslim once who led
> their life guided by natural selection theory.
actually there aren't many among the islamists. and hitler never
mentions darwin so your murderous friends wouldn't learn about darwin
from him
they WOULD learn that christians wanted jews dead.
and i have a quran as well. it mentions nothing about evolution. and
the grand mufti of jerusalem met with himmler in ww2 to discuss how to
murder jews.
and i've met muslims who thought 9.11 was an inside job of the jews in
NY.
so again you're spouting bullshit
you seem unable to address the fact the entire world is threatened by
your co-believers. every terrorist in today's world believes as you
do. every jew hater believes as you do. every persecuter of
christian believes as you do. every hater of homosexuals believes as
you do
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is just a lie. It is demonstrably the Darwinist in this thread who
> says morality is reflected in the brain chemistry of people, which is
> nature, and wf3h has said the exact same thing on numerous occasions.
> He does not believe in a subjective spiritual goodness AT ALL, only in
> objective material good and bad.
?? i'm a chemist. there is nothing in brain chemistry that is
dependent on evolution in and of itself. are you now saying CHEMISTRY
is non-science??
you islamists don't seem to know much about science with all your
spook-magic as causes of natuer
Baron Bodissey
Please explain the difference between "subjective" good and
"objective" good. Why is one better than the other? Give examples.
Baron Bodissey
That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar
bowl.
– Jack Vance
Wombat
OK, Nandy, you seem to have mastered attributions, now try to avoid
top posting and perhaps you can be merely regarded as delusional, not
arrogantly delusional.
Wombat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Please explain the difference between "subjective" good and
> "objective" good. Why is one better than the other? Give examples.
With an objective good the goal is predefined and then you calculate
according to the goal. So for instance survival is set as the goal,
then the organism calculates the options what chances of survival they
have, and then the option with the highest chance of survival is acted
on. This is the way Darwinists talk about survival as a good that
organisms strive for. But you can apply the same logic with money. Set
the goal as money, enumerate the options in terms of how much money
you get for each, then follow the option with the highest pay-out. Or
for instance you can calculate beauty according to certain curves of
the body, etc.
With a subjective good you don't calculate goodness but you decide it
from alternatives in the moment. So this means that for instance in
regarding someone is beautiful or not, you create that information
spontaneously from nothing on the spot, instead of that the
information is already present in a calculation. So you have the
alternatives to say beautiful or not beautiful, and in the moment you
decide, and your decision is free, it could turn out either way. At
this point new information enters the universe, namely the information
which way the decision turns out.
So yo see how choosing directly addresse the issue of origins. Through
choosing new information be created. Whereas if you calculate
according to laws of nature, then the information is already present
in the laws of nature, and no new information is introduced.
People who think in terms of objective goodness make stonecold
merciless judgements. They simply act as computers calculating all the
time.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16 okt, 06:06, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please explain the difference between "subjective" good and
> > "objective" good. Why is one better than the other? Give examples.
>
> With an objective good the goal is predefined and then you calculate
> according to the goal.
the entity to which it applies? I mean, Buddhist notions of good and
bad a predefined, at least from the perspective of anybody alive
today. Are they objective as a result?
> So for instance survival is set as the goal,
> then the organism calculates the options what chances of survival they
> have, and then the option with the highest chance of survival is acted
> on.
I'm not sure that "Darwinists" believe survival is the "goal". Passing
on the genes to the next generation would be a better desciption if we
are trying to sum it up in a sentence.
> This is the way Darwinists talk about survival as a good that
> organisms strive for. But you can apply the same logic with money. Set
> the goal as money, enumerate the options in terms of how much money
> you get for each, then follow the option with the highest pay-out. Or
> for instance you can calculate beauty according to certain curves of
> the body, etc.
"Darwinists" don't set the goals. The goals don't have to be
consciously, or unconsciously held by the animals themselves. It's
just an observation that animals who aren't very good at surviving
(passing on their genes) tend not to survive when they are in
competition with animals that are better at surviving (passing on
their genes). If you wait long enough, what you end up with is a bunch
of animals who were pretty good at surviving (passing on their genes)
and the ones who were crap at it die off. If the animal has an
explicit goal embedded in it to struggle to survive then that may well
boost it's chances of it's descendents still being around 100,000
years later. Animals don't have to be making an effort to survive, or
pass on their genes for natural selection to act upon them. There is
no assumption, or need for animals to have goals in natural selection.
> With a subjective good you don't calculate goodness but you decide it
> from alternatives in the moment.
But surely one option is only good and the other bad with respect to
some objective notion of goodness?
> So this means that for instance in
> regarding someone is beautiful or not, you create that information
> spontaneously from nothing on the spot, instead of that the
> information is already present in a calculation.
Here you're saying that given comlpete knowledge of the present, it
wouldn't be possible to tell if you would find somebody beautiful who
walked through the door in 5 seconds time?
> So you have the
> alternatives to say beautiful or not beautiful, and in the moment you
> decide, and your decision is free, it could turn out either way.
So the decision happens for no reason? A playboy bunny and Margaret
Thatcher could walk through the door and there is no way to know in
advance which, if either, I would find beautiful?
> At this point new information enters the universe, namely the information
> which way the decision turns out.
But this "new information", if you looked closely enough, would come
down to particular quantum possibilities turning out one way, or
another? This information need not be meaningful though, need it? If I
tossed a coin for long enough there would be the same information
content in the stream of heads and tails as in the Koran.
> So yo see how choosing directly addresse the issue of origins. Through
> choosing new information be created. Whereas if you calculate
> according to laws of nature, then the information is already present
> in the laws of nature, and no new information is introduced.
No. Randomness, through Quantum mechanics, introduces new information
to exactly the same extent as your choosing. Please provide a
definition of "information" in the sense that your using it. In the
Infomation Interpretation, and Information Theory in general, the
information content of a system is defined as the log of one over the
probability of the event.
> People who think in terms of objective goodness make stonecold
> merciless judgements. They simply act as computers calculating all the
> time.
Do you mean people who have a book that sets out an objective notion
of good and bad like the Bible, or the Koran? Are Muslim's merely
calculating machines acting towards the goal of pleasing Allah?
Erwin Moller
> FACTCHECK
>
> Q does identifying yourself as being a part of natural selection,
> differential reproductive success, makes you come up with racist, and
> genocidal ideas
> A yes
> evidence:
> try it
That is no evidence.
That is Nando-logic (c).
I am aware that I am produced by evolution, and I am not a racist, nor
do I have genocidal tendencies, allthough I must admit you give me a
hard time supressing my homocidal tendencies.
So I proved you wrong.
Next 'factcheck' please...
>
> Q do darwinists deny all principles based on freedom such as free will
> and creationism
> A yes
> evidence:
> - no single Darwinist on the forum ever uses the logic of things
> turning out alternative ways in a theory about behaviour, or anything
> else, and they regularly oppose it, especially creationism they oppose
Another example of your poor logic skills.
Evolution has nothing to do with determinism.
Nor Darwin, nor modern ToE discusses free will.
ToE might TOUCH the subject of free will, like in: "It seems these genes
are involved in criminal behaviour.".
But that is still waaaaaay off the philosophical discussion about free will.
So you don't make any sense: You say that 'Darwinists' never study
'things coming out in alternative ways', while EVERY biologist in field
is excactly studying that when (s)he observes behaviour.
Will this bird decide to flee or fight?
Will this predator attack the big and healthy animalX, or will it settle
for the easy, but small, prey Y?
Why does this ant go to the East now instead of to the West?
Why does this bear hybernate now and not next week?
Etc. etc.
Get informed.
There is a lot of study concerning choices of animals, performed by
'Darwinists' as you like to call them.
But of course, you won't easily find one that will agree to your twisted
definitions about freedom, whatever they may be since you refuse to
define them.
By the way: The principal discussion about free will is mainly happening
in a whole different field than biology: Philosophy and maybe physics
according to some (quantummechanics).
Next 'factcheck' please....
>
> Q Do Darwinists demand objective evidence for spiritual claims such as
> for instance, the existence of God, or the goodness of people
> A yes
> evidence:
> Already 1 Darwinist posted in the thread that goodness and evil are
> material and objective.
Any sensible person will ask for objective evidence.
Once you don't need objective evidence anymore you are lost, and might
end up believing anything.
In a sense you give up rational thinking if you do so.
And I don't understand your evidence, because it lacks logic.
Your 'evidence' says that you found one 'Darwinist' that claims that
morality is material AND objective.
So ALL 'Darwinists' agree to that?
I am a 'Darwinist' and I think morality is as subjective as a thing can
be subjective: totally.
So next 'factcheck' please......
>
> What the Darwinists give you about Nazism is stories about Islam and
> Christianity, which many of them despise. What I give you is easily
> checked direct evidence.
Indeed, we all tried to check your claims.
And you fail horribly time and time again.
You have nothing substantial to offer, only vague arguments and plain lies.
Futhermore: it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.
You refuse to define your words you use, like 'knowledge about freedom'
and insist on vague mumbo-jumbo.
You also refuse to quote and only writes monologues. So you cowardly
avoid every objection thrown at you.
Are you afraid to defend your claims in public?
So ramble on all you want about nazis and evolution: Nobody takes you
serious anymore.
I even suspect our creationists (and creatorists) in here, like
Spintronic, Madman/All-Seeing-eye/Ray/etc dislike your style and
dangerous ideas, allthough I cannot be sure of that.
I would be interested to hear their opinion about you. :-)
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
>
Yeah, regards to you too,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
shuttlt
has some kind of existence independent from our minds? If tomorrow I
decided that cannibalism and incest were moral, is there some
objective moral standard against which my morality could be judged and
found to be in error?
I strongly suspect that, in this sense of subjective and objective,
Nando is the one claiming objective morality and all us Darwinists
believe morality is subjective.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
The role effort plays in natural selection is that the capability for
free will may enhance an organisms chances of survival, like gaining
surprise in attack, or unpredictability in escape. Choosing also
reduces wear and tear, over programmatically doing the same thing in
the same way. And so on.
The correct understanding is that organisms striving to survive is a
contingent factor on natural selection. A factor which could make the
less fit survive instead of the more fit. However, Darwinists do not
promote this correct understanding. You will not find any Darwinist
that describes behaviour in terms of freedom.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 16 okt, 06:06, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please explain the difference between "subjective" good and
> > "objective" good. Why is one better than the other? Give examples.
>
> With an objective good the goal is predefined and then you calculate
> according to the goal.
nando simply ignores the evidence with his islamist fairy tale rants
EVERY islamist regime is evil. all of them. none of them is free. none
of them protects human rights. we know this because nando himself has
argued that christianity should be suppressed in muslim countries
because it offends muslims
and creationism has ALWAYS been wrong...for thousands of years it led
nowhere
so his view of reality has been tried. it NEVER leads to freedom
spin all the tales you want nando. tell us about milk and honey
waiting for us under islamist regimes.
then tell us where we can find an actual example. you're like the
morons who used to tell us how wonderful communism is and, when the
genocides in the USSR and china were pointed out, said those weren't
'true' communist regimes.
>
> People who think in terms of objective goodness make stonecold
> merciless judgements. They simply act as computers calculating all the
> time.
says the guy who thinks christianity should be eliminated.
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are absolutely right, natural selection is not based on effort.
> The role effort plays in natural selection is that the capability for
> free will may enhance an organisms chances of survival, like gaining
> surprise in attack, or unpredictability in escape.
observable, objective effect over and above the quantum randomness
that we know rocks, flames and cold sores posess. Or is that all
you're talking about?
As for unpredictability, there are some papers you should read by a
chap called Dubois. He talks about weak anticipation, which is
basically just the hunter having a model of the prey in it's head that
the hunter uses to anticipate the prey's behaviour. Since the hunter's
model is incomplete and not necessarily accurate it isn't able to
predict which way the prey will go with total accuracy. This has
nothing to do with free will and everything to do with the hunter
having incomplete information about the prey.
Given that quantum randomness is wholely unpredictable, how is free
will less predictable?
> Choosing also reduces wear and tear, over programmatically doing the same thing in
> the same way. And so on.
Without free will we would not be limit to going round and round in a
circle repeating the same behaviours. I think you've seen too many
robots in bad science fiction movies. There are completely
behaviouristic models of flocks of birds who, through the working of
very simple rules, exhibit complex and unpredictable behaviour (that
is to say you can't predict it without running the model with exactly
the same parameters and seeing what happens). We wouldn't all be
reduced to eating the same breakfast every day, taking the same route
to work and going to the toilet the same number of times. Just look at
the world around you. It's vastly complex. The input to the p-zombie
shuttlt who lackes freewill will never be the same twice. Why do you
expect my p-zombie to keep repeating the same behaviour if the context
in which that behaviour takes place is constantly shifting?
By the way, many 'lower' forms of life do exhibit very predictable
behaviour. Does this mean they lack freewill?
> The correct understanding is that organisms striving to survive is a
> contingent factor on natural selection. A factor which could make the
> less fit survive instead of the more fit.
In that case the fact that one strives to survive makes it more fit.
This does not contradict 'Darwinism'.
> However, Darwinists do not promote this correct understanding. You will not find any Darwinist
> that describes behaviour in terms of freedom.
Because quantum mechanics isn't relevant to natural selection.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
talk.origins. There are 2 groups, creationists and evolutionists.
Broadly creationists believe in origins by the spirit creating from
nothing through free acts, evolutionists believe in origins by descent
with modification through the forces in natural selection.
There is no Darwinist that conceives of origins in terms of choosing.
When a Darwinist talks about things turning out one way or another,
then they call it random, and explictly distinghuish that from
choosing. So you see Darwinists consider choosing as being other then
things turning out one way or another, and therefore their concept of
choosing is with a predefined goal, which neccessarily means an
objectified morality.
shuttlt
I think the problem with you hunter/prey analogy is that it isn't
clear what action either the hunter or the prey could take, based on
free will, that couldn't equally well be achieved by a random number
generator (quantum mechanics) a complex, but deterministic, algorithm
(what the brain does). Under most circumstances the random element is
a long way from being the greatest source of unpredictability. If you
can think of something that free will can do that my model can't,
please let me know. Essentially you have to show that we can do
something that isn't computable.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your vague inuendo is meaningless. The name of this forum is
> talk.origins. There are 2 groups, creationists and evolutionists.
> Broadly creationists believe in origins by the spirit creating from
> nothing through free acts,
along with slavery, destruction of religions that offend other
religions merely by existing, and the destruction of all science
>
> There is no Darwinist that conceives of origins in terms of choosing.
talk about vague...
> When a Darwinist talks about things turning out one way or another,
> then they call it random, and explictly distinghuish that from
> choosing.
kind of like the pyschoanalyst who believes there are no accidents
>
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your vague inuendo is meaningless. The name of this forum is
> talk.origins. There are 2 groups, creationists and evolutionists.
> Broadly creationists believe in origins by the spirit creating from
> nothing through free acts, evolutionists believe in origins by descent
> with modification through the forces in natural selection.
> There is no Darwinist that conceives of origins in terms of choosing.
We come back to the definition of 'Choosing' here.
> When a Darwinist talks about things turning out one way or another,
> then they call it random, and explictly distinghuish that from
> choosing.
But they are using a definition of 'Choosing' which is different to
yours, aren't they? They mean choosing in the sense of an intentioned
choice. Something that a conscious entity chose to do for particular
reasons that might or might not be known. Your definition is as you've
freely admitted indestinguishable from randomness. If 'Choosing' in
your sense can't be distinguished from randomness then to all intents
and purposes, in so far as the physical world goes, we are talking
about the same thing.
> So you see Darwinists consider choosing as being other then
> things turning out one way or another, and therefore their concept of
> choosing is with a predefined goal, which neccessarily means an
> objectified morality.
No it doesn't. When a cat eats a mouse, is that a moral or moral act?
When an apple falls from a tree, is that a moral act? How about when a
big lump of rock crashes into the Earth and wipes out the majority of
life on the planet, is that a moral act? If it is a moral act, whose
morality? Mine? Yours? Atilla The Hun's? Hitler's?
On the whole, Darwinists do not believe there is an objective
morality. Stuff happens. Some people think the stuff that happens is
good, other people think it's bad.
As for "goals", there really aren't any goals in evolution. Evolution
is just a description of stuff that happens. Species that aren't good
at surviving tend not to survive. Whether the survival of a given
species is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of subjective personal opinion
and not part of the theory.
Walter Bushell
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> He would obviously have been aghast by the idea for instance
> that depending on the environment, "running away from the enemy really
> really fast" can make you the fittest.
A very bad mind set for a military commander. There are times when
retreat is advisable, nay mandatory.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
objective moralities, instead of one single objective morality. As
said before, the fact that Darwinists distinghuish things turning out
one way or another from choosing proves they have an objective
morality. You have not offered any counter-argument. For instance many
Darwinists assert as a matter of fact that almost everything in the
universe is objectively meaningless (blind pittiless indifferent).
That is because Darwinists objectified the morality of life, and then
since rocks don't behave according to this morality, then therefore
the rocks behaviour is meaningless. So they calculated the behaviour
of rocks to be meaningless using their objective moralilty.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Erwin Moller
> Your vague inuendo is meaningless. The name of this forum is
> talk.origins. There are 2 groups, creationists and evolutionists.
> Broadly creationists believe in origins by the spirit creating from
> nothing through free acts, evolutionists believe in origins by descent
> with modification through the forces in natural selection.
Wrong.
Your desription of 'evolutionists' is OK.
But I do not think most creationists would phrase it like you do:
"creationists believe in origins by the spirit creating from nothing
through free acts".
Creationists simply believe there must be a creator.
The "Free acts" part is typical Nando.
There is also a significant part religious people that think evolution
is happening and had happened in the past.
>
> There is no Darwinist that conceives of origins in terms of choosing.
Correct.
By the way: Did anybody tell you yet 'Darwinist' is not really a word?
> When a Darwinist talks about things turning out one way or another,
> then they call it random, and explictly distinghuish that from
> choosing.
No.
copied from my former reply you wisely ignored:
------------------------------------------------------
Will this bird decide to flee or fight?
Will this predator attack the big and healthy animalX, or will it settle
for the easy, but small, prey Y?
Why does this ant go to the East now instead of to the West?
Why does this bear hybernate now and not next week?
------------------------------------------------------
In many cases behaviour is NOT random.
There is a lot of choosing going in in biology.
You just cannot free yourself of the worldsalad you choosed to build
your worldview around.
> So you see Darwinists consider choosing as being other then
> things turning out one way or another, and therefore their concept of
> choosing is with a predefined goal, which neccessarily means an
> objectified morality.
Why do 'Darwinists' consider choosing as being other than things turning
out one way or another?
I find it really hard to come down to your level of thinking, so maybe I
just miss your point.
Erwin Moller
PS: I see you are making progress with quotations. You are not there
yet! But we will work on that later.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about calculations which option has the highest chance of survial.
They are not talking about animals using their capability of free will
to create an advantage of surprise in attack, or unpredictability in
escape.
So really you are just substantiating my point that Darwinists
conceive of choosing not in terms of freedom, but in terms of
calculating an optimal value.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Sapient Fridge
<141c4a2c-8c22-404d...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
shuttlt <shu...@live.co.uk> writes
>You know, I'd gladly let the definitions of 'freedom' and 'spiritual'
>stand so long as we can get 'Choosing' sorted.
Good luck trying to get Nando to define his terms, we've been trying for
years and got nowhere with him. He refuses to define what he actually
means or believes so debating with him is pretty pointless. If you push
him hard enough then he will declare that you asking him to define
freedom is proof that you don't understand it, or something like that.
The closest I can get to understanding his point of view is that he
thinks there is a spirit in everything which makes decisions for that
thing, be it humans, weather or comets. Basically he is an animist I
think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
Note that he also doesn't actually understand the bomb testing
experiment which he keeps quoting, as shown by his post here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/178810b19c2951a5?hl=en
And doesn't understand global warming:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/2a7e8fd3c5bbd930?hl=en
or the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/4f9138a2666d9732?hl=en
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org