22 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not 'pushing' it. As far as I know it is a historical fact.
[b]may i ask I notice your from South Africa. To what extend was apartheid motivated / supported by the church in south africa. Would you call that 'christian' was it sold as such?
I moved to South Africa after the end of Apartheid. However, to my knowledge, a significant proportion are your views. I don't think you really listened to what Dawkins had to say at all.[/b]
I am not 'pushing' it. As far as I know it is a historical fact.
It is a historical fact and a well known one by historians at that. I have already shown e4chris many historical records that clearly show that all the leading Nazis without exception in WW2 were Christian and most of their followers were theists if not Christians and he simply just tries to fudge the issue. He is clearly totally delusional living in a totally fictitious fantasy fairyland where, totally absurdly, no Christian can ever do any real evil and has never ever done any atrocities ever and he simply denies any historical facts that could pull him out of his fairyland where he will stay trapped for the rest of his life.
Since I have already shown him the evidence and he has proven to be way out of it and beyond any help, I will not waste any of my time showing him the evidence again.
However, at least I can show you the evidence so that you can be sure:
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0835Hitler.php
"...
all the Nazi leaders were born, baptized, and raised Christian, mainly in authoritarian, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were not valued. Catholic Nazis, besides Hitler, included Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy. Protestants had given the Nazi party its main backing leading up to 1933. Evangelical youth was especially pro-Nazi. 90 percent of Protestant university theologians supported the Nazis. Christians were Nazis and took part in Nazi atrocities. Any who turned to outright criticism of fascism made their last appeals from the death cell.
..."
In any English translation of Mein Kampf ( http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.ht ) one can find the following two statements out of several that most clearly show that Hitler was a theist and definitely NOT an atheist:
1, “ it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."
2, “ God does not follow the principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards”
also:
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
Also note that Hitler was baptised as a Roman Catholic and brought up with Christian beliefs.
24 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't want to criticise dawkins to much in some ways. In a way i feel comfortable doing so as you and humy are defending him, he does have good, modern, liberal views, and not all creationists do.
Its just standard practice on this forum and makes it clear what we are responding to. Its not an indication of how well considered your posts are.
I wouldn't call myself a theist, I am a scientist turned christian and i would not say I'm that devout either, not at all.
You believe a god/gods exist? Then you are a theist.
but you are righ rother of Jesus, then why are you so offended? Surely I didn't say anything untrue?
But here is where I think he is dangerous, surival of the fittest, dressed up as philosophy causes wars and has done for 1000s of years. Once you base your philosophy on evolution its very easy to ask which humans are best? And who? Is it the clever nijerians who live in a tough environment and can be very resourceful? No, its you, your children, someone who looks like you. It was said of gerbals i think that someone that ugly shouldn't argue for a master race but he did. The scary thing about the nazis is how clever they were, how many great scientists and philosophers they had (Not many great christain leaders, sorry humy) a Dawkins like argument provides an academic base for racism. even if he doesn't intend it, even argues against racism.
What happens when one of dawkins successors provides a detailed account of the genetic differences between ethnic groups? would that make good pop science? I know from chemistry sulfonamides, early antibiotics work on caucasians, but kill chinese people because they crystallise in the liver. Good for sceintists to know but would a page more on chinese / white genetic differences be helpful?
24 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by e4chrisyou are reaching
I don't want to criticise dawkins to much in some ways. In a way i feel comfortable doing so as you and humy are defending him, he does have good, modern, liberal views, and not all creationists do.
But here is where I think he is dangerous, surival of the fittest, dressed up as philosophy causes wars and has done for 1000s of years. Once you base your r sceintists to know but would a page more on chinese / white genetic differences be helpful?
survival of the fittest is not a philosophical system. it is a phenomenon. just like photosyntesis is.
we humans have constantly been going against survival of the fittest because we recognize individuals may have uses beyond "be as fast as the fastest members of the herd or the lion will get you".
we take care of the sick so that they become productive members of society once more. we take care of the weakest because they might be smart and contribute to society in other ways than brute strength. we take care of the young so they may grow up. we take care of the old so that adults don't worry they will be left behind to die in their old age.
we have done so ever since we realized we aren't the biggest fighters in the animal kingdom, just the brightest.
evolution doesn't teach eugenics
24 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraExactly!
Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It holds no moral value whatsoever.
It says "this is the way it happens: ..." NOT "This is what we should do: ..." -the latter having nothing to do with evolution nor science whatsoever and was something that was adopted by the Christian Nazis.
24 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo actually, we haven't. In the context of evolution, survival of the fittest, is a tautology ie the 'fittest' are those that survive. It does not mean physical fitness, it means 'most suited to the environment'. In the case of communal animals, that often means 'best able to socialize', although there is often a balance between social behavior and competitive behavior.
we humans have constantly been going against survival of the fittest ...
Even amongst domestic animals/plants, 'fitness' means 'what the farmer wants', not 'what would survive best in the wild. The result is that most domestic species would not do well in the wild, but they are never the less survivors and thus fitter than all those species that did not survive mankind. Certain species like cats, pigs and rats, have been extremely successful because of man.
Not only do I agree with others that 'survival of the fittest' is not a moral code, but to try to implement it as a moral code would be a misunderstanding of the concept ie you would decide who is 'the fittest' then help them to survive a kind of self fulfilling prophesy. This just doesn't make sense.
25 Mar 13
3 edits
Going back to the original point there is room for a creationist view in science, (theres room for an aliens did it argument if you want one) The argument i hear physics people use, that you can have god, but only in the bits we don't understand yet, is not the only way.
One quite creationist case i see in evolution is how man evolved with sheep and goats, we digest goats milk well - a friend dropped out of anthropology because he didn't realise it would involve studying mostly this for the first year! but sheep and goats have an interesting behaviour too- they kill off poisonous plants, - they spot them and trample on them, and encourage plants they like. where they graze they have a big impact on the landscape / fauna. Lots of the english / scottish countryside isn't 'nature' its erosion by sheep! And this odd 'evolutionairy' process went on for 100,000s maybe more years.
Survival of the fittest is a bad idea, its real, its the crocodile! but it does not explain 'walking mouth' type animals like the dodo , chicken, t-rex even , you need plenty - almost a christian notion of it, to create an animal like that.
I find science a bit crap sometimes, just my little conspiracy but cannabis evolved with people too - hence its receptor and its edibleness, but can you buy it. no. can you get a bunch of vastly inferior drugs for the same purpose.. oh yes tons of them, thanks. Its a bit beside the point but I don't think 'science' delivers for people as much as it could - and lacking faith is partly why.
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisWhat other way is there? You seem to be saying that its OK to have creationist scientists putting God even in the bits we do understand or in other words, its OK for creationist scientists to reject the findings of science in favour of their region. Such attitudes have no place in science.
Going back to the original point there is room for a creationist view in science, (theres room for an aliens did it argument if you want one) The argument i hear physics people use, that you can have god, but only in the bits we don't understand yet, is not the only way.
One quite creationist case i see in evolution is how man evolved with sheep and goats, we digest goats milk well - a friend dropped out of anthropology because he didn't realise it would involve studying mostly this for the first year! but sheep and goats have an interesting behaviour too- they kill off poisonous plants, - they spot them and trample on them, and encourage plants they like. where they graze they have a big impact on the landscape / fauna. Lots of the english / scottish countryside isn't 'nature' its erosion by sheep! And this odd 'evolutionairy' process went on for 100,000s maybe more years.
How is any of that a 'creationist case'?
Survival of the fittest is a bad idea, its real, its the crocodile! but it does not explain 'walking mouth' type animals like the dodo , chicken, t-rex even , you need plenty - almost a christian notion of it, to create an animal like that.
It does explain them all.
I find science a bit crap sometimes, just my little conspiracy but cannabis evolved with people too - hence its receptor and its edibleness, but can you buy it. no. can you get a bunch of vastly inferior drugs for the same purpose.. oh yes tons of them, thanks. Its a bit beside the point but I don't think 'science' delivers for people as much as it could - and lacking faith is partly why.
So if more people had faith, scientists would provide you with free cannabis? You may not be able to buy it in ordinary shops, but you sure seem to have been able to get hold of a bit more than is good for you.
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisWhy would you assume that science should be delivering for the people? Surely the job of science is to advance knowledge not manufacture drugs? If people are stupid enough to buy the expensive products of pharmaceutical companies when cheaper and better alternatives are available how is science to blame? I'd blame the advertising industry myself. Or is this another case of mistaken identity? Big pharma = science? No, the pharmaceutical industry is INDUSTRY not science. Now just what has that got to do with faith?
I find science a bit crap sometimes, just my little conspiracy but cannabis evolved with people too - hence its receptor and its edibleness, but can you buy it. no. can you get a bunch of vastly inferior drugs for the same purpose.. oh yes tons of them, thanks. Its a bit beside the point but I don't think 'science' delivers for people as much as it could - and lacking faith is partly why.
25 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerI agree a lot of the sin of the pharma companies are in sales / advertising. I find it despicable how they will price a life saving drug at around the cost of said persons house / life . afterall thats what a 'good' salesman could get for it.
Why would you assume that science should be delivering for the people? Surely the job of science is to advance knowledge not manufacture drugs? If people are stupid enough to buy the expensive products of pharmaceutical companies when cheaper and better alternatives are available how is science to blame? I'd blame the advertising industry myself. Or is this a ...[text shortened]... e pharmaceutical industry is INDUSTRY not science. Now just what has that got to do with faith?
But i do still say chemistry especially is a bit crap - and dioxin older but still relevant I blame chemists for more - they were trusted to recomend that chemical, they could of picked another one but dioxin got pushed - it shows its a very difficult subject and the chemists did not know what they were doing - but like dawkins had way to much belief in there knowledge. I keep on saying dioxin because there are 1000s of dioxin like examples, you can still get chloroform in cough medicine in the UK, thats not good for you either.
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI don't think you can blame chemistry for the failure of UK regulatory bodies to ban over the counter sales of chloroform in cough syrup. Maybe you should write to your MP? Or the Health Secretary?
I agree a lot of the sin of the pharma companies are in sales / advertising. I find it despicable how they will price a life saving drug at around the cost of said persons house / life . afterall thats what a 'good' salesman could get for it.
But i do still say chemistry especially is a bit crap - and dioxin older but still relevant I blame chemists for ...[text shortened]... ples, you can still get chloroform in cough medicine in the UK, thats not good for you either.