Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologiesHolocaust was fallout of evolution theory

World Net Daily ^ | Posted: August 19, 2006 | World Net Daily

[RaceBannon]

Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.

The results of Darwin’s theories

"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.

[js1138]

It is fundamentally opinion-based. You have obviously expended enormous energy to assuage your fear of consequences in the next life. I respect that - your emotional involvement is quite evident. May I point out the following: Your own reductionist reasoning is circular at the top as well - in (negatively) not assuming God's existence you implicitly, POSITIVELY, assume His non-existence. Your use of Ockham's Razor fails to account for built-in prejudice. There is no such thing as neutrality - yours is pretended and the product of the cumulative experiences that comprise your noetic make-up.

Is there a needle embedded in this haystack?

[jennyp]

"Evolution fits right in with such a universe, and I think that such a god would create precisely the kind of universe that's capable of such a complex process as evolution." Beautifully stated. And I agree because I choose to start with the premise of a Creator. Everything that follows is wondrous, don't you agree?

I'm not talking to you. While I had gone & taken a break from posting you explicitly claimed that I was in favor of partial-birth abortion, days after our extensive exchange where I explained why I think that personhood begins when the brain becomes present, a mere month or two after conception. (see here for example & the related conversation before & after)

Well, Jenny, this is what you get when you dehumanize the alive unborn. Does this utilization of the unborn meet with your approval since you don't think a human has materialized yet, until born?

[js1138]

Apparently Hitler's victims are not too happy about this TV special.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688235/posts

[Lexinom]

Theoretical computer science, particularly the mathematical aspects relevant to this particular discussion, is what I do

Ah, that explains quite a bit. I've read Knuth and keep his books close at hand. I would love to do what you do, but have a family to support and little time for study (which you can see by how obviously stupid and ignorant I am, per your earlier observation).

[tortoise]

It is fundamentally opinion-based.

Well of course it is. I do not have any axioms, just a lot of nominally rational beliefs.

You have obviously expended enormous energy to assuage your fear of consequences in the next life.

You spent more energy typing that sentence than I've spent on its subject in many years. I do not care about this subject generally, and am mostly trying to correct an egregious misunderstanding of mathematics. Most people are bad enough at math as it is, and there is no need to perpetuate it.

May I point out the following: Your own reductionist reasoning is circular at the top as well - in (negatively) not assuming God's existence you implicitly, POSITIVELY, assume His non-existence.

Uh, no. You clearly are not getting it. I make no axiomatic assertions. There are an infinite number of hypotheses, and I select the best hypothesis at the time using Occam's Razor, itself based on the hypothesis that the axioms of mathematics are generally correct. Occam's Razor makes no assertions about correctness, just rationality and probability of correctness. Apparently you are unfamiliar with "non-axiomatic systems"? It is well-known in philosophy, as there is a robust non-axiomatic epistemology that was created by a protestant theologian.

Many of my current beliefs are probably incorrect. But they have been selected in such a fashion that I am maximizing the probability that they are correct, which is the best any of us can do. I do not fear being wrong since I assume I must be wrong at least part of the time.

Your use of Ockham's Razor fails to account for built-in prejudice. There is no such thing as neutrality - yours is pretended and the product of the cumulative experiences that comprise your noetic make-up.

Apparently you do not really understand Occam's Razor either. Occam's Razor is purely inductive, which in common English means that it assumes evaluation in a subjective context. If we had objective observers, we would not need Occam's Razor. Come on, it does not do your credibility much good that you missed the main theoretical point of Occam's Razor when attempting to use it.

Your real motives, from what I can see, are emotional in nature.

Huh? This is a discussion of mathematics and formal construction. Where does emotion enter into it?

[dread78645]

Hitler wasn't Catholic? That's indeed arguable if he was Catholic and he most likely simply used Christianity as a propaganda tool.

Quite so.
You see, even though baptized and raised as a Catholic (as well as receiving Confirmation), Hitler just pretended to be Catholic. ;->

Hitler's SA (The Brown Shirts) attending and leaving church services.

Cardinal Michael Faulhaber marches between rows of SA men at a Nazi rally in Munich.

Hitler and the SA in front of the "Church of our Lady" Nuremberg 1928.

It wasn't a fluke. Hitler (now sans SA) in front of the same church, 1934.

The touching and emotional end of the rally in Vienna: "Let us pray..."

Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin celebrating Hitler's birthday April 20, 1939.
Thereafter, on each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."

Hitler as "best man" in the Catholic wedding ceremony of (then) Generalleutnant Hermann Göring and Emmy Sonnemann.
Conducted by Reichbishop Ludwig Müller at the Berlin Cathedral. -- The ceremony was broadcast live on radio.

Welcome Celebration for newly selected Bishop Konrad Graf von Preysing in the Sportpalast, Berlin, 8 Sept. 1935
(Note the Chi-Rho Cross to the right of the Nazi flag.)

Papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signs the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.

While the Reichsconcordate proscribed any active political participation by the priesthood. Some apparently didn't get the message ...

Undated photo of Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler.

Priests at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukölln stadium in August 1933.

Bishop Friedrich Coch in Dresden, December 1933.

Not wishing to single out the Catholics, The party would create an amalgam of Lutherans and Protestants into a "German Christian" or Deutsche Christen (DC) church as a branch of the state.
On July 14, 1933, Hitler's government approves a new charter for the Protestant church. With massive intervention by the NSDAP, the church elections scheduled only a short time later result in a resounding victory for the "German Christians." Hitler himself appeals to all Protestant Christians in a radio speech on the eve of the election to vote for the "German Christians."
Of course, the Deutsche Christen had a strict policy to prevent "non-Aryans" from becoming ministers or religious teachers.

SA storm troopers with placards of the "German Christians," Berlin, July 1933.

Deutsche Christen (German Christians) on the march in front of the Berlin Cathedral.
(Note the flags with the Christian cross with the swastika in the middle)

Meeting of the German Christian Movement, Sportpalast, Berlin November 13, 1933.

Presidium of the German Christians, Berlin, November 13, 1933

And then :

While the Government is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both Christian confessions the most important factors [Protestant and Catholic] for the maintenance of our folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the States. However, it respects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation. The Government will treat all other denominations with equal objective justice. It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain denomination or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to commit or tolerate crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living together of Church and State.

-- Hitler's Speech at second meeting of the Reichstag of 1933, on 03 March 1933, asking for the adoption of the Enabling Act.

“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?”

-- Hitler quoted by Albert Speer. Inside the Third Reich. 1970 p.96

Nope. Move along, nothing to see here.

[VadeRetro]

In effect, what we have accomplished is effectively the proving of God's existence by way of elimination, to wit, the absurdity/impossibility of the contrary.

"We" did? You and your tapeworm both have delusions of adequacy.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Christianity led to the Spanish Inquisition and the Thirty Years' War, which were probably greater humanitarian catastrophes per capita than the Holocaust.

[Seamoth]

Theoretical computer science, particularly the mathematical aspects relevant to this particular discussion, is what I do

Ah, that explains quite a bit. I've read Knuth and keep his books close at hand. I would love to do what you do, but have a family to support and little time for study (which you can see by how obviously stupid and ignorant I am, per your earlier observation).

Beautiful.

[Lexinom]

People pretend they are neutral and do not account for their build-in prejudices. I've pounded that home over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Even in their independent, ostensibly reductionist obserations.

The poster to whom that was addressed has all the marks of a great leader: condescension, disrespect, etc. I do not believe, in all my time on FR, I have ever encountered a more rude and obnoxious know-it-all. He is to be pitied. With him, it's "my way or the highway". I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I try to respect and love others with whom I disagree as my fellow human beings. He insulted me personally many times, and probably (given his admitted background) lacks sufficient background in social grace to apologize. Taking that latter into account, I won't hold it against him. Pity is the proper response.

[Lexinom]

obervations = observations;

[fabian]

I think that you haven't looked into the very complex workings of the dna code. It has a specific numeric code and it's duties are far more complex than a computer code. I mean, look at what it does in providing the blue print for our bodies and all of the various functions that must be exact. It's an amazing factory inside of us. Why don't you really read up on the latest discoveries of our dna.

[js1138]

People pretend they are neutral and do not account for their build-in prejudices.

That's just your opinion.

[js1138]

I think that you haven't looked into the very complex workings of the dna code. It has a specific numeric code and it's duties are far more complex than a computer code. I mean, look at what it does in providing the blue print for our bodies and all of the various functions that must be exact. It's an amazing factory inside of us. Why don't you really read up on the latest discoveries of our dna.

What is your point?

[balrog666]

What is your point?

He's hoping you'll find one for him.

[fabian]

just illustrating how ID and creationism are indeed scientific because they are using many scientific observations such as the dna code to point us to a creator. It's only logical, it's only the darkside that's feeding us doubt voices and thoughts about it. But the evidence in us and outside us is plentiful.

[Coyoteman]

just illustrating how ID and creationism are indeed scientific because they are using many scientific observations such as the dna code to point us to a creator.

Wrong on multiple counts.

To do science, you need to follow the scientific method. This begins with an assumption of naturalism. Now, you may not agree with that assumption for religious reasons, but that is not the problem of science.

Science used data and theory to unravel the mysteries of the natural world. Science follows data wherever it leads, not knowing any final answers.

Religious apologists use their methods to bend or distort scientific data and theories. Science is distorted until it matches revelation, scripture, and/or belief.

ID and creationism are not scientific, although they would have you believe otherwise.

[fabian]

again, you misrepresent science. A study doesn't always have to do a scientific method as you and others define it. And science by the definition given to us by the dictionary includes much more than naturalism. You are not being honest with your terms or you are just completely blinded by the negative and anti creator voices and thoughts in your head. Why don't you question some of your thoughts?

[Coyoteman]

again, you misrepresent science. A study doesn't always have to do a scientific method as you and others define it. And science by the definition given to us by the dictionary includes much more than naturalism. You are not being honest with your terms or you are just completely blinded by the negative and anti creator voices and thoughts in your head. Why don't you question some of your thoughts?,/i>

I do science, you do apologetics. Apologists do not define the rules of science.

(And I do not listen to "voices" in my head.)

[jennyp]

just illustrating how ID and creationism are indeed scientific because they are using many scientific observations such as the dna code to point us to a creator. It's only logical, it's only the darkside that's feeding us doubt voices and thoughts about it. But the evidence in us and outside us is plentiful.

Wow, what a ... scientific argument you make there.