From Darwin to Hitler

[InterestedAtheist]

Since this thread seems to be moving more on to Christianity than evolution, I'd like to offer something I've been thinking about for a while.

Christians often say "Hitler was an atheist" (therefore, atheists are bad). Sometimes skeptics respond "Hitler was a Christian."

But we don't often hear that, whatever Hitler's own religous leanings, it is Christianity that fostered a thousand years of anti-semitism that culminated in Hitler's attempt to wipe out the Jews.

Think about THAT for a bit!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The OP has failed to show how accepting Evolution as a fact and a theory, directly leads to Hitler's culling of the Jews.
The OP has also failed to show why 'A was warped and inaccurately used in B. B is bad. Therefore A is also bad'.
The OP has also failed to show why, even if the above statement is true, why it doesn't imply Christianity is as bad as, perhaps even more, Hitler's Regime. Don't forget the suffering, death, and war in Christ's name.

So, with respect to the title (and presumed goal) of linking Darwin to Hitler (and, presumably, Darwinian Evolution and Hitler's Xenocide), the OP has failed.

Evolution remains airtight with its banks of evidences, both empircally observed and logically inferred.
Creation, as usual, has failed to provide any evidence at all, and even it's 'secondary' goal (though it acts like it's its primary) of disproving evolution has failed.

Care to try again, mes amis?

 

[HamletsChoice]

The OP has failed to show how accepting Evolution as a fact and a theory, directly leads to Hitler's culling of the Jews.
The OP has also failed to show why 'A was warped and inaccurately used in B. B is bad. Therefore A is also bad'.
The OP has also failed to show why, even if the above statement is true, why it doesn't imply Christianity is as bad as, perhaps even more, Hitler's Regime. Don't forget the suffering, death, and war in Christ's name.

The OP just posted a book that the OP thought was interesting. Don't be afraid to read it. The evidence of the connection between Darwin and Hitler seems pretty solid to me. Go ahead and just pick it up from the library and take a look for yourself, don't be afraid.

By the way I have read the evidences for evolution and I've come to the conclusion that there are none. It is simply a fairy-tale, or in Hitler's hands....a nightmare!!

 

[Nathan Poe]

What do you percieve to be better, a human mind capable of sending machines to mars and walking on the moon, or a simple bacterium swimming aound in some filthy water? Any logical thinking human understands that humans are "better" than all animals.

Until that "simple" bacterium causes an infection which kills off the human before the "better" mind can devise a cure.

Bacterium - 1; Human - 0.

I'm sorry your animalistic mind can't understand that.

I'm sorry you feel the need to exercise your superiority complex on everyone -- human and bacteria alike.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The OP just posted a book that the OP thought was interesting. Don't be afraid to read it. The evidence of the connection between Darwin and Hitler seems pretty solid to me. Go ahead and just pick it up from the library and take a look for yourself, don't be afraid.

By the way I have read the evidences for evolution and I've come to the conclusion that there are none. It is simply a fairy-tale, or in Hitler's hands....a nightmare!!

Falling off a 25-story roof and turning into an ugly stain on the sidewalk is also a nightmare, but step off such a roof and that is exactly what will happen.

Despite your willful blindness to the evidence for evolution, you need to realize that labeling something as "evil" does not make it false.

 

[Makaro]

Saying Darwin is responsible for the Holocaust is absurd. There's no other way to put it, sorry.

BTW, I would like to invoke Godwin's Law and declare the OP to have lost by default.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The OP just posted a book that the OP thought was interesting. Don't be afraid to read it.

Fascinating, yet irrelevent.

The evidence of the connection between Darwin and Hitler seems pretty solid to me. Go ahead and just pick it up from the library and take a look for yourself, don't be afraid.

An appeal to authority, I'm afraid. Saying, "I read this book and it convinced me of this, that, and the other" is not a valid argument in this discussion.
Now, if you want to post excerpts and quotes from said book, then that is a valid argument.

Oh, and I've noticed you've asked me to be not afraid of this book (or the act of reading?). This implies to me that either you think that I am a fearing person, or that this book is somehow special in it's genre, that my societal nature to fear the different unknown underlies a deep connection with Satan and a hatred of the Living God.
Sorry, I digress into pointless sarcasm sometimes. The meds help

By the way I have read the evidences for evolution and I've come to the conclusion that there are none. It is simply a fairy-tale, or in Hitler's hands....a nightmare!!

Ah, so that you have 'read' the evidence supporting the predictions made by looking at evolution, has made you conclude that there was, in fact, no evidence at all! Perhaps you were reading a blank page?

Once again, cite evidence for your claim, even if it is an extract from an anonymous book.

Finally, you haven't addressed my points for concluding that the OP has failed. Please, this is the logical way to have a serious discussion.

 

[Biologist]

The OP just posted a book that the OP thought was interesting. Don't be afraid to read it. The evidence of the connection between Darwin and Hitler seems pretty solid to me. Go ahead and just pick it up from the library and take a look for yourself, don't be afraid.

Well then do you believe Einstein is responcible for the death of thousands of Japanese citizens?

By the way I have read the evidences for evolution and I've come to the conclusion that there are none.

To have a firm understanding of Evolution, you need a firm understanding of Genetics, which in turn you need a firm understanding of cellular biology, before that you need an understanding of organic chemisty, and even before than you need a good general chemistry class. So I hope you are going into your Evolution class during your Junior year of college with a decent understanding of Biology.

 

[JohnR7]

The OP has failed to show how accepting Evolution as a fact and a theory, directly leads to Hitler's culling of the Jews.

If you are not for God, then you are against him. It does not matter if your a evolutionist or a nazi, you are either for God, or against God. Like Dylan use to say. You got to serve somebody. You can serve God or you can serve the devil, but you got to serve somebody.

You are either a child of the devil or your a child of God. You either abide in the truth or you abide in lies and deception. That is your choice to make. But there is no middle ground, you have to decide if your going to go one way or the other. We are given time to decide. Maybe 100 years or maybe less. But when our time is up, then that is it. God will then hold us accountable for what we did with that time and the decision we made. If we decided for God or against God.

 

[JohnR7]

Well then do you believe Einstein is responcible for the death of thousands of Japanese citizens?

They figured if they used the bomb 100,000 people would die.
If they did not use the bomb then 1,000,000 people would die.
So the question is: Did Einstein save 900,000 lives?

At least 30-50 million people died during ww2.

 

[Biologist]

They figured if they used the bomb 100,000 people would die.
If they did not use the bomb then 1,000,000 people would die.
So the question is: Did Einstein save 900,000 lives?

At least 30-50 million people died during ww2.

So let me get this straight, you think if someone murders one totally innocent person and in the process saves ten lives, it's ok?

Anyways that was a trick question, Eistein only developed the theory of matter=energy he didn't apply it to anything. So he doesn't deserve the credit for the terrorism commited during the nuclear bombing of innocent civilians. Nor do the people who built the bomb.

 

[JohnR7]

So let me get this straight, you think if someone murders one totally innocent person and in the process saves ten lives, it's ok?.

It does not matter what I think about it. That was a decision they made over 50 years ago. What do you think about it? Do you think they should have allowed the 1 million or even 2 or 3 million people to die, rather then to allow the 100,000 to die?

Anyways that was a trick question,

Oh, so you admit that your trying to "trick" people. At least your honest about that.

 

[Lord_Marx]

If you are not for God, then you are against him. It does not matter if your a evolutionist or a nazi, you are either for God, or against God. Like Dylan use to say. You got to serve somebody. You can serve God or you can serve the devil, but you got to serve somebody.

I honestly pity you for your tragically black and white perception of the world. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to go through life with such an “us vs. them” mentality. If I believed in any higher power I would pray for you.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They figured if they used the bomb 100,000 people would die.

They actually didn't know how many people would die or the type of damage the bombs would do. That's why they chose cities relatively undamaged by bombing (thus raising the question of how much military activities went on in them).

If they did not use the bomb then 1,000,000 people would die.

Actually, the highest military estimates for a planned invasion placed the figure at around 80,000 casulties (note, not fatalities only). The million to millions of lives saved originated in a Harpers Magazine article by Henry Stimson (Sec. of War in WWII) published in February 1947. The article was written to try to quash the growing clamor, mostly from conservative voices, about the morality of using the bombs.

Both Eisenhower and MacArthur were vehemently against using the bombs (even though MacArthur would go on to argue for their use in Korea), because they both knew Japan was beat and looking for a way out with saving at least a little face.

And this from the US Strategic Bombing Survey commissioned by Truman sums it up in an official US document:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

So the question is: Did Einstein save 900,000 lives?

While Einstein did co-write a letter to the president at the beginning of the war urging him to begin developing the bomb, it was with the idea that Germany was already doing so and would be ahead of us, so it was the lesser of two evils, he did not argue for its use on Japan. The scientists who developed it also didn't want to use it on Japan at that late date because most were convinced a demonstration should be done first. How many lives were "saved" by these decisions is a difficult if not impossible figure to calculate, due to the myriad of "ifs" involved.

At least 30-50 million people died during ww2.

So what do you think about the American soldier in WWI who held Hitler at bayonet point but mercifully let him go? Did he "cause" the deaths of millions?

 

[JohnR7]

“us vs. them” mentality.

Actually, the them is a very small group of people. In some cases only 2% of the people are non theistic. At the most you will find 15% of the people who do not believe in God as a Creator of us and the universe we live in.

For some reason a lot of them are drawn to this board though, so we see a lot more of them here.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually, the them is a very small group of people. In some cases only 2% of the people are non theistic. At the most you will find 15% of the people who do not believe in God as a Creator of us and the universe we live in.

For some reason a lot of them are drawn to this board though, so we see a lot more of them here.

Come to Japan where basically 98% are non-theistic.

 

[JohnR7]

So what do you think about the American soldier in WWI who held Hitler at bayonet point but mercifully let him go? Did he "cause" the deaths of millions?

Hitler use to brag about all of his narrow excapes. It was as if he thought a supernatural force was keeping him alive.
Even when so many of his staff were hurt during a bombing raid and he went without injury.
Of course he was so high on drugs it is hard to know what he was thinking most of the time.

 

[Dannager]

By the way I have read the evidences for evolution and I've come to the conclusion that there are none.

That's wonderful! It's always good to hear that we have someone actually trained in the field of evolutionary biology with us who is actually qualified to draw conclusions contrary to those of other professionals.

Wait...

You are a biologist, right? Oh goodness, I sure hope you didn't claim that you were qualified to conclude that evidences for evolutionary theory are invalid if you aren't actually professionally trained in the relevant field. That would be pretty intellectually dishonest, now that I think about it.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Hitler use to brag about all of his narrow excapes. It was as if he thought a supernatural force was keeping him alive.
Even when so many of his staff were hurt during a bombing raid and he went without injury.
Of course he was so high on drugs it is hard to know what he was thinking most of the time.

I'll agree with you mostly up until the third line. He did indeed suffer injury in a bombing coup attempt, but was not killed as were others. He did believe that it was because he was "destined" to lead. He also actively sought many Christian artifacts becuase he sought their "power".

What I don't agree with off the bat is the sentence where he was taking drugs of any kind. Do you have some sources for this please? From what I've read and seen he was largely vegetarian, although he would occasionaly eat meat, and that he had only once been drunk as a young man, but swore never to do it again as he didn't like not being in control (surprise!). This doesn't strike me as a person who would take drugs unless needed.

Also, you conveniently didn't respond to the majority of my post; only the last, rather superfluous question.

 

[JohnR7]

What I don't agree with off the bat is the sentence where he was taking drugs of any kind. Do you have some sources for this please?

They just had a hour long program about this on TV. He had a personal doctor and they have the notebook from the doctor with a record of every drug that hitler was given. He mostly took what they call crystal meth, but also some morphine.

The doctor would have to go in and shoot him up before He could even get up out of bed. But he did not regulate it himself so much as the doctor regulated it.

From 1942, the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler received daily injections of methamphetamine from his personal physician, Dr Theodor Morell. Hitler's ailments have been attributed to everything from tertiary syphilis to Parkinson's disease. But many of The Führer's clinical signs and symptoms may have been caused by his exotic drug regimen. http://amphetamines.com/adolf-hitler.html

In Hitler's Wehrmacht, methamphetamine tablets branded as Pervitin were liberally distributed to German fighting troops throughout the War.
Amphetamines are "power drugs" that reduce fatigue, heighten aggression, and diminish human warmth and empathy.