Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[Kralizec]

If Darwin was in favour of eugenics, then that would be pretty ironic, considering that the guy married his own cousin.

I understand that there are some pointers that Darwin and/or his cousin (the male one which he didn’t marry) were in favour of eugenics – not just in this thread, mind you. I don’t know how credible these claims are, and I don’t really care. His theoretical groundwork for evolution is still just as sound, if he endorsed eugenics than that’s his private opinion, and the guy is not some idol or role model for anyone.

The guy who invented insulin was a rabid anti-semite. That doesn’t mean that diabetes doesn’t exist, or that you’re endorsing Hitler if you use insulin shots.

[Sir Moody]

“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.

TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).

Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.

Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.

The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).

Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.

Try again. I mean, copy and paste.

just in case you missed it (you quoted me) - I was being sarcastic about TR's copy Pasta which he brings out like a reflex whenever we point out Hitlers beliefs... hence why this thread was started

I don't actually want people to stop saying it - the sooner he comes to terms with the entire thing the better

[total relism]

“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.

TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).

Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.

Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.

The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).

Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.

Try again. I mean, copy and paste.

so you find one of many sources unsaleable and that makes them all false? who should we listen to than on hitler? many scholars that agree? or who? The question asked was is hitler christian, the clear answer is no. Hitler/nazi thought was anti christian.


The rest is trying to bring off topic from the clear fact hitler hated christian and was anti christian, the topic of this thread.


You claim there is no Superior races etc in evolution, did you not read what darwins title was of origin of species.?

OnThe Origin of Speciesby Means of Natural Selection,orThe Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


darwin/hitler were both racist, evolution is all about change and surivial of the fittest, blacks are not the same as whites we evolved diferntley. Just as diffident animals change and have diffident species etc so do people. It is all a struggle for life pass on genes and survival.


That is were hitler got his ideas from

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946


As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:
‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958

And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983




‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982


In fact the reason many evolutionary nazis like hitler and Ernst hankel hated christian was because they were not racist.

A major reason why Haeckel concluded this was because Christianity:
‘ … makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946

As Humber notes, Hitler believed that Blacks were ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’ and therefore he disapproved of German Christians:
‘ … going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy … human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.
Humber, P., The Ascent of Racism, Impact,#February, p. 2, 1987.




You claim hitler hated jews because they killed christ this was already responded to on thread to witch you could not respond, post 127. Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said but one quote you can provide in context and can easily be easplanied [post 127] and ignore his deeds actions worldview etc. A few quotes up it says because jews were under evolved.

You than claim the bible agree with slavery rape etc this is topic I would love to discuss, but not on this thread. The bible is so very much against these both.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531534


we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc.



Christianity calls to kill for in there names? interesting, not sure you would like to debate this 1v1, nor does this have to do with Hitler. Not to mention you have no right to call murder wrong look here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...orallity/page5



hitler killed because of his worldview/belie in evolution not atheism.



in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many.


eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point.


‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978

[Brenus]

“On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Where is the superiority of races in the title? Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life means The Lucky Ones that can adapt to Changing Conditions. Please, do some text analyse before claiming absurdities.
“evolution is all about change and survival of the fittest” Nope, Evolution is the survival of the ones that can adapt, nothing to do with the fittest. Neanderthal was probably the fitter (stronger) of the 2 human races (the other one being Cro-Magnon), but he vanished when we survived as we were more adaptable… But you probably deny the existence of Neanderthal, as it is not in the Bible, I suppose.

All the links between evolution and Nazism you propose are not from Hitler himself, but other authors’ opinions on Hitler. So, I will question their motives. And until now, each time, you propose authors very close to the Extreme Right Ideology. This only begs the question about Christianity and Extreme Right.
Humber just lies in his book.
For the web: “English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation.".
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Keith: Interesting biography in the site called white nationalism and it goes on for all your references.
None of your sources is a credible one as they all have an agenda and interest in disentangling Christianity from Nazism.

Just for your information and fun, the other evil atheist butcher, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution as it was a Bourgeois’ Theory… The real truth starts to show: you don’t believe in Evolution, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution, you are Christian, so Stalin was a Christian… This fact really nails it, as Stalin was a student in Religion in his youth.

darwin/hitler were both racist: Christianity/Hitler were both racist: Fixed for you

“we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc” Nope. Races concept is a Biological description. You mix up (like racist –and I am not telling you are one) a Biological reality the racists extended to politic. The treatment of non-white populations is due to the “politisation” of a Biological observation where politicians twisted biology to support their goals. They spent a lot of resources in trying to prove their theories and had, as we know, some success.

“in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many” It is so true that you can’t come up with facts. But apparently, you are not bothered too much by facts.

“Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said” I don’t. You do, when Hitler said “as a Christian”, YOU pretend it was to fool people. I say that when Hitler said he was a Christian, he was genuine, and when Hitler said because of this, he will kill the Jews, he was genuine. When Hitler wrote in My Kampf that the White Race was the creation of God and had to rules the sub-races, I say he meant it.

I am not interested in what other people said that Hitler said; I am not interested in what other people extrapolating from where he took his idea of “Superior” races, I just acknowledge what he said: Form his Christian background and education. And you can bring as much as you want of so-called proofs (indirect ones, Hitler told me, in secret,) as you want, the facts stay stubbornly that in My Kampf and in his public speeches Hitler qualified himself as a Christian. So he was.
Concerning the link with Darwin and Nazism, you emphasize that the one (one of) developing the concept of Eugenic is his cousin. So the fact that you have a stupid or crazy cousin makes your study suspect as well? You have a strange system of analyse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Darwin was actually a well known racist and white supremacist - it's just that nobody found that particularly noteworthy at the time.

His work was also as much a Scientific flop as a public success, people like to forget that he had no idea what the mechanism of heritability was, and his wild guesses were miles off. Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out.

[Sir Moody]

The monk in question was Gregor Johann Mendel - also I find the statement "Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out." a little odd - not many scientific discoveries of the time were made by "bored" catholic monks so shouldn't it be "surprisingly"

slightly amusing note - Mendel actually reported his discoveries 3 years before Darwin settled on the wrong idea of pangenesis

[total relism]

“On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Where is the superiority of races in the title? Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life means The Lucky Ones that can adapt to Changing Conditions. Please, do some text analyse before claiming absurdities.
“evolution is all about change and survival of the fittest” Nope, Evolution is the survival of the ones that can adapt, nothing to do with the fittest. Neanderthal was probably the fitter (stronger) of the 2 human races (the other one being Cro-Magnon), but he vanished when we survived as we were more adaptable… But you probably deny the existence of Neanderthal, as it is not in the Bible, I suppose.

All the links between evolution and Nazism you propose are not from Hitler himself, but other authors’ opinions on Hitler. So, I will question their motives. And until now, each time, you propose authors very close to the Extreme Right Ideology. This only begs the question about Christianity and Extreme Right.
Humber just lies in his book.
For the web: “English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation.".
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Keith: Interesting biography in the site called white nationalism and it goes on for all your references.
None of your sources is a credible one as they all have an agenda and interest in disentangling Christianity from Nazism.

Just for your information and fun, the other evil atheist butcher, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution as it was a Bourgeois’ Theory… The real truth starts to show: you don’t believe in Evolution, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution, you are Christian, so Stalin was a Christian… This fact really nails it, as Stalin was a student in Religion in his youth.

darwin/hitler were both racist: Christianity/Hitler were both racist: Fixed for you

“we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc” Nope. Races concept is a Biological description. You mix up (like racist –and I am not telling you are one) a Biological reality the racists extended to politic. The treatment of non-white populations is due to the “politisation” of a Biological observation where politicians twisted biology to support their goals. They spent a lot of resources in trying to prove their theories and had, as we know, some success.

“in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many” It is so true that you can’t come up with facts. But apparently, you are not bothered too much by facts.

“Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said” I don’t. You do, when Hitler said “as a Christian”, YOU pretend it was to fool people. I say that when Hitler said he was a Christian, he was genuine, and when Hitler said because of this, he will kill the Jews, he was genuine. When Hitler wrote in My Kampf that the White Race was the creation of God and had to rules the sub-races, I say he meant it.

I am not interested in what other people said that Hitler said; I am not interested in what other people extrapolating from where he took his idea of “Superior” races, I just acknowledge what he said: Form his Christian background and education. And you can bring as much as you want of so-called proofs (indirect ones, Hitler told me, in secret,) as you want, the facts stay stubbornly that in My Kampf and in his public speeches Hitler qualified himself as a Christian. So he was.
Concerning the link with Darwin and Nazism, you emphasize that the one (one of) developing the concept of Eugenic is his cousin. So the fact that you have a stupid or crazy cousin makes your study suspect as well? You have a strange system of analyse.

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
you are rejecting clear teachings/thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution was and how he viewed races, darwin as well. Your not lucky to adapt and survive,your more advanced/evolved as nazi germany taught about evolution in there textbooks,jews less evolved.



The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol. Also all one needs to do is read what hitler/darwin and germany thought in 1940's to tell they would very much disagree with you. Fittest does not mean strongest. Why would I deny Neanderthal? they fit the creation model fine, I tried to debate you 1v1 on evolution or Neanderthal you would on neither.



hitler/evolution
False,go back and read many are direct from hitler,just the source is from a scholar quoiting him so its there book. Its not like this is groundbreaking stuff [maybe to you] Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody? That is a completely baseless claim you cannot support. It is also a logical fallcie to attack source instead of material.



Your one hitler quote

wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm

Notice it does not refrence any page number for the claim it makes about Aryan race etc lol.

That is because your source is trying to hide it. Here are just 3 exsamples

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)


Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)


But lets assume your correct, what does that have to do with anything said? I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times in Mein Kampf. I never said he had to or did so. I said hitlers evolutionary beliefs led to his racism and view of less evolved races such as blacks/jews to want to ride them of his pure blood Nordic society. Also that hitler hated christian and all religon killing more christian than jews.


wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm


You than claim your online website with no references and not my multiple books/university studies are reliable. I shall ask you to tell me why? knowing you cant refute facts you must attack the source, yet me and any other will clearly see this as a escape from the truth that you dont want to admit. You claim because they have a agenda, yet cant show evidence of it, nor would that change the truth even if they did, hitler was still hitler.




stalin
you do this often, you try to bring discussion somewhere else when it does not go well with you. This thread is on hitler not stalin. Just because someone studies bible/religion does not make them christian. Bart erhman would be christian today if true and darwin etc.

At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections


stalin
An avid reader, Soso acquired a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when he was about 13
"One day, he and some friends were talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor. Soso amazed them all by saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just. I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.’ He produced a copy of Darwin’s book"
biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40


not to mention he killed
100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church




because history tells us as do hitler stalin, that they were racist, it should be fixed.



as i sated races are made up words that humans define.




provided many times over to you.


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong



You have to ignore all the books quotes his writings etc that dont agree with your one quote you cant put in context that can be easily explained as I stated last post, that is why you cant respond to post 127. I dont ignore the quote at all, that was reason for post 127, you clearly have to ignore so much to keep your view you cling to alive. I will refer to post 207/208 for his own words/opinions writings on how he felt about chritianity, keep in mind hes a weird christian if he killed more of them than jews and directly targeted priest churches etc.





eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point. my last post, not sure on how to be more clear on this. Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?.

[Kadagar_AV]

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
you are rejecting clear teachings/thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution was and how he viewed races, darwin as well. Your not lucky to adapt and survive,your more advanced/evolved as nazi germany taught about evolution in there textbooks,jews less evolved.



The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol. Also all one needs to do is read what hitler/darwin and germany thought in 1940's to tell they would very much disagree with you. Fittest does not mean strongest. Why would I deny Neanderthal? they fit the creation model fine, I tried to debate you 1v1 on evolution or Neanderthal you would on neither.



hitler/evolution
False,go back and read many are direct from hitler,just the source is from a scholar quoiting him so its there book. Its not like this is groundbreaking stuff [maybe to you] Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody? That is a completely baseless claim you cannot support. It is also a logical fallcie to attack source instead of material.



Your one hitler quote

wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm

Notice it does not refrence any page number for the claim it makes about Aryan race etc lol.

That is because your source is trying to hide it. Here are just 3 exsamples

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)


Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)


But lets assume your correct, what does that have to do with anything said? I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times in Mein Kampf. I never said he had to or did so. I said hitlers evolutionary beliefs led to his racism and view of less evolved races such as blacks/jews to want to ride them of his pure blood Nordic society. Also that hitler hated christian and all religon killing more christian than jews.


wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm


You than claim your online website with no references and not my multiple books/university studies are reliable. I shall ask you to tell me why? knowing you cant refute facts you must attack the source, yet me and any other will clearly see this as a escape from the truth that you dont want to admit. You claim because they have a agenda, yet cant show evidence of it, nor would that change the truth even if they did, hitler was still hitler.




stalin
you do this often, you try to bring discussion somewhere else when it does not go well with you. This thread is on hitler not stalin. Just because someone studies bible/religion does not make them christian. Bart erhman would be christian today if true and darwin etc.

At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections


stalin
An avid reader, Soso acquired a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when he was about 13
"One day, he and some friends were talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor. Soso amazed them all by saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just. I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.’ He produced a copy of Darwin’s book"
biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40


not to mention he killed
100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church




because history tells us as do hitler stalin, that they were racist, it should be fixed.



as i sated races are made up words that humans define.




provided many times over to you.


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong



You have to ignore all the books quotes his writings etc that dont agree with your one quote you cant put in context that can be easily explained as I stated last post, that is why you cant respond to post 127. I dont ignore the quote at all, that was reason for post 127, you clearly have to ignore so much to keep your view you cling to alive. I will refer to post 207/208 for his own words/opinions writings on how he felt about chritianity, keep in mind hes a weird christian if he killed more of them than jews and directly targeted priest churches etc.





eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point. my last post, not sure on how to be more clear on this. Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?.

As mentioned, too, those in power such as Gove, especially ones that have relied upon privileged institutions to get where they are, have been helped by biased, interest-vested institutions to then criticise people for not trying hard enough when they have no idea what it feels like to live in poverty, desperation and try to achieve the same things as those who are telling them they aren’t doing/trying well enough. As for women re men, poorer disadvantaged groups have to try twice, at least, as hard to get to the same places that people from wealthier backgrounds do – not to mention the lack of status, and respect such people get in society even if they succeed. Social Darwinists’ advocate natural selection whilst relying on socially constructed privatisation, for instance, to ensure dominance.

The same can be said for Hague’s comments, who argued that the government’s strategy for growth is simply for people to work harder. How insulting and offensive to all those people who get up, work so hard for not enough to maintain a decent living. How insulting for a government, intent on helping the 1% through socially constructed measures such as allowing bankers’ bonuses to go on at the high they are, lowering corporate tax, whilst cutting benefits at disgusting amounts and arguing benefits such as Disability Living Allowance have been exploited when there is only around a 0.5% fraud rate for this benefit, not to mention only around £1bn of fraud committed by welfare claimants in general as those at the top get away with more than £100bn a year of fraud/evasion. To then hear Hague say the problem with the economy, now back in a recession, is not the government’s austerity measures – which are being rejected around Europe as we speak – but rather is the fault of individuals not working hard enough – adds insult to injury. Again, Social Darwinism blames the individual, whilst ignoring the socially constructed vested interests that ensure the same people get into power and then tell those off who aren’t in power, for being lazy, thick, scroungers and just essentially, they feel, beneath them.

[Papewaio]

Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out.

Mendel was a physicist, so really not surprising that he would advance biology on his off days.

The biologists will just have to weather the stamp collecting criticism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The monk in question was Gregor Johann Mendel - also I find the statement "Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out." a little odd - not many scientific discoveries of the time were made by "bored" catholic monks so shouldn't it be "surprisingly"

slightly amusing note - Mendel actually reported his discoveries 3 years before Darwin settled on the wrong idea of pangenesis

Most knowledge has been advanced by Roman Catholic monks who are bored - it's what happens when you train bright minds to think logically, and then deprive them of stimulus.

[Sir Moody]

I think that's a little... biased

While you are right I think your reasoning is off - the reason most Knowledge in the West was propagated by Catholic Monks is primarily because for a VERY long time they were the only ones who could read and write (and had the time to actually inscribe books which isn't a fast process)

[Kadagar_AV]

I like experimenting with pizzas.

pineapple, curry, onion was a favourite. Sounds strange, but is quite nice.

[Brenus]

“Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody?” I did it in the text you just answered (white nationalism website, doesn’t ring an alarm bell?)…
“biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40”: novelist, not historian… Sorry.

“Favoured Races” and you read “fittest”, Favoured in adaptation…

“The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol” Err, not. The Sabres Teeth Tiger was incredible fit, and didn’t survive, nor the mammoth, and the mega beast…

“thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution” Hitler completely ignored Evolution as defined by Darwin.

“It is also a logical fallacies to attack source instead of material” What? You have obviously no idea how to study history and texts. The interest of the Author, his own belief and ideology are keys of what he/she writes. It is the core of REAL historians. A person having an agenda will “forget” or twist facts, as YOU do.
In another debate, somebody came-up with the figures of 20 million of the famine in Ukraine due to the Stalin Regime and the Collectivisation of the land. The problem is we have the figures of the Ukrainian population in 1926: Around 30 million. So if you add the alleged 20 million dead and that would have made Ukrainian population before the famine at around 50 million. That would have made Ukraine one of the most populated Countries in Europe at that time (61 million for Germany, 41 million for France). And we know it wasn’t.

“I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times” You didn’t, but the author you mentioned to support your text did. He lies.
Again, providing figures from books of Christian Authors or Extreme Right keen to extract Christianity from Nazism prove nothing. The fact to put Hitler in the list is speaking by itself. The Christians are so keen in it, as you are, that it is laughable. Then who tell you that Pol Pot was Atheist? Or Mao? Perhaps they believed in something, a deity… It the same anti-communism that made the Churches allied with Hitler.
The Pope (Christian) told the Christians that the fight against Communism was a Holly Duty.

“Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?”
That is because I made a free and sapient decision, without fear. That is why we are sapient. It is the same kind of decision I took when at the age of 20 I joined the army and trained to prepare for war to defend the ones who can’t, or when at around 30 I went in Charities to help my brothers and sisters in Humanity in wars, disease and distress. I don’t need a God to tell me what is right from wrong. I can THINK by myself.
The Religious Authorities and their so-called morality are so obsess by sex and death that they forget that there is life. I know you can’t, but read the Bible for what it is with a free mind. Read the words: killing, rape, humiliation, and genocides.

“the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook.” First, you link atheism and the Evolution, which is debatable. Second, can you develop why atheism is consistent with bloodbath? There are no Holly Books in atheism, so you will have trouble to go for it. But again, I don’t think that facts are really a trouble for you, your constant denial of Hitler’s Christianity being the proof.
Religions are consistent with blood bath, as several times illustrated not only in the Bible but by History.

“not to mention he killed 100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church” : Figures from?
He probably killed and deported more Communist than that, and he was still a communist: “We will destroy every enemy, even if he is an Old Bolshevik, we will destroy his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly." I.V. Stalin, November 1937”. And just as a reminder, the Gulags existed under the very Christian Tsar(s) of all Russia.
Stalin killed every body, believers, atheists, Jews, non-Jews, all nationalities, Soldiers and Officers, Socialists and Nationalists, etc. He was very open and universalist in the killing spree.

[total relism]

“Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody?” I did it in the text you just answered (white nationalism website, doesn’t ring an alarm bell?)…
“biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40”: novelist, not historian… Sorry.

“Favoured Races” and you read “fittest”, Favoured in adaptation…

“The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol” Err, not. The Sabres Teeth Tiger was incredible fit, and didn’t survive, nor the mammoth, and the mega beast…

“thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution” Hitler completely ignored Evolution as defined by Darwin.

“It is also a logical fallacies to attack source instead of material” What? You have obviously no idea how to study history and texts. The interest of the Author, his own belief and ideology are keys of what he/she writes. It is the core of REAL historians. A person having an agenda will “forget” or twist facts, as YOU do.
In another debate, somebody came-up with the figures of 20 million of the famine in Ukraine due to the Stalin Regime and the Collectivisation of the land. The problem is we have the figures of the Ukrainian population in 1926: Around 30 million. So if you add the alleged 20 million dead and that would have made Ukrainian population before the famine at around 50 million. That would have made Ukraine one of the most populated Countries in Europe at that time (61 million for Germany, 41 million for France). And we know it wasn’t.

“I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times” You didn’t, but the author you mentioned to support your text did. He lies.
Again, providing figures from books of Christian Authors or Extreme Right keen to extract Christianity from Nazism prove nothing. The fact to put Hitler in the list is speaking by itself. The Christians are so keen in it, as you are, that it is laughable. Then who tell you that Pol Pot was Atheist? Or Mao? Perhaps they believed in something, a deity… It the same anti-communism that made the Churches allied with Hitler.
The Pope (Christian) told the Christians that the fight against Communism was a Holly Duty.

“Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?”
That is because I made a free and sapient decision, without fear. That is why we are sapient. It is the same kind of decision I took when at the age of 20 I joined the army and trained to prepare for war to defend the ones who can’t, or when at around 30 I went in Charities to help my brothers and sisters in Humanity in wars, disease and distress. I don’t need a God to tell me what is right from wrong. I can THINK by myself.
The Religious Authorities and their so-called morality are so obsess by sex and death that they forget that there is life. I know you can’t, but read the Bible for what it is with a free mind. Read the words: killing, rape, humiliation, and genocides.

“the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook.” First, you link atheism and the Evolution, which is debatable. Second, can you develop why atheism is consistent with bloodbath? There are no Holly Books in atheism, so you will have trouble to go for it. But again, I don’t think that facts are really a trouble for you, your constant denial of Hitler’s Christianity being the proof.
Religions are consistent with blood bath, as several times illustrated not only in the Bible but by History.

“not to mention he killed 100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church” : Figures from?
He probably killed and deported more Communist than that, and he was still a communist: “We will destroy every enemy, even if he is an Old Bolshevik, we will destroy his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly." I.V. Stalin, November 1937”. And just as a reminder, the Gulags existed under the very Christian Tsar(s) of all Russia.
Stalin killed every body, believers, atheists, Jews, non-Jews, all nationalities, Soldiers and Officers, Socialists and Nationalists, etc. He was very open and universalist in the killing spree.

My references not yours, please provide were mine are from far right etc also why would it matter even though untrue, hitler was raciest no matter who tells you. I could also just claim yours are liberal so dont listen to them.


again facts matter stop using logical fallacies for facts you cant respond to. Disprove with facts, something you cannot do so you stick with logical fallacies.
ad hominem
attack on person not argument


and?....


That matters not to what hitler/darwin were saying.


based on nothing, you wont be able to support at all.


Great, than you should be able to refute what I have said based on facts, this you are never able to do, that is why its a logical fallcie. Also you claim I twist facts, yet wont be able to show with facts,only baseless claims as you have so far.


He did not lie as I showed, he diid use the word, my point was it matters not at all to what i was saying. I never said he had to use the word evolution at all though he did as I showed. I think you are alone on a island with your beliefs on hitler, that is why you must give random baseless opinions on subjects.



But why are these wrong? what do you base it on? and if i think rape,murder etc are good, what do you base me doing them being wrong on?
why is jeffery dahmer wrong to you?
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within



you claim there is facts for hitler being a christian, I really dont know what to say at this point. Its like my kids closing there ears and eyes to not hear "bad" words. The point is death is what got us here in evolution, survival of the fittest, so killing weaker less evolved is just a natural part of life.



True,but did he target caomunist for being communist? me thinks not, also i was referring to hitler and nazi germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that's a little... biased

While you are right I think your reasoning is off - the reason most Knowledge in the West was propagated by Catholic Monks is primarily because for a VERY long time they were the only ones who could read and write (and had the time to actually inscribe books which isn't a fast process)

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

Why were Monks often the only ones who could read and write?

Because they had the time to learn - in a way the whole Monastery was geared towards education (aside from feeding itself), that's why noblemen sent their children their to study, and it's why so much came from Monks and not the Secular Clergy.

Even today this is true - look at the Jesuits.

[Ironside]

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

Why were Monks often the only ones who could read and write?

Because they had the time to learn - in a way the whole Monastery was geared towards education (aside from feeding itself), that's why noblemen sent their children their to study, and it's why so much came from Monks and not the Secular Clergy.

Even today this is true - look at the Jesuits.

The problem occurs when the research isn't sanctioned or ends up silenced though.

[Hax]

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

There's a theory, though, that the university of Oxford was actually based on the madrasa​ in the Islamic world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem occurs when the research isn't sanctioned or ends up silenced though.

Which has historically happened very rarely - the one always touted is Galileo, but he was obsolete even before he was locked up and he was actually locked up for writing a tract which was seen as satirising the Pope as stupid. The fact is, if Galileo had been a proper observational Astronomer, like Iohannes Keppler, he would have been able to prove heliocentrism to the Pope without being seen to mock him.

Don't misunderstand me, he shouldn't have been locked up or accused of heresy but his downfall has nothing to do with the Church rejecting good science because he wasn't offering any, just out-of-date Copernicism. If you compare him to the Protestant Keppler, who was more radical and completely unmolested, you can see his error had nothing to do with supporting heliocentrism - in fact the Pope asked him to write a tract supporting it.

The only example of suppressing scientific knowledge I can think of is the Roman Church's early, and shortlived, objections to evolutionary theory, which, again, was being presented without evidence as to its mechanical operation at the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a theory, though, that the university of Oxford was actually based on the madrasa​ in the Islamic world.

Yep, via the Templar Chapter House. The Islamic Divines were riffing on the same theme though - we're bored and we need to do something that's Holy but doesn't involve just reading the Koran.

Of course - both owe a great deal to Plato's Academe as well.

[Ironside]

Which has historically happened very rarely - the one always touted is Galileo, but he was obsolete even before he was locked up and he was actually locked up for writing a tract which was seen as satirising the Pope as stupid. The fact is, if Galileo had been a proper observational Astronomer, like Iohannes Keppler, he would have been able to prove heliocentrism to the Pope without being seen to mock him.

Don't misunderstand me, he shouldn't have been locked up or accused of heresy but his downfall has nothing to do with the Church rejecting good science because he wasn't offering any, just out-of-date Copernicism. If you compare him to the Protestant Keppler, who was more radical and completely unmolested, you can see his error had nothing to do with supporting heliocentrism - in fact the Pope asked him to write a tract supporting it.

The only example of suppressing scientific knowledge I can think of is the Roman Church's early, and shortlived, objections to evolutionary theory, which, again, was being presented without evidence as to its mechanical operation at the time.

Not only the Roman Church did that. Carl von Linné ended up with something similar, if milder. There is a plant that have a common mutation that messes up Linné's taxonomy system completely and makes it almost impossible for the plant to procreate. He wasn't stupid, so he drew the connections. Only such ideas about evolving plants and it's consequences wasn't that celebrated in the church, so they made him shut up on that.

I'm also suspect that some research wouldn't really start in a monastary. Human anatomy for example. Let us cut up some bodies!!
You can prove me wrong here though.

[Beskar]

According to Wikipedia, Hitler's dislike of the Jews is deeply rooted in Christian anti-Semitism.

As Wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge, I win.