Nazism

Care to prove that? Because that's total BS, and I would hope you know that already.On your point on the NAZIs getting a bad rap, part of that is because they were so advanced scientifically and culturally, and people thought that if you advanced in these areas that you would be more likely to be advanced morally, but that is not the case.You are correct that the Soviets were worse, and of course, they were our allies so in a way we perpetuated a worse system and group in order to defend ourselves.

Excuse me? I need to prove the obvious now?A pure capitalist system IS social darwinism. At least the way I would define it. I think we all believe in social darwinism to some extent (I know I do a bit).I just think that the right-wing believes in it even more. Being against, national health-care, welfare, social security, etc. IS social darwinism.It's not like social darwinism is a completely bad thing in a general sense. I think we all know that not all people are created with equal ability.Edit: Rand, upon further reflection it's possible that we are using differnt definitions of the phrase social darwinism. I certainly didn't mean that the right wing believes in eugenics (although I'm certain some fringe groups do.... but both sides have fringe groups and one can certainly find a fringe group for just about anything!)This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 02-14-2006 01:57 PM

True enough--and they used Christianity to claim religious merit for their policies and ideas, even though Hitler scorned that religion in private.Weren't the overwhelming majority of Nazi-era Germans Christians? Of cousre, they may not have been True Christians? Still, other than a small minority of Jews, I'm not aware of any other religion represented there at that time.Perhaps a majority of them were also Social Darwinists--but, in that case, they weren't true Darwinists, were they?Nazi Germany doesn't prove anything about Darwin, evolution, Christ, or Christianity. It does prove something foundational about human beings.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Your claim is that [pro microevolutionists] are heavily influenced by evolutionary theory.I actually agree. However, you have previously decided that the Theory of Evolution is the kind of evolution that is not observed. So your sentence parses as'pro microevolutionists are heavily influenced by a macroevolutionary theory.'You have also said that Creation and ID are as much evolution as the Theory is, if we decide that the Theory is the observed version. Given that we are talking about the observed version (eugenics is microevolution), an alternate parse gives us:'pro microevolutionists are heavily influenced by the work of evolutionists, creationists and IDers'Which is confusing. I'm just trying to nail what it is you are trying to communicate to us here.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 14-February-2006 07:47 PM

Yea, we are using different definitions. I think of Social Darwinism as related to the idea of who deserves to survive and who does not. The religious right, for example, is totally against this way of approaching humanity, and I don't think the Right is generally as elitist on this issue as the Left actually.For example, there is environmentalist thinking that argues the planet is over-populated and that we need the human species to be culled somehow.

Rand I think we can agree on that.Of course in my opinion anyone against social darwinism would support universal healthcare. But I think that's another issue.I think we agree that there is belief in what I would call "general social darwinism" on both sides.An interesting topic.

Of course. Try to justify those statements with any verses from the NT. How does this relate to the no-true-scotsman? It has nothing to do with that logic.

you clearly did not. i'm not making claims about christianity, i'm making claims about hitler. read the OP. and the claim i am making is that he was clearly neither christian nor an evolutionary atheist but rather culturally schitzophrenic. i can in no way back up that claim using the bible. by you claiming that just because someone calls himself a christian does not make him one, you are using the no-true-scotsman claim. it is as invalid now as it always is.

Right, so we agree. That is why I could find no truth in those statements. I disagree with that claim. I know what the no-true-scotsman fallacy is, and it is a fallacy itself.People are not born Christian, like a scotsman. It's a choice, and you show that choice by your actions, that is what Jesus taught us.No matter what you do as a scotsman, you will always be a scotsman. His behavior does not dictate who and what he really is. A scotsman cannot say to himself, I am no longer a scotsman. But a Christian can make a choice and say to himself, I am no longer a Christian. Or he can lie, and say he is one, but then not behave like one. That doesn't make him one.So the no-true-scotsman fallacy does not apply to Christians. All the web-sites that claim it does, are just not logical.I guess that is post-modern reasoning, once again proving there is no God. We are smarter now......If this goes further, I will start another topic on this fallacy.

RR, brennakimi doesn't seem to be arguing that he is or isn't a Christian. The point here is that Hitler and the Nazis used Christianity, the ToE, paganism, whatever to further his agenda - the "Final Solution".That he dabbled in the occult, or perverted evolutionary science, does not make him a pagan or an evolutionist. Indeed, the basis of much of modern paganism is peaceful (the Wiccan Rede for example).Hitler was a madman, pure and simple. Maybe he thought he was a Christian, maybe he thought he was a pagan; it's a moot point now, because all we can say at this stage is that he used any means necessary, any leverage he could find, to justify the extermination of the Jews in Germany.

Exactamudo...and if I may add: Hitler was just another to a list of
historical meglomaniacs who over time began to actually believe they were somehow devine and infalliable.. Nero, Caligula,Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan,Charlamange, Neoplian, etc..... Darwins theories, Ancient pagan mythology, and Christianity are not spring boards to his madness. We may never know exactley what was in that mans head because he killed himself before he could be studied. Anyways Great Britian's primeminister at the time Sir W. Churchill suggested he be immediately excecuted without a trial, stating something to the effect that it would be a 'excercise in stupidity to place him on trial.

Being a Christian isn't about your actions, its about your beliefs. If you accept Christ as your saviour, that he is the son of God, he died for your sins etc. Your actions do not make you a Christian, otherwise we could say that Ghandi was Christian.All Christians are sinners, so we cannot look to deeds to judge Christianity. As Matthew wrote, what proceeds from the mouth comes from the heart and defiles a man.So you will always be a Christian if you accept Christ as the messiah regardless of how many people you murder, how much you steal, how many women you lust after, how many sundays you work etc. We cannot look into the heart of a man to see if he does accept Christ.We can look at a man's behaviour to see how closely he follows the teaching of Christ, but we will never truly know if he is Christian or not.

...right Modulous.. case and point: David Koresh.

I think this highlights the general mis-use of the no true scotsman fallacy.If the predicate is contrary to the definition, then there is a genuine cause to say that one doesn't meet the criteria.We all define Christian. But I've always stuck to two qualifiers, and for good reason;1. Belief in Christ.
2. Following his teachings.If you are merely number 2, then you can be atheist. If you re merely number 1 then you can be the devil.I know, I know, it's quite clever of me to suggest that both 1 and 2 must be present in the claimant. Atheists commonly use this fallacy when Christians claim that people aren't genuine, as you know. The problem is that when we hinder the inference of an argument, then we incapacitate the conclusion. That is to say, we are no longer able to conclude that the most obviously none-Christian person, is a none-Christian, because of a technicality. it's quite pedantically useless therefore, and quite silly, to assume that a person cannot pretend to be a Christian simply because this fallacy exists.Fair enough, strictly speaking I know I can't say, 'Hitler wasn't a true Christian', but the fact is that it remains quite possible, that, as Irishrockhound expounded, he merely used any belief or system as a means of an appeal to that system.To anyone with common sense, it needn't be stated that hitler wasn't Christian, as it is quite a truism, IMHO. He was neither Christ-like nor fearful of Christ.So then, technically you win, but I'm banking on your discernment.

Hi Mike, was David Koresh a Christian? Was the Holy Roman Inquistioners not Christians? Does a evil son of a bitch have to be a Satanist or pagan, or Darwinist, rather than a Christian because one does not want that evil son of a bitch associated with they're religion?