Forum: Christian Ideology

Christianity is not the cause of the controversy, it is just the dominant religion in the societies where the science comes from. If another religion were dominant, then the other relgion would oppose evolutinary theory. This would be true for all religions, except those religions which are centered around selfish genes, which see man as in a continual struggle for existence. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The last part of that sentence refers to "eternal nature" as the supposed almighty creator.I'm glad you brought this up because now we can discuss Haeckels incredibly deep involvement with the Volkish movement again, as noted by historian Gasman. There are of course *many* more historians who see Darwinism as influencing intellectual climate of opinion to a large extent. Obviously making your little joke on an internetforum about it is ok, but of course you should not leat people to think that you are somehow making an argument about anything. You are just playing the dunce of course, talking like you do, I hope that's understood by everyone. I hope it's understood that no single historian would give you the time of day, you're just acting as a complete idiot, which maybe has some perverse entertainment value to some people.http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"IFone surveys the origins of the Volkish movement in Germany during the three or four decades prior to the First World War it is apparent that Haeckel played an influential, significant, indeed a decisive role in its genesis and subsequent development. An impressive number of the most influential Volkish writers, propagandists, and spokesmen were influenced by or involved in some way with either Haeckel or his Monist followers. In the development of racism, racial eugenics, Germanic Christianity, nature worship, and anti-Semitism, Haeckel and the Monists were an important source and a major inspiration for many of the diverse streams of thought which came together later on under the banner of National Socialism. ""One of the most influential authors in the field of racial anthropology and eugenics was the physician Ludwig Woltman (1871-1907), Who has been described as the 'most important representative of the Gobineau theory of the Nordic race' in Germany at the turn of the century! Woltmann studied under Haeckel and in 1900 submitted a manuscript, ‘Der politische Anthropologie,' to an essay contest in which Haeckel, Heinrich Ziegler, and another Monist, Professor J. Conrad, were the judges. The contest itself, which ultimately led to the publication of ten volumes of influential social Darwinist tracts, was sponsored by the industrialist, Alfred Krupp, and its theme was: What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism for application to inner political development and the laws of the state?'2 ""Even closer than Woltmann to Haeckel's social theories was Otto Ammon (1842-1916), another leading social Darwinist and racial
anthropologist.7 Ammon was among the authors recommended for additional reading in the Weltrtsel,8and in three inf1uential books, Die naturliche Auslese beim Menschen (1893), Der Darwinismusgegen die Sozialdemokratie (1893) and Die Gesellschaftsordnung und ihre naturlichen Grundlagen (1895), Ammon very closely paralleled Haeckel's social Darwinism. For Ammon, predictably, the laws of nature were also the laws of society. Struggle for existence and the inequality of all men, he wrote, were permanent aspects of life. Bravery, cunning, competition were all parts of the eternal scheme of things and it would be foolish to wish them away. ""In regard to the racial theory of the Germans as Aryans, one should take note of the famous colleague of Haeckel, Ernst Krause (pseudonym Carus Steme).18 Together with Haeckel, Krause edited the joumal Kosmos, the chief organ of the Darwinian movement in Germany in the 1870'S and in the 1880's. In addition, Krause had been the noted author of popular biographies of Erasmus and Charles Darwin. In these books he had attempted to demonstrate the continuity which he believed to exist between English and German Darwinism, and he became one of the most widely read popularizers of Darwinian ideas in Germany. But Krause was also at the same time an imposing figure in the Volkish movement. In the early 1890'S, and shortly before his death, he wrote two influential books in defense of Aryanism and Germanic ideology."
"In offering further observations on the Jewish question, Haeckel asserted that he considered anti-Semitism to be a 'national' and 'racial' problem rather than a religious one. And evoking the spectre of intrinsic Jewish cosmopolitanism, Haeckel contended that the Jews were alienated from German life and society and that the Germans therefore felt ill at ease among the Jews. In addition, the problem, he explained, was exacerbated by the fact that Germany was in the midst of a national renaissance. Since nationalism and not intemationalism was the prevailing political current not only in Germany but throughout all ofEurope, it was therefore to be expected that anti-Semitism would continue to grow and develop. "regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are lying, the thread is just another attempt by bigoted Darwinist fanatics to dismiss comprehensive historical research into how Darwinism influenced intellectual climate of opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I would stay out of it, if other people confronted these odious fanatics about their sick attitude towards the science of history, specially history related to the holocaust.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Obviously it is slated as a parody of my thread about Darwinist ideology, which is why it takes word for word much of my post 1 of that thread, and which is why it contains no serious argument whatsoever about christianity.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Maybe someday you will learn that it's inappropiate to make a joke of the history of the holocaust.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mr Hambre:
"he has made the claim that Darwinian evolutionary theory is essentially indistinguishable from Nazism."It's just in your fantasy, I never made such a claim."Many here have proposed rational arguments that make crucial distinctions between the theory of evolution by natural selection and its misuse by racists."As I argue, the theory is faulty, and the fault tends to support Social Darwinism. Many evolutionists have argued the same thing about Spencer's formulation "survival of the fittest", that it is faulty and that the fault tends to support Social Darwinism. The only difference is that I argue it with Natural Selection theory in general."All of these patient, intelligent arguments have been ignored without exception by Syamsu,"I have never seen any patient, intelligent argument about the relationship between Nazism and Darwinism on these forums. There's always some joker who wants to impose some opinion and then end all patient, and intelligent argument about it.Mainly Nazism is the suspect ideology, but apparently you wouldn't want investigation into Nazism either, by your logic. By your logic ideology play no role whatsoever, you have a completely untennable position. You've got the tone right of rational argument, it's a pity that your actual argument doesn't make sense.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I see that you're just another joker. Just don't argue about things you neither have the patience or intelligence to argue about.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Go read that essay of Gasman I referenced in the other thread, or read Fischer's Nazi Germany: A new history. There you can find pages and pages about the intricate relationship of Darwinism to Nazism. I don't see any use to compact it to a single point.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I once saw a Christian who helped an old lady across the street, therefore Christianity has nothing to do with any genocide whatsoever. Don't you understand rational logic? If Christianity is a baseballbat then you don't blame the manufacturers of baseballbats if people go hitting each other over the head with baseballbats. Let's cut a deal, I absolve Darwinism of all complicity in any genocide, if you absolve Christianity of any complicity in any genocide whatsoever, ok? Why do you keep harping on Christianity and not mention the German militarist tradition at all, you are obviously so biased. You should first read every book in the world about the holocaust, before you have any right to speak about it you ignorant fool.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

oh you seem to have been making a point that there aren't many books on the relationship between Darwinism and Nazism. That's true, but whenever it is in a book, it is noted as very influential, such as in Fischer's Nazi Germany: a new history, which is a standard historybook about Nazi Germany, or Gasman's essay I referenced. I can't explain why there aren't any books solely dealing with the subject Darwinism and Nazism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well actually that was just my parody of what is usually offered to me as if it were rational discourse on the subject of the relationship between Darwinism and Nazism.I don't agree at all that Christianity wasn't directly involved in any genocide. Notably the catholic church have changed / ammended their teachings on Jews after the holocaust. Now there aren't that many catholic priests criticizing the Jews in their sermons. There aren't any scientists going on about the "Jewish Question", as Haeckel did, either.You would make a terrible historian, which is after all a science of sorts as well, so it makes you a terrible scientist as well. I think it is clearly you who is being anti-science here. You are needlessly injecting politics into the science of history. I have the ideal that science should be free from politics, while you just blandly assume that Darwinist science is free from politics. It's not, as you can see when reading Dawkins, or Lorenz, or Haeckel or Darwin. Or actually you could see that when reading any Darwinist literature whatsoever, because, as I argue, the basic theory of Natural Selection itself is ideologically compromised.Natural Selection should be formulated individually, in stead of comparitively, if we would apply the same rules which we apply in every other science. That Natural Selection is still formulated comparitively mainly has to do with people's general desire for judgementalism, and especially atheist desire to have a place outside of standard religion to talk in terms of good and bad.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker, it has obvious atheist prejudices, and anti-religious sentiment. You should more read Darwin's "Descent of Man" to see prejudices in Darwin's writing, which is easily available online on countless sites.Natural Selection is defined along the lines of the one "form" reproducing more then the other form (comparitive), and this should be the one "form" reproducing or not reproducing (individual).If black moths encroach on white moths, because the trees turn black, then white moths are being selected against by the environmental factor of black moths, as well as the environmental factor of birds. If an infestation of birds kills all the moths then the moths are selected against by the environment.I'm not going to explain the fault in natural selection any further to you, because I don't think you would provide worthwile argument. If it has your intellectual interest then you can just look into it yourself, and with such an attitude of intellectual interest you would probably come up with the same arguments for and against as me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu