Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
229 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux (4 members, 225 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,687 Year: 3,333/14,102 Month: 274/724 Week: 32/91 Day: 17/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nazism
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3799 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 91 (286487)
02-14-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-14-2006 1:04 PM


Re: Social Darwinism
The right wing of the republican party belives in social darwinism also.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-14-2006 1:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-14-2006 1:31 PM randman has responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 17 of 91 (286493)
02-14-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-14-2006 1:13 PM


Re: Social Darwinism
Care to prove that? Because that's total BS, and I would hope you know that already.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 1:13 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 2:51 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 509 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 18 of 91 (286496)
02-14-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
02-14-2006 12:42 PM


Re: I don't see how you are confused
randman writes:

Frankly, it's bizarre to me how you could be confused. The NAZIs did believe in social darwinism and eugenics, and adopted a race-based ideology/pseudo-religion. Darwinism was an inspiration for that sort of thinking although the master race stuff predated Darwin. They used Darwin though to claim scientific merit for their ideas.

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!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 12:42 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 91 (286537)
02-14-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
02-14-2006 12:42 PM


Re: I don't see how you are confused
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 12:42 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3799 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 91 (286542)
02-14-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-14-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Social Darwinism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-14-2006 1:31 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-14-2006 2:54 PM randman has not yet responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 4734 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 21 of 91 (286545)
02-14-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
02-14-2006 2:51 PM


Re: Social Darwinism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 2:51 PM randman has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 22 of 91 (286814)
02-15-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by macaroniandcheese
02-14-2006 12:53 PM


Re: reply to dan

did you actually read what i posted?

Of course. Try to justify those statements with any verses from the NT.


ABE and i'm really tired of the no-true-scotsman stuff, too.

How does this relate to the no-true-scotsman? It has nothing to do with that logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-14-2006 12:53 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-15-2006 9:42 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2828 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 23 of 91 (286820)
02-15-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by riVeRraT
02-15-2006 9:24 AM


Re: reply to dan
Of course. Try to justify those statements with any verses from the NT.

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.

How does this relate to the no-true-scotsman? It has nothing to do with that logic.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2006 9:24 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2006 10:15 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 24 of 91 (286836)
02-15-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by macaroniandcheese
02-15-2006 9:42 AM


Re: reply to dan

Of course. Try to justify those statements with any verses from the NT.

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.

Right, so we agree. That is why I could find no truth in those statements.


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-15-2006 9:42 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-15-2006 12:46 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2006 1:02 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 3336 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 25 of 91 (286913)
02-15-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by riVeRraT
02-15-2006 10:15 AM


Not the issue here?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2006 10:15 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 02-15-2006 12:59 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 26 of 91 (286918)
02-15-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by IrishRockhound
02-15-2006 12:46 PM


Re: Not the issue here?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by IrishRockhound, posted 02-15-2006 12:46 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 91 (286920)
02-15-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by riVeRraT
02-15-2006 10:15 AM


no true christian
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by riVeRraT, posted 02-15-2006 10:15 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by 1.61803, posted 02-15-2006 1:16 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 02-15-2006 1:20 PM Modulous has not yet responded
 Message 35 by riVeRraT, posted 02-16-2006 7:55 AM Modulous has responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 28 of 91 (286925)
02-15-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
02-15-2006 1:02 PM


Re: no true christian
...right Modulous.. case and point: David Koresh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2006 1:02 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 91 (286928)
02-15-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
02-15-2006 1:02 PM


Re: no true christian
We cannot look into the heart of a man to see if he does accept Christ.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2006 1:02 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by 1.61803, posted 02-15-2006 1:24 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 30 of 91 (286931)
02-15-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
02-15-2006 1:20 PM


Re: no true christian
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 02-15-2006 1:20 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 02-15-2006 1:33 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021