Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 03-06-2002, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
In other words, evolutionary theory lays open the idea that morals and such do not come from God, and are not absolute, and may not therefore be anything more than practical ideas that are subject to change. The Nazis thought thus their brand of morality was superiour to those that stemmed from, or at least were advocated by religion.

What a load of crap and perverted wishful thinking. As if the concept of ethnic cleansing, or whatever you want to call it, originated contemporaneously with Darwin. Go read your Bible. Whatever you consider the "Genealogy of Morals," to coin a phrase, you can find plenty of mass murder in the Old Testament.

Dr.GH · 03-06-2002, 04:29 PM

Nazis might be considered "social Darwinists" but they can not be argued to be "Darwinists." To do so exposes ones ignoracne of Darwin's writing and history.

bluefugue · 03-06-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

evolutionary theory lays open the idea that morals and such do not come from God, and are not absolute, and may not therefore be anything more than practical ideas that are subject to change.

This is utterly irrelevant. Science is not responsible for the moral lessons people choose to take from it. Science is a method of describing and categorizing the natural world -- nothing more. To bring up nonsense about Nazis and morality clouds the issue. You could as well say that "Copernican astronomy teaches man that he is not central to the universe and therefore has no significance." Should, therefore, astronomy texts switch back to the Ptolemaic system?

MrDarwin · 03-06-2002, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You guys who think reading Mein Kempf somehow can prove the Nazis were not social darwinists are just put of your field. The Nazis borrowed from the ideas floating around, and one of the most powerful fairly new idea out there at the time was indeed the concept of Darwinism. By the way, what I mean by fairly new is that it had been out long anough to work it's way into the world-view of a large segment of soceity. You have to remember that Germany was the most educated nation on earth.
One of the most widely read books in Germany right after WWI dealt with some of these ideas adding into them a cultural component via a suppossed dichotomy between "kultur" and civilization. The idea was that civilization of the West was dying out and Germany was evolving into a new system where strong, steely leadership would lead nations into the future recovering the inherent culture of the German race.
You've also got to consider the eugenics angle too.
By the way, the Nazis also borrowed very heavily from socialism/communism. They just developed their own brand of race socialism.
It is foolish to think Darwin's ideas did not play a major role in Nazi thinking.

And Andrea Yates drowned her children because she was a Christian. What's your point?

lpetrich · 03-06-2002, 08:53 PM

Quote:

randman:
... However, the perveted Nazi nation of their own brand of survival of the fittest, in their eyes of course, is not a totally illogical conclusion of the principles of atheistic evolution, ...

I wonder if randman has ever read any of Mein Kampf, because in it, Adolf Hitler claimed such things as "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," and he cited Jesus Christ's famous temple temper tantrum as a prototypical example of fighting the Jews.

How much "atheism" can be found in claiming to follow the will of the "Almighty Creator"???

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

theyeti · 03-06-2002, 08:59 PM

<Moderator hat on>
This thread is about the talkorigins FAQ rebutting Wells. Arguments about Hitler are fine for a new thread, but they have no place in this one. Any more Hitler stuff and the thread will be closed.

theyeti

KnightWhoSaysNi · 03-08-2002, 02:05 PM

Sorry if someone already brought this to the forum's attention, but someone just wrote up a reply to Tamzek's critique on the ARN website:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm" target="_blank">Reply to Tamzek</a>

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nightshade:
Sorry if someone already brought this to the forum's attention, but someone just wrote up a reply to Tamzek's critique on the ARN website:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm" target="_blank">Reply to Tamzek</a>

It has been mentioned earlier in this thread. This defense of Wells is even less accurate that Well was. It is bad -- really bad.

03-08-2002, 02:05 PM	#37
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Sorry if someone already brought this to the forum's attention, but someone just wrote up a reply to Tamzek's critique on the ARN website: <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/cl_iconsstillstanding.htm" target="_blank">Reply to Tamzek</a> [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 04:29 PM	#32
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Nazis might be considered "social Darwinists" but they can not be argued to be "Darwinists." To do so exposes ones ignoracne of Darwin's writing and history.

03-06-2002, 08:59 PM	#36
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	<Moderator hat on> This thread is about the talkorigins FAQ rebutting Wells. Arguments about Hitler are fine for a new thread, but they have no place in this one. Any more Hitler stuff and the thread will be closed. theyeti

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.