See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Bloodthirsty Liberal » Muslims Don’t Say the Darnedest Things
2. Yes Hillary - there are stupid questions! « Jim Blazsik
3. Don’t dare say these words around muslims | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
4. Moonbattery

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #664941
   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:42 pm, zeroangel said:

   hitcharide:

   What exactly about not believeing in god do you think leads to Nazism? It is a total non-sequitor.

   Furthermore, nothing about being an atheist says you can’t have strong morals or values, you simply don’t derive them from a supreme being. No one really does anyway, since no one can talk to “god.”

   I am not going to argue over the absurd idea that Christians are oppressed and atheists aren’t. The very fact that atheism is akin to political suicide is testament to the contrary.

   Furthermore, if you are seriously suggesting that Germany in 1939 wasn’t indeed overwhelming Christian (to include Nazis) I am not going to bother anymore tonight. I have to go anyhow. Until tommorow.

2. #664944
   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:46 pm, jangar said:

   Gee, muslims sure seem to have a lot in common with ultra-liberal democrats…no?

3. #664945
   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:49 pm, hitcharide said:

   For zeroangel, I dug out my copy…it’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” William Shrirer. I suggest you read pages 234-240 which explain in great detail how Christianity was first oppressed and them wiped out by hitler and nazism. hitler was big on darwinism…he believed in forced abortions due to “racial impurity” and to weed out the “defectives,” like those with down syndrome. There’ve been a few liberals, starting with margaret sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, two lies for the price of one) who advocated abortion for those who just weren’t deserving of life according to them. Revisionist history just can’t hold a candle to documented fact…..

4. #664948
   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:54 pm, hitcharide said:

   What exactly about not believeing in god do you think leads to Nazism?–as said by zeroangel. No…it’s about CONTROL, the desire of some to inflict their belief or culture on others. Respect for others is not a grace seen in islamists or athiests. Next you say “Furthermore, if you are seriously suggesting that Germany in 1939 wasn’t indeed overwhelming Christian (to include Nazis) I am not going to bother anymore tonight.” I’ve shown you where to find the facts, and I have no doubt you will promptly ignore it because it doesn’t back up your wild and unfounded claims. Your hatred of the truth changes nothing…your disregard for the truth changes nothing, and repeating the lie doesn’t make it become true. I suggest in the future you do a little research so you don’t get caught out in your ignorance…and I don’t say that in a mean way, I’m just saying that you’ve embarassed yourself by stating something that is so easily proven a lie.

5. #664949
   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:56 pm, hitcharide said:

   As Coulter said, liberals finally found common ground with muslims….in their desire to subjugate Christianity! The old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing. Problem there is that once the muslims get done with the Christians and the Jews, who is next? Non-muslims, of course. Tolerance and respect are punch lines for liberal jokes and nothing more.

6. #664970
   On March 31st, 2009 at 10:31 pm, zeroangel said:

   Oh geez. hitcharide, I know you must be new, but I have argued successfully against all these things many times in the past (and even in this thread).

   Darwin himself was not a “social Darwinist” he deplored the idea; as do any sensible “Darwinists.”

   If you need further evidence that Nazis were not atheists: consider the phrase “Gott min uns,” surely an atheist regime would not have their army associated with such a phrase.

   Furthermore, though I have not read the work cited, I know it is not without criticism and it is certainly does not sound like it is representative of the facts. Nothing short of a census containing demographics on the religious dispersion of the time will convince me otherwise. The idea that the vast majority of Germany in 1939 (and by extension, most of the Nazis) were Christian is just common sense. You could indeed make the argument that the Nazis were trying to replace Christianity with a new religion with Hitler as the Messiah (as I had mentioned earlier) that still does not make Nazis atheists at all.

   Ann Coulter also tried to repeat ridiculous claims about evolution from the ID crowd. Ann Coulter (though I often agree with many things she says) is a polemic and I have no doubt doesn’t believe many of the things she says (at least I hope not, because that would mean she is purposely and willfully ignorant in regard to evolution.)

   If you have any questions about how (or indeed many outspoken atheist authors) feel about Muslims I suggest you educate yourself and read a handful of their books.

7. #664974
   On March 31st, 2009 at 10:36 pm, zeroangel said:

   *above should read:

   If you have any questions about how I (or indeed many outspoken atheist authors)

   Sorry.

8. #665063
   On April 1st, 2009 at 1:32 am, yohannbiimu said:

   On March 31st, 2009 at 9:56 pm, hitcharide said:

   As Coulter said, liberals finally found common ground with muslims….in their desire to subjugate Christianity! The old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing. Problem there is that once the muslims get done with the Christians and the Jews, who is next? Non-muslims, of course. Tolerance and respect are punch lines for liberal jokes and nothing more.

   The liberals will gladly join the Muslims, either by becoming ones themselves, or by being part of the dhimmi throng–which they are already very much accustomed to. It won’t matter that they’ll live like serfs and worse–they’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that there won’t be any of those darned Christians around anymore.

9. #665076
   On April 1st, 2009 at 2:20 am, hitcharide said:

   Zeroangel said “Furthermore, though I have not read the work cited, I know it is not without criticism and it is certainly does not sound like it is representative of the facts.” My apologies, but that is another lie, because Mr. Shrirer wrote the definitive book on nazi germany. He was a reporter stationed in Germany for some time before/during the war, his research is exhaustive and endlessly footnoted. Why don’t you admit that nothing will convince you of the facts; to quote Simon and Garfunkel, “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Further, Ms. Coulter makes no claims; she merely uses various authors and their own words to dispel the notion that darwin had any clue at all…much to the embarassment of various authors. It’s reminiscent of when Rush Limbaugh, when he had his t.v. show, would show clinton saying one thing one day and then denying he ever said any such thing the next. Anyhow, this has ended as I said it would…respectfully, you are very wrong, I’ve supplied evidence supporting that, and because it doesn’t fit in your worldview, you choose to disregard the information. I’m satisfied where the preponderance of evidence lies, and I’d bet most others would agree; but even if no one agreed, it would not change what you deny as historical fact. You have my sympathy….

10. #665077
    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:22 am, yohannbiimu said:

    On March 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu / right4life:

    Yes, I get it, the “not a true Christian” argument. It still doesn’t mean they were atheists, pagans, or otherwise.

    Indeed, if you asked a typical Nazi of the type we are discussing, “Do you think that Jesus was the son of God?” They would most likely say “yes” and probably claim to be some kind of Christian.

    zero, claiming something based upon one’s obvious ignorance, or in many cases wanting to contaminate the doctrine of Christ with perverse “Aryan” theories about who Jesus was and such (which men like Alfred Rosenberg fomented in their Nazi writings) cannot be termed “Christian.” In every sense of the word, Nazism was an abomination to every Christian sensitivity.

    If you were a Nazi, then it didn’t matter what else you called yourself, you were a Nazi. A Christian CANNOT be a Nazi. They are two completely contrary ideologies:

    Christianity calls its followers to be personally responsible for their own actions. Nazism demanded its followers to obey the dictates of the State (Hitler).

    Christ commanded his disciples to turn the other cheek when confronted physically. Nazism meant taking to the street, and beating down all opposition by force.

    Christ taught that his kingdom was not of this world, and likewise, his church and its members were to live as citizens of his heavenly kingdom as holy saints. Nazism taught that its citizens were to take hold of the whole of the Earth, and subjugate it (similar to what Islam teaches).

    Does one call himself a Nazi AND a Christian if his actions and loyalties are 180 degrees contrary to the doctrines of Christ and his apostles? I suppose he could, but he does so out of ignorance, because you cannot serve God and a cult of personality, which is essentially what Nazism was.

    Words mean things. “Christian” means one who is a follower of Christ. One’s “Christianity” is irrelevant if he pledges his loyalty to a totalitarian dictator who commands him to disobey Christ.

    Let’s say, for example, I join a society of atheists, but then proceed to go to church, worship God, and tell others in the atheistic society about Jesus. Am I an “atheist,” even though I insist (stupidly) that I AM?

    A Nazi was (and in some cases still IS) a follower of Adolf Hitler. You cannot be a follower of Hitler AND Christ. Does THAT make any sense to you?

11. #665079
    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:31 am, hitcharide said:

    Yohann, it’s my fault. I attempted to use reason, logic and fact with someone who doesn’t recognize such things. Now and then I forget that liberals and muslims don’t want to hear an opposing viewpoint, they’ll do their best to stifle it, lie about it, bury it…anything but tolerate or accept it. I really didn’t expect her to acknowledge the truth, that’s not part of her agenda, but I was miffed by her slight of a widely respected and accomplished author. Mr. Shrirer was no liberal hack “journalist” of today…though he WAS in the ny times quite a bit back in the 30’s and 40’s, maybe if I post some of that she’d accept it, since we all know the n.y. times of today to be above reproach (pardon, bile rising.)

12. #665115
    On April 1st, 2009 at 7:46 am, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    Why don’t you admit that nothing will convince you of the facts;

    I’ve already told you a 1939 census will do that. I have no doubt it will support me when I say Germany was a predominantly Christian nation and the rank and file Nazi and Nazi supporter was no doubt a Christian. You have yet to explain “Got Mit Uns” or “Positive Christianity.”

    Further, Ms. Coulter makes no claims; she merely uses various authors and their own words to dispel the notion that darwin had any clue at all

    Ms. Coulter is completely ignorant when it comes to evolution. If you want to try and argue any of her ridiculous points please go ahead and try. It was tried in another very recent thread you apparently missed. If you honestly think Coulter has any clue at all on this topic, you are the one that has my sympathy.

    or in many cases wanting to contaminate the doctrine of Christ with perverse “Aryan” theories about who Jesus was and such (which men like Alfred Rosenberg fomented in their Nazi writings) cannot be termed “Christian.”

    …and here we have (again) the “not a TRUE Christian” argument, illustrating my point (once again).

    Anyhow, hitcharide, I know you are new, but I am a he not a she and I am no liberal. I am most accurately described as a libertarian or “Objectivist-light.” I am an independent that is pro-2nd Amendment, pro-defense, fiscally conservative, and liberal on most social issues.

13. #665128
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu:

    One more thing, the major problem with your argument above is that the single defining aspect of an atheist (and indeed the only thing atheists could be said to have in common) is a lack of belief in god. The defining aspect of a Christian is the divinity of Jesus Christ, not adhering to his teachings.

    If you are claiming adhering to the teachings of Christ makes you a Christian; that would mean that an atheist could be a “Christian.” I have heard this view from a Rabbi before, but I have not heard it from a Christian. Is that what you are suggesting?

14. #665152
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:50 am, zeroangel said:

    Finally, to be completely fair and historically accurate (let it not be said again that the truth does not concern me).

    Christianity WAS in decline in Germany preceding WWII, however, most Germans would still self-identify as being Christians.

    Hitler DID attack clergy and churches, but only because they opposed the regime and not just for being Christian (as opposed to Jews). Hitler also at times used religious influences to further his goals. Being “anti-clerical” is a different thing then being “anti-religious.” It is completely possible to be “anti-clerical” and still believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    The case could be made that some of the Nazi leadership were occultists or pagans. This is a far cry from atheists and still, the rank and file no doubt self-identified as being Christian.

    I have never denied any of these things, indeed I eluded to them earlier.

15. #665184
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am, right4life said:

    I’ve shown you where to find the facts, and I have no doubt you will promptly ignore it because it doesn’t back up your wild and unfounded claims. Your hatred of the truth changes nothing…your disregard for the truth changes nothing, and repeating the lie doesn’t make it become true

    talking to zero is casting pearls before swine…every time I’ve ever seen him in a conversation with anyone, he repeats lies and unsubstantiated claims….he never provides any support for his positions…becasue in his mind, he speaks from sinai…he’s his own little god, and whatever he says…goes.

    but his lies cannot go unchallenged.

16. #665185
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am, right4life said:

    Darwin himself was not a “social Darwinist” he deplored the idea; as do any sensible “Darwinists.”

    this is an OBVIOUS lie…

    “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

    darwin was eugenicist…eugenics FLOWS from evolution…you are a complete and total fool.

17. #665191
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am, right4life said:

    Oh geez. hitcharide, I know you must be new, but I have argued successfully against all these things many times in the past (and even in this thread).

    only in your mind….you’ve been proven wrong so many times its laughable…

    you need psychological help, seriously.

18. #665194
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am, zeroangel said:

    R4L purposely and willfully left out the second paragraph:

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

    …but he knows this. I have pointed this out to him before.

19. #665205
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am, right4life said:

    but he knows this. I have pointed this out to him before.

    and it changes nothing about darwin’s support for eugenics…get a clue…

20. #665208
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am, right4life said:

    A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

    “The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

21. #665212
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am, zeroangel said:

    but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present EVIL.

    So, Darwin supported something that he says outright is evil? Umm… huh?

22. #665222
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am, right4life said:

    Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement — his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as “president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain”), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the “eugenics crusade.” Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing “to cut off communication” with his disciple Mivart when the latter “criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.”

    link

23. #665224
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:04 am, right4life said:

    So, Darwin supported something that he says outright is evil? Umm… huh

    its rather obvious, to everyone but you atheist wackos.

24. #665227
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    I can’t believe I forgot this:

    Just as a side note, I’d remind everyone that hitler outlawed the Bible

    Patently false and an obvious lie. I can’t find a source that directly refutes this nonsense (probably because it is so ridiculous) but here’s a start:

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

25. #665228
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am, right4life said:

    The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

    The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

    John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

    In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

    link

    and its SO OBVIOUS in the theory of evolution, that the races are ‘differently evolved’ so one must be more fit than the other…and thus we get the racism inherent in evolution…and the idea of eugenics…the ‘master race’ as darwin talked about himself..and I quoted earlier…

    to deny this is to deny reality, or be an atheist liar.

26. #665233
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:08 am, right4life said:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

    “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

    theres your hairygod in all his ‘glory’

    and that is evolution…racist and eugenicist as hell…deal with it…

27. #665249
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:22 am, zeroangel said:

    The truth about Einstien:

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05.html

    And fourth, at least to another scientist like me, it seems unlikely that Einstein would have been guilty of saying that he had “despised” something immediately after saying that he “never had any special interest” in it.

    Einstein explained that early in the Hitler years he had casually mentioned to some journalist that hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom. He added that this statement had subsequently been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own.9 Unpublished letter, Einstein Archives, item number 58-548.

28. #665251
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:22 am, zeroangel said:
    The truth about Einstien:

    are you trying to refute what I posted earlier?

    so you’re saying TIME magazine was lying?? too funny..

29. #665258
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am, zeroangel said:

    From the article I posted (which you obviously didn’t read):

    As far as I have been able to find, the first appearance of this statement was in Time Magazine, December 23, 1940 (page 38).1

    Time does not give any source or any indication that their reporter heard him say it.

30. #665265
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am, right4life said:

    Time does not give any source or any indication that their reporter heard him say it.

    you’re seriously delusional…they attribute it as a DIRECT QUOTE…please…

    the world’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. Says he:

    “Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . .

    “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

31. #665272
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am, zeroangel said:
    From the article I posted (which you obviously didn’t read):

    oh yeah some article on the internet with a picture of some guy holding a monkey mask!!

    oh yeah I believe it

32. #665279
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am, zeroangel said:

    Oh, a reporter from Time magazine in 1940 said it, so it must be true. Let’s just ignore what Einstein himself penned with his own hand and the comments of the Einstein archive.

    What do you need? A forwarded email from Dr. Waterhouse himself? Do you want to get in touch with Ms. Wolff in Jerusalem?

33. #665285
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:42 am, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:37 am, zeroangel said:
    Oh, a reporter from Time magazine in 1940 said it, so it must be true. Let’s just ignore what Einstein himself penned with his own hand and the comments of the Einstein archive.

    so a direct quote from einstein is a lie?

    you’re delusional. totally laughable.

34. #665287
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am, right4life said:

    oh and your quote from einstein…einstein ADMITS he said it…but its been ‘exaggerated’ sounds like a poltician saying its been ‘taken out of context’

    right.

35. #665291
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am, amboytimes said:

    Missing from the list.

    The word Women, and the term “gender equality“.

36. #665302
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am, zeroangel said:

    You are an idiot R4L. The whole point of the article was that Einstein was likely misquoted and his comments were completely exaggerated. Einstein was no politician and often took great care to choose his words carefully.

    This viewpoint is supported by Ms. Wolff at the Einstein archive in Jerusalem and a letter written by Einstein himself.

    I have no doubt that if you actually had the letter in question in your hands and could compare it with other writings from Einstein you would claim it was a forgery.

    On the other hand, you will hold up the second hand (at the least) words of a reporter, because it happens to agree with what you want to believe.

    You are disputatious to the extreme and willfully obtuse. I do not doubt that Einstein said

    hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom.

    that is a far cry from the lavish praise you attribute to him giving to the “church.”

    I have noticed that whenever you get caught in an obvious lie or falsehood you post a number of rapid fire posts to drown out the other commenter without addressing their points; or indeed simply repeat your claim that has been shown to be false. I believe you do this in hopes that the offending comments won’t be read. Therefore, I am going to repost #215, just to piss you off:

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present EVIL.
    -Charles Darwin

37. #665308
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:02 am, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am, zeroangel said:
    You are an idiot R4L. The whole point of the article was that Einstein was likely misquoted and his comments were completely exaggerated. Einstein was no politician and often took great care to choose his words carefully.

    delusional. from your own quote..

    Einstein explained that early in the Hitler years he had casually mentioned to some journalist that hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom

    so EINSTIEN ADMITS IT!! and why shouldn’t anyone believe TIME magazine? hmmm?? you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt…

    and yes I believe what the reporter reported…because years tend to make a person forgetful.

    your quote of charles darwin does nothing to refute what he said in the paragraph before…so it just makes you look idiotic. as usual

38. #665313
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:10 am, zeroangel said:

    Einstein explained that early in the Hitler years he had casually mentioned to some journalist that hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom. He added that this statement had subsequently been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own.9 Unpublished letter, Einstein Archives, item number 58-548.

    So now you are claiming that Einstein forgot what he said and that the reporter must have been unbiased and completely accurate whereas Einstein was confused about what he himself said?

    Refute? Darwin outright says he thinks “social Darwinism” is Evil! He admits that circumventing natural selection could be injurious, but then goes on to say that NOT doing it would be EVIL!

    What else do you want?

    you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt…

    How many times must you recycle the same tired insults? Can’t you at least find a thesaurus?

39. #665321
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am, right4life said:

    So now you are claiming that Einstein forgot what he said and that the reporter must have been unbiased and completely accurate whereas Einstein was confused about what he himself said?

    people tend to forget what they said years before. and people tend to ‘change’ what they said to appeal to various groups.

    so yes I believe time magazine.

    Refute? Darwin outright says he thinks “social Darwinism” is Evil! He admits that circumventing natural selection could be injurious, but then goes on to say that NOT doing it would be EVIL!

    you’re a total idiot. so he lied when he said:

    Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”

    and quote me where he rebuked his children and his cousin, Galton….

    you cannot.

    all his disciples were eugenicists…like huxley…

    “It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.” (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], “Emancipation-Black and White,” in Rhys E., ed., “Lectures and Lay Sermons,” [1871], Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

40. #665323
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am, John Deaux said:

    right4life,

    Let me give you a couple of pieces of advice that I ocassionally fail to follow myself.

    1. Never argue with an idiot. People watching might not be able to tell the difference.

    2. Never argue with an idiot because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Pride has never allowed zeroangel to admit being wrong, do you think it will this time?

41. #665325
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am, right4life said:

    “‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

42. #665327
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am, John Deaux said:

    very true my friend…sometimes I just enjoy baiting the fool…the devil made me do it…

43. #665328
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am, right4life said:

    Pride has never allowed zeroangel to admit being wrong, do you think it will this time?

    I think it was milton who said:

    ‘the devil, that proud spirit, hates to be mocked’

44. #665336
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am, zeroangel said:

    I have dealt with these comments before too; I dealt with them in this thread #170. Just because people in the 19th century were racist (whether they were Darwinists or not) does not mean evolution implies racism.

    You are a nonsensical little therian R4L and I really shouldn’t be bothered. The problem with your idiocy is that the casual reader or commenter might indeed be swayed. For example, our friend, John here, who is likely still sore about being exposed as ignorant of evolution. Doubtless he would be a cheerleader for Hitler himself if he thought the fascist monster was arguing against something I said.

45. #665351
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am, John Deaux said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am, zeroangel said:
    The problem with your idiocy is that the casual reader or commenter might indeed be swayed. For example, our friend, John here, who is likely still sore about being exposed as ignorant of evolution.

    Or you could just be wrong.

46. #665367
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am, zeroangel said:

    John:

    I assure you I am not wrong and I again humbly suggest that you read Jerry Coyne’s book. You demonstrated a profound and relatively common misunderstand of evolution. I sincerely was trying to educate you and did so with the best intentions. If I ever came across as rude I humbly apologize and accept that I can be, at times, a bit scornful.

    I am truly and deeply sorry if I behaved that way to you.

47. #665447
    On April 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    If you take Charles Darwin at his published word, then you have to conclude that he was a “creationist.” Would anyone like to debate THAT point?

    Going back to lgm’s original “point” about the “religious right” being anti-Semites, and always on the search for someone ELSE to hate, THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nazi Germany. Anything that lgm may or may not have experienced as a result of the “religious right” in America had nothing whatsoever to with hatred of Jews. That is an abominable lie.

    THAT cannot be disputed.

48. #665591
    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu:

    If you are referring to the fact that Darwin was at one point religious then, Darwin was a creationist; that is, before he lost his faith due to his discoveries and research.

    If you are instead talking about his poetic use of the word, “creation” that is hardly an argument for the idea that Darwin was a “creationist.”

    Anyhow, you are indeed correct on the second point; the “religious-right” of today can hardly be said to be “anti-Semites.” That is, other than the portion of folks that believe Jews will go to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as their savior (hat tip to fundamentalists here).

49. #665604
    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am, John Deaux said:

    you see everyone who doesn’t agree with evolution just doesn’t understand it

    to the atheist/evolutionist any disagreement is ignorance on YOUR part…never on theirs.

    they prove the bible…

    professing to be wise, they have become fools…

50. #665663
    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu:

    If you are referring to the fact that Darwin was at one point religious then, Darwin was a creationist; that is, before he lost his faith due to his discoveries and research.

    No, I am talking about what he wrote in Origin of Species, where he said the following:

    “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur in this view of life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

    These words speak FAR more in terms of Creationist ideas that what is said by those who support Intelligent Design (ID), who do not talk about a creator at all. Meanwhile, Darwinists continually call ID proponents as “Creationists.”

    Darwinism has been flatly debunked, in every possible way (molecularly, genetically, the fossil record, etc). Those who say that it is “proved” hype nonsense. I am not saying that evolution hasn’t or doesn’t occur (in fact, most creationists do not dispute that evolution did not happen within the realm of the creation of species within the same genus, family, order, class, and phylum–even though such evolution has yet to be observed). Evolution, per se, has never been a notion that has been denied by ANYONE in the scientific community. Darwinism, on the other hand, is another subject altogether.

    Where scientific objectivity and proper scientific method and Darwinism part ways is the idea that a simple one-cell organism (which just happened to be out of some “primordial soup”) developed over time into human beings with eyes, ears, opposable thumbs and huge brains. That conclusion cannot be made from scientific evidence. That conclusion can only be made because you cannot believe that the origin of all life was created by a creator, because you only believe in a materialist notion of natural law and processes.

    Hence, Darwinism is at the very least a faith, certainly no less than that of a creationist.

51. #665731
    On April 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu:

    So what? At the most you have evidence that Darwin was a Deist or followed “theistic evolution.” He was not a “creationist” in the sense of the word in which it is commonly employed. You are playing the semantics game.

    What are you referring to when you say “Darwinism?” No one is disputing that Darwin was wrong about (for example) genetics. That doesn’t mean his core idea about evolution through natural selection is wrong.

    Honestly, I am getting really tired of repeating myself ad infinitum. It seems every time some MM n00b comes along they feel they have to cut their teeth on this ridiculous argument, all the while having R4L as some kind of banal anti-evolution cheerleader / parasite. Of course, here I am, gullible enough to get sucked into the conversation (once again) with my sincere attempts to educate. I just got finished explaining to John in another thread all the reasons why everything you had to say is either false or un-scientific. ID belongs in meta-physics and philosophy, not a laboratory.

    That said, it’s time I adopt a new approach. The theory of evolution through natural selection undoubtedly says ALL living things are descended from a common ancestor. This IS science. It is supported by massive amounts of evidence AND is empirically falsifiable. It has never been falsified. ID neither suggests an empirical method for testing for the existence of said intelligence; it doesn’t describe the intelligence; it isn’t falsifiable; and in the 20-30(?) some odd years of it’s existence it has never produced any results of any kind. In short, it is NOT SCIENCE. Science cannot include anything other than the natural world; otherwise we will still be talking about Sun Gods and chariots of fire!

    If you seriously want to try and dispute those facts I refuse to entertain it until you subject your “counter-theory” to the same scrutiny.

    Spell out your “counter-theory.” Do you honestly think the creator of the universe is a cosmic tinkerer who progressively “got better” at creating life as the fossil record shows a steady progression of “complexity?”

52. #665759
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm, right4life said:

    It is supported by massive amounts of evidence AND is empirically falsifiable

    lies and BS…laughable.

    evolution is FAITH..

    ya got nothing, sorry.

    creating life as the fossil record shows a steady progression of “complexity?”

    lies and BS.

    NOT SCIENCE. Science cannot include anything other than the natural world

    you don’t even know what is natural, and what is not.

    ID neither suggests an empirical method for testing for the existence of said intelligence; it doesn’t describe the intelligence; it isn’t falsifiable

    really then why does MILLER say he has falsified the flegellum

    if it wasn’t testable, it couldn’t be falsified…DUHHHHHHH moron, fool, idiot…

53. #665768
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm, right4life said:

    some odd years of it’s existence it has never produced any results of any kind.

    oh yeah, you need to keep up with the science…

    1) the tree of life is thrown out…no tree of life, no common descent, no evolution.

    2) Behe’s book the edge of evolution, has had a peer-reviewed article respond to it…

    An interesting paper appeared several months ago in an issue of the journal Genetics, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution” (Durrett, R & Schmidt, D. 2008. Genetics 180: 1501-1509). This is the first of five posts that discusses it. Cited references will appear in the last post.

    link

    and behe was VINDICATED…truth hurts.

    and this is just TOOO SWEEEETT…

    PhysOrg.com) — Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results. “Our finding means that hundreds of published studies on natural selection may have drawn incorrect conclusions,”

    link

    I don’t put this in for you less-than-zero, but for any interested parties who, unlike you, aren’t rabid mad/dog drooling darwiniacs!! loser…

54. #665769
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm, right4life said:

    and yes I consider myself Pavlov to the darwiniacs…ring the bell, and they drool…

55. #665772
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:20 pm, zeroangel said:

    If any sane poster actually thinks R4L made any real points please let me know what you think he said and I will explain why he is wrong, that is; AFTER you (as in any poster other than R4L) spell out your “counter-theory.”

56. #665775
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm, right4life said:

    I will explain why he is wrong, that is

    oh this should be good :LOL:

    I can always use a few laughs…

    I’m expecting something like:

    ‘uh it evolved because evolution is true’

57. #665783
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm, John Deaux said:

    Global Warming/Manmade Climate Change proponents call that science also.

58. #665792
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm, zeroangel said:

    John:

    Didn’t I already explain the difference to you between evolution and Climate change in the other thread? Manmade climate change proponents also use scientific methods, however, their conclusions are nowhere near as concrete.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Global Warming isn’t even in the same ballpark as evolution. There are more than a few reasons to suggest that warming is cyclic, rather than caused by man, the most obvious is the lack of data. Many reputable scientists have proposed counter ideas and written peer-reviewed papers on the matter,

    Now, how about that counter-theory?

59. #665796
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm, right4life said:

    the most obvious is the lack of data

    like evolution has any?? please

    ok…show me this data…take a bacteria, and ‘evolve’ it into a multi-cellular animal?

    you’ll whine that you can’t cause you need more time…

    so you have FAITH in time…and thats all evolution is…FAITH.

    nothing in the fossil record, nothing in the lab…so sad, too bad.

    and there are only 2 theories…it just happened SHAZAM (evolution) or God did it…

    in physics there is the anthropic principle (DESIGNER) and the multi-verse…which is totally hypothetical…but its ’science’ because the alternative (GOD) is unthinkable to fundamentalist atheists…

60. #665802
    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm, zeroangel said:

    Once again, if anyone thinks R4L has made any points at all: see #252.

61. #665862
    On April 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I just tuned in to this thread after giving up on Zero in frustration yesterday. There have been some good posts here!! Although I haven’t had time to catch up totally, I want to say, Great Job Everyone!! I thoroughly agree with your agruments against Zero’s idiocy. But remember, “debate” with one who won’t even entertain the idea he might possibly be wrong…is futile. That is why I threw up my hands and left. When I realized he didn’t really want to debate, but only to “catch” someone so he could hear “I was wrong” from someone. Zero is desperate for validation. Well, he won’t get it here. An atheist has NO idea what a true Christian is. It is impossible to explain that to an atheist. And without that understanding, there is no debate. It is like telling a 6-month old child about sex. You have to experience it to know what it is. You can’t just read about it or hear someone explain it and have a deep understanding of its true meaning. So, while your arguments are great reading, and SPOT ON, you will continue to fall on deaf ears with Zero. He has made it clear throughout the entire thread that he will not give a fraction of an inch. So again I say…this is not a debate with him. It is an edict…take it or leave it, but don’t try to confuse him with the truth. He is blind to that.

62. #665867
    On April 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 4:20 pm, zeroangel said:
    If any sane poster actually thinks R4L made any real points please let me know what you think he said and I will explain why he is wrong, that is; AFTER you (as in any poster other than R4L) spell out your “counter-theory.”

    This post proves without doubt what a pompous ass Zero is.

63. #665878
    On April 1st, 2009 at 5:48 pm, zeroangel said:

    Yes. That’s it.

    I have repeated tried again and again to be civil with you Happyscrapper.

    You are rude and arrogant beyond measure and willfully ignorant of many things.

    I am not sure what you actually agree or disagree with, but it’s pointless to talk to you about it. It’s clear you have had a personal problem with me because of my politics from the beginning.

    No doubt you probably wish my account were banned along with LGM’s, despite your platitudes.

64. #665890
    On April 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm, zeroangel said:

    One more thing, Happyscrapper , or should I say Sybil? If you enage me in the future be sure and let me know which Happyscrapper is doing the talking; the one that thinks I am a troll or the one that thinks I am a valuable contributor.

65. #665904
    On April 1st, 2009 at 6:18 pm, zeroangel said:

    Finally, I apologize all for the rapid fire posts, but one more thing:

    Sybil:

    If I were desperate for validation why would I be arguing here? Shouldn’t I be simply posting on only atheist sites or behaving like a sycophant fan-boi here?

66. #665906
    On April 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Zero…One last thing and then I will no longer engage in conversaton with you. I THOUGHT, at one time, that you were a valuable contributor. Many of your posts ARE “interesting”. HOWEVER, you refuse to actually debate, but instead insist you are right and everyone else is wrong. Just read that last post of yours… “If any sane poster actually thinks R4L made any real points please let me know what you think he said and I will explain why he is wrong, that is; AFTER you (as in any poster other than R4L) spell out your “counter-theory.” So, you will explain why he is wrong. You could have said, “I will give my opinion as to where I think he is wrong”. But you are insistant that yours is the only right viewpoint. That says it all. You are the only one who could possibly be right in your theories. Yet, some of your theories are actually irrational and some are blatantly untrue and revisionist history. Sorry, but that is how you are percieved…by many on this blog. I am done talking to you. And yes, I am rude to people who dig and goad and just won’t cocede even the most minor point.

67. #665917
    On April 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    R4L’s nonsense is scientifically and factually wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion anymore than the idea that the sun is a giant fireball fueled by nuclear reactions is a matter of opinion.

    Perception doesn’t make reality, verify this with your other personality and get back to me.

    Please don’t address me in the future; I won’t miss trying in vain to make you understand what I am talking about. You can’t seem to make out plain English and I have little doubt would try and argue with me if I said 2 + 2 = 4.

68. #665960
    On April 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm, hitcharide said:

    Zeroangel said “Patently false and an obvious lie,” when I said the nazis outlawed the bible.

    From page 240, “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” Under the office of “the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the Nationalist Socialist Party,” paragraph 13 reads “The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.”

    Zeroangel, you are a LIAR and you’ve been outed. Have a nice day!

69. #665971
    On April 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    Is that so? I was not aware of that. (I will happily admit an error despite what you or others may think.)

    What date did that occur? Was it succesfully implemented or was just this part of a long term plan that had not been fully implemented? Did they attempt to collect all Bibles or did they merely try to stop printing them?

    How did the Positive Christians react?

    Did they ever attempt to do anything about the motto “Gott Mit Uns” for the military?

    Indeed, how did the vast number of Christians who were either Nazis themselves or Nazi supporters react?

    Is there a place I can see this information in context without having to buy the book in question? Indeed I have a great many things I am reading already.

    I have never tried to argue that Hitler or Nazi leadership was no friend of organized religion. I even conceded he was “anti-clerical.” This is a far cry from being atheist and it still doesn’t prove anything about the demographics concerning religion in Nazi Germany.

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

70. #665972
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm, hitcharide said:

    Also, Martin Bormann (and if I have to explain to zeroangel who he was, it’d show the ignorance that much more clearly) in 1941 said “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” (For everyone else, Bormann was party secretary and hitlers’ right hand man, right up till the end, after rudolph hess went off the deep end.)

71. #665975
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:05 pm, right4life said:

    R4L’s nonsense is scientifically and factually wrong

    why? cause you say so??

    thats all ya got…you think your words are from sinai, you’re a legend in your own mind, and a laughable little troll…

    you have no idea how stupid you are. you cannot debate the issues, any issue.

    all you can do is parrot talking points…loser

72. #665977
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:06 pm, right4life said:

    This post proves without doubt what a pompous ass Zero is.

    BINGO!

73. #665978
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:07 pm, right4life said:

    Bormann was party secretary and hitlers’ right hand

    and a very scary individual, who was never found…

74. #665980
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm, right4life said:

    So again I say…this is not a debate with him. It is an edict…take it or leave it, but don’t try to confuse him with the truth. He is blind to that.

    very true, but when I’m bored, I enjoy playing whack-a-wacko!

75. #665981
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm, hitcharide said:

    I don’t know if the book is published online and rather doubt it anyhow…most public libraries either have a copy or can get, so there’s certainly no need for you to buy one. I looked at your website, and I have never denied that hitler used religious organizations in much the same way he used labor organizations, political parties and so forth…pretended agreement, made concessions, and then brutally did away with each as his power grew. For your question, the book doesn’t specifically state a date, but these actions were in the timeline ‘37-’38. Reich minister mueller was replaced around ‘35 by hand kerrl, who became minister for church affairs. Mr. kerrl, working with frick (nazi minister of the interior) arrested the few hundred pastors left and sent them to concentration camps. As kerrl said, “true Christianity is represented by the party, and the german people are now called by the party and especially by the fuehrer to a real Christianity,”….which for them was the nazi party, mein kampf, and all that other crap. Again, historical fact, just as undeniable as the holocaust and just as well documented.

76. #665985
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:16 pm, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    Perhaps now we can settle into a more amicable exchange and dispense with the petty and juvenile jibes (of which I am also guilty of)?

    I doubt I have done as much reading on this topic as you have. Though, I was of the understanding that this was part of a long term plan that was never fully implemented.

    I was also under the impression that Hitler was loathe to do so as he thought it would cause more trouble than I was worth (at least until after the war).

    Furthermore, Hitler was keenly aware of this; and indeed “used” the church; because so many Germans (and even Nazi party members) were self-described Christians of a kind.

77. #665986
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:18 pm, zeroangel said:

    I was worth should read it was worth.

    Heh. Sorry.

78. #665988
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pm, hitcharide said:

    Also from pg 240 of “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shrirer:
    1. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill omened year 800.
    2. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
    3. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.
    4. On the altar must be nothing but mein kampf and to the left of the altar a sword.
    5. On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross must be removed from all churches, and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

    And I think we all know just what happened to those who resisted or even attempted to resist. I really hope nothing more need be said on this issue, and I’ll state again that CONTROL of the people, by any means, is what identifies the actions of liberals and muslims; it is only the degree performed which seperates similarity. To me, athiesm is the supplanting of God, which all are entitled to do, but they should watch just what the replacement becomes, whether it’s muslims and jihad or liberals and global warming, no discussion or divergence is allowed….

79. #665990
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    Thank you. I have already found online the things you have quoted in other sources referencing the work you cite.

    I don’t think you answered my questions or addressed my concerns from #266 or #273. Simply, there is little doubt that the “rank and file” were Christians of a kind.

    As far as atheism, anyone who claims to be an atheist and tries to “replace” god with something else (whether it’s state worship, occult, new age mysticism, magic, etc.) is “doing it wrong.”

80. #665991
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:29 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pm, hitcharide said:To me, athiesm is the supplanting of God, which all are entitled to do, but they should watch just what the replacement becomes, whether it’s muslims and jihad or liberals and global warming, no discussion or divergence is allowed….

    I love your very logical, spot-on posts! You put it so well. Thank you.

81. #665994
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm, zeroangel said:

    Sybil:

    Of course, anything that reinforces your idea that only Christians are capable of being “good” while anyone who is both not a “Christian” and is yet “good” is an anomaly.

    Careful, don’t respond! You wouldn’t want to be responding to a troll!

82. #666003
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:52 pm, hitcharide said:

    Zeroangel, you seem to be caught up in self identification; I suggest you look at the actions of a person to show what that person is. Pelosi is a catholic, yet she is big on abortion. Kennedy murdered a woman, yet he speaks about human rights. As I like to put it, you can take a beautiful plate, put a pile of sh-t on it, garnish it with parsley, but it’s still a plate of sh-t! Now we hear obummer talking about the economy, along with frank and dodd, who engineered the debacle to begin with, yet they are self described “experts.” My personal experience is that true Christians ARE good, and they demonstrate this through their actions and their life. I know there are non-Christians who are good as well, but there do seem to be a lot fewer of them. Either way, I know to use my own judgement…and not let some politically correct liberal idiot try to decide the issues for me. You seem to have a problem with Christians, and I’d say that is YOUR problem. I have a problem with athiests/darwinists trying to cram their view of the world down my throat…that is MY problem and I’m doing something about it by speaking out against it every chance I get. If I won’t let islam dictate to me my religious beliefs, why should I hold radical athiests to any less standard?

83. #666005
    On April 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm, right4life said:

    oh yeah zero, your web sites you use to ‘validate’ your lies and BS are laughable…

    skeptics.com nobelief.com

    do you ever read anything other than wacko atheist cult web sites?

    you just can’t bear any other opinion other than yours…bet your shirt is brown and starched…

84. #666008
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm, hitcharide said:

    I know some people have done horrible things in the name of religion…Christianity has a past nearly as bad as islams’ present. I try hard not to hold one person accountable for the actions of a group, but when that person allies themself with such a group, or takes no action against it…those who will not speak out against a crime are as bad as those who commit the crime, as far as I care. Sometimes we need to be patient with liberals and athiests…for some years they could make any statement, no matter how biased or absurd about Christianity, and get away with it. Political correctness and saul alinsky tactics were effective at silencing people, but this is a new day and age. We have sites like MM’s where TRUTH and FACT are the only standards to apply, crap hyperbole and misdirection need not apply. Zeroangel can make whatever comments that person sees fit, and if the truth bears it out, I’ll be among the first to credit and support it…I’ll also be among the first to discredit it and combat it when it is wrong or a lie. Tolerance, in order to work, needs to work BOTH WAYS, and the days of an athiest or muslim trashing me and mine while demanding respect and tolerance from me are over.

85. #666009
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:05 pm, right4life said:

    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm, hitcharide said:

    Christianity has a past nearly as bad as islams’ present.

    not a chance. thank God for Charles Martel, the monks of St. John, and the Crusades…otherwise we’d all be muslim..

86. #666012
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:10 pm, zeroangel said:

    hitcharide:

    Pity, we were doing so nicely. My issue is that the assertion is often made that the Nazis were nothing but atheists. This is not true; indeed it may have been true of some of the leadership; said leadership might have also been occultists; pagans; or even trying to hold up Hitler as a messiah.

    In any case, the idea that Nazis and Nazi supporters were all atheists and the implication that this atheism led to atrocity is false and an indirect slander at atheists.

    Furthermore, we come back to the “not a TRUE Christian argument” something Happyscrapper illustrated perfectly with #175.

    I know there are non-Christians who are good as well, but there do seem to be a lot fewer of them.

    So, of all the Hindus; Buddhists, Shintos, Jews, atheists, etc. of the world; most of whom are just regular people living out their lives; in general, Christians are the best of the lot?

    You seem to have a problem with Christians, and I’d say that is YOUR problem.

    I have a problem with fundamentalists. “Moderate” Christians (who are probably the majority even on this board) are no problem. It is the lunatics that try desperately to fit literal interpretations of the Bible into science or who make claims like “only Christians go to heaven.” What an awful and cruel deity that sounds like. Indeed, those that claim atheists are de facto immoral also piss me off.

    I have a problem with athiests/darwinists trying to cram their view of the world down my throat

    Do you also have a problem with the heliocentric model of the solar system?

    and if the truth bears it out, I’ll be among the first to credit and support it…

    Is that true even if the truth contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis?

87. #666015
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm, right4life said:

    Is that true even if the truth contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis?

    the only thing that contradicts genesis are your lies.

    evolved anything yet??? loser

    and yeah atheists are an immoral, evil, intolerant, hellish lot.

    Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hoxha…the French Terror

    yeah you atheists have a lot of history…all of it bloody…

88. #666017
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:16 pm, John Deaux said:

    Personally, I like happyscrapper. I also enjoy zeroangel’s posts because the worst thing that can happen to a site like this is for it to beome an echo chamber. Zero is definitely not a social conservative, but does tend to be fiscally conservative if memory serves.

    However, if zero is going to refer to happyscrapper as Sybil because he believes she has two personalities, then I must provide zeroangel with a moniker suited to a person who must not only be right, but must also make me insist I am wrong.

    Zeroangel, you are now Ex-Wife!

89. #666019
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:21 pm, zeroangel said:

    John:

    LOL! That actually did make me smile. I have never been divorced and have only one wife, but I can certainly relate to the idea that it’s more or less impossible to argue with one’s wife (esp. a pregnant one).

    Also, a reminder, not only am I fiscally conservative I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the war, indeed I served a tour in Iraq while in the Army.

    I do not have a suitable moniker for you; but I usually reserve that honor for people that really piss me off. You haven’t done so at all.

90. #666020
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm, John Deaux said:

    Zero,

    Thank you for your service.

91. #666023
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm, hitcharide said:

    The “truth” does not contradict a literal translation of Genesis. A bunch of half baked theories and wild conjecture about something that happened so long ago doesn’t impress me as “truth.” I’m always impressed by the ability of man to lose his humility and assume to be all knowing about everything. I don’t hear about buddhists, jews and so forth cutting off peoples’ heads or trying to force an entire country to conform to their beliefs, and I don’t believe that only Christians go to heaven. That said, I’d rather believe in something rather than nothing, and most of what is good in this world has been performed by those who do not set themselves up as gods or in the absence of God. What you believe is entirely up to you, but if you use science to try to disprove my religious beliefs, I’ll have to call you on it. I don’t have to respect your theories or your hypothetical suppositions any more than you have to respect my belief in God and the Bible. I’m not allowed to tell you how to live your life, nor are you allowed to dictate to me, but this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. There are uncounted representations of a higher power in our founding documents. I was “endowed by my Creator,” not by darwin. I have no doubt some nazis thought themselves Christian, but I also know the state religion was athiesm/religion of the state. Communism was simple enshrinement of athiesm…can’t have any competition, you know, and athiests, in all their “well educated” splendor, do not recognize the concept that there is something above MAN. Science is not happy with that concept either. All of this really won’t matter much in the long run, this argument has gone on for a long time and will continue, but it all distills down to the fact that no society has prospered that did not first acknowledge a higher power, a belief system based in morality and ethics. Athiesm proposes nothing that is redeeming or enriching, it proposes only fallibility and arrogance. I’m not here to talk you out of your beliefs…hope you’re not foolish enough to try to talk me out of mine, but you don’t get to dictate to me what athiesm leads to. You can tell it to the survivors and family members in the former Soviet Union and China where state sponsored athiesm leads. Millions died in the past century at the hands of those who insisted there is no God, and not enough people took a stand against it. I propose better, and I won’t let it happen here, not even with one voice attempting to conjole and convince how simple and non-threatening athiesm is. I know your kind by their works, and I’m not impressed.

92. #666038
    On April 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm, zeroangel said:

    John:

    It’s cool man. It was my job and I was proud to do it. No thanks necessary.

    Hitcharide:

    There are massive amounts of evidence to back up evolution and there is a reason why more or less every scientist on Earth accepts it. There are only two possibilities based on the fossil and genetic evidence: either evolution occurred, or a creator made it APPEAR as evolution occurred. Evolution is hardly “half-baked” it is one of the most supported and accepted scientific theories we have, even more so then relativity. I would also recommend “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne to you as well, (having mentioned it to John before) since we are trading reading lists.

    What exactly about evolution do you imagine is wrong and why?

    What is your “counter-theory?”

    The fact that our founding fathers (many of whom were Deists and not Christians) wrote something about a creator in the Constitution doesn’t stop people like me from accepting what they had to say and looking at the word “creator” in a poetic sense. The idea that all human beings have universal rights does not require a deity.

    As far as recognizing a higher power and deriving your morality from it; it’s silly, since no one can communicate with this higher power. Plenty of people claim to know what “god” wants; but no one has any clue because you can’t talk to “god.”

    Anyhow, what if I told you atheism was among the most fulfilling and enriching things I ever accepted? It has allowed me to appreciate life even more, realizing that this is “all that I am.”

    I don’t mind “competition” at all. In my mind, anyone that attempts to stamp out religion is fighting a losing battle and they will only succeed in making people upset. A simple and constant exposure to education and facts is all it takes to dispel mythology.

    Finally, your arguments about state-sponsored atheism and what atheism leads to have all been argued in the past on this forum. If you sincerely believe atheism will always leads to atrocity then you have to believe an Ayn Rand style “Objectivist” state would lead to genocide and slaughter. It’s just plain ridiculous.

    My “kind?” Are “some of your best friends” also atheists?

93. #666049
    On April 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm, zeroangel said:

    *ref: “founding fathers” its probably more accurate to say some rather than many.

94. #666087
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm, yohannbiimu said:

    zero, I am going to say this, and then take my leave of you, because you are ignorant. You come here all high and mighty, believing that you are armed with facts and the truth, and you are armed with nothing.

    Your faith is in materialism. You believe that all there is or can be is what you can see, feel, hear, and perceive with your senses. In short, it is a philosophy that you have staked your life upon. As such, it is not science, because it presumes things that can not be tested (falsified) scientifically, anymore than spiritual precepts can be. It takes presumptions, and goes out into the world in a desperate attempt to find anything that will back it up.

    It is the opposite of science. Science is about the search of new discoveries, and knowledge. Darwinism starts from the basis of having already assumed that it knows how everything is, and will be, and that there can be no other explanation than what ol’ Chuck told us over 150 years ago.

    You Darwinists are no different from the flat-Earthers in Galileo’s time (the “scientific consensus” in the 16th century) who called anyone who said that the Earth revolved around the sun a heretic. Your information regarding “ALL living things are descended from a common ancestor. This IS science. It is supported by massive amounts of evidence” is laughable. This is the sort of heated hype-talk that you all spew, but when specifics are called for, you come up with nothing.

    Nothing is going to be accomplished by attacking your faith-based philosophy of what was, is, and will be. All I can do is hope that someday you will sincerely seek truth, rather than what you’ve been indoctrinated to believe. And for what it’s worth, most of the folks who are wasting their time debating you are nimrods.

95. #666104
    On April 1st, 2009 at 11:32 pm, zeroangel said:

    yohannbiimu:

    You believe that all there is or can be is what you can see, feel, hear, and perceive with your senses.

    Oh yah, that’s so incredibly radical and evil; heaven forbid I should not imagine anything supernatural!

    No, you see, the flat-earthers did exactly what you are doing, denying in the face of overwhelming evidence. Note: flat-earth was not the “scientifically” accepted theory of the time. Thinkers far earlier had worked out the truth and indeed the educated knew the truth. Galileo’s beef was with a geocentric view of the solar system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

    Anyhow: what exactly is your “counter-theory?”

96. #666259
    On April 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am, right4life said:

    This is the sort of heated hype-talk that you all spew, but when specifics are called for, you come up with nothing.

    yeah less-than-zero is a typical darwiniac…spews talking point, but is ignorant of anything deeper than that.

    the arrogance, and intellectual shallowness is typical of atheists. They think they’re the smartest people in the room, but consistently are the dumbest.

    evolution is not seen in the fossil record, nor in the lab. its nothing more than atheist faith…which is why it is so rabidly defended by the intolerant hate-filled darwiniacs.