Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.



Sunday, September 19, 2010

It's Sunday, can you smell the Nazis?

I thought this was a dead subject, but it was brought up again so here are a few handy dandy things about Nazis and religion and Darwin:

I guess they weren't following Darwin after all... like I've said a hundred times. Why bring this up again? Well Sith Lord... I mean Pope Whatever the who gives a fuck, has decided that Atheists and Nazis are the reason for the Third Reich. Let's pull a Bush the Second and fear monger our way out of all those nasty molestation rumors and convictions.

So did Hitler's religion make him 'evil'? I'll say not really. Sure there was a TON of antisemitism around thanks to religion, but I doubt religion is the cause of the Nazis. Hitler was just a dick, it happens. But why post this? Because I'm sick of hearing how a non religion influences people when there is NOTHING there to influence. It's like saying I killed your Aunt because the air offended me.

And before I hear this, Catholics are still Christians, just like Sunni's are still Muslims, and the Irish are still white;)




Anonymous said...

The Straight Dope is a popular question-and-answer newspaper column published in the Chicago Reader. Cecil Adams is the author (I don't know his religious or political views.)

He does a pretty good job of debunking a lot of the quotes which get credited to Hitler and gives a little social and political perspective.

In my view Hitler was an evil mad man and capable of lying. I think actions speak louder than words. His actions definitely line up with a naturalistic survival of the fittest mind set. He was all for killing the weak and unwanted which even Christianity's staunchest critics recognize is the opposite of the Bible.

Give Cecil's article a read, he makes many of my points but with a little more eloquence and literary style:


Brett said...

That's SOOOO not what Darwin is about. It's NOT the fittest, it's the luckiest! The ones that survive reproduce the ones that don't die out. There was NOTHING natural about picking a group and exterminating them. That's something God would do, you know, Soddam and Gamorra, all the people that weren't Noah's family. But since they are all fairy tales, this is something xenophobic people like to do. You know the ones that refuse to use reason to solve problem and take to an ancient book written by goat herders.

This just shows you really know nothing about evolution and how it works. And these are quotes, not the quote mines you Christians LOVE to uses, written by Hitler, you can't argue your way out of that.



Derek Ruiz said...

You go to Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company -Mark Twain

admin said...

Hmm, a christianist being willfully ignorant about natural selection? Never seen THAT before...

Seriously. 'Survival of the fittest' is perfectly accurate (if often misused) one-sentence definition. 'Fittest' for any given situation, that is. Being 'weak' is often a strategy that organisms use to become the fittest in their situation. Mosquitoes and termites are both incredibly weak and wimpy, you'll notice they're doing just fine. Social darwinism has very little to do with actual science and a lot to do with biogtry and politics.

Anonymous said...

Okay for those who are saying I do not understand natural selection below are my peer reviewed scientific sources. Please provide your support for survival of the "luckiest." Cyborgsuzy this is especially for you.

I've picked two sources with a 50 year gap to show Natural selection really hasn't changed as a theory.


Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:

* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
* Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.

The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation. However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes. For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.

Orr HA (August 2009). "Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics". Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (8): 531–9. doi:10.1038/nrg2603. PMID 1954685

Haldane J (1959). "The theory of natural selection today". Nature 183 (4663): 710–3. doi:10.1038/183710a0. PMID 13644170

Anonymous said...

What you are engaging in is called an ad hominem genetic fallacy; rather than concentrating on the evidence or discussing matters logically or scientifically you are supporting your weak position by attacking the character of the person advancing it. Statements like “what do you expect from a Christian,” or you only state that because “you believe in fairy tales” would be examples of ad hominem attacks. It becomes somewhat humorously ironic when you realize the basis of you attack is that I, as a Christian, am incapable of approaching the topic rationally. Don’t worry we all are capable of falling into this pattern especially when you shoot from the hip. It is easy to think I know I’m right I don’t have to be fair.

Still Im not looking just to win the argument by advancing a more logical or rational opinion. I rather promote clear communication and foster open discussion. Brett has some good points about the Noahic flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He stops a little short because there are numerous other cities or people the Jewish people were ordered to kill like the Canaanites. These are matters which have troubled my sensibilities as well. They require an earnest study of the facts, which takes time and consideration-in other words effort most are unwilling to commit too especially when the answers may not support your preconceived fallacious opinions. Still if you were asking rather than accusing I would be more than happy to help you understand the historical and moral aspects of the story. It is a good question to pursue, for a loving God he orders more hits than a mafia don, what is up with that?


admin said...

Steve, you said: "His actions definitely line up with a naturalistic survival of the fittest mind set. He was all for killing the weak and unwanted..."

As I said above, social Darwinism doesn't actually have much to do with science. The traits Hitler was trying to select for his aryan race were arbitrary. He killed people because he didn't like them, not because they weren't 'fit' from a natural selection point of view. Just because he invoked science while doing it, doesn't mean he (or you) knew what he was talking about.

Take your example of 'weak' (though, except for the mentally ill and retarded, Hitler didn't kill a whole lot of 'weak' people). As I already said, 'weak' has some evolutionary advantages; it's a state that needs fewer calories than being 'strong', and being small means it's easier to hide. So, in many cases, being the weakest is also being the fittest for a given niche.

admin said...

You also seem to misunderstand what "ad hominem" means.

If I had said, "you're wrong because you're stupid" that would have been an argument ad hominem.

As it was, I gave my opinion that you were ignorant, than gave an argument supporting my opinion.

Brett said...

Look at it this way Steve, you've heard the term the best of the best? It's basically the best of what's left. Even the fittest can die from random chance/events. It's a logical conclusion. And a few textbook definitions aren't what evolution is about. They are just there to give people the basic idea. To sum up. Things change over time, but how they change and why are a different matter altogether. The science is completely different, as we've created new technologies the science changes. The Theory has changes considerably, they have proof of it now;)

Man has changed the dog and the chicken, we've selected traits we like while loosing others (not always a good thing!) That's artificial selection because we don't always pick the 'fittest' we pick the ones we like. This is Eugenics and it leads to ALL sort of genetic problems dog breeders are finding out now (not really a big problem with chickens as they only really need to live a few months before they kill them.


Brett said...


I'm half Irish, so I'm just having a bit of fun with my peeps;)



M.O.R said...

Oh yeah, totally knew the Irish thing was humour.

I was just making a joke about it, like when people laugh along with a comedian, but when the comedian makes a joke about something that affects them, they get ticked off and cry.
I was playing the part of one of those people who get offended when it affects them, but laugh at others.

Anonymous said...

Sorry cybersuzy, I was going by what you actually posted:

"Hmm, a christianist being willfully ignorant about natural selection? Never seen THAT before..."

I didn't realize in the future you were going to try a more coherent rational post.


Anonymous said...

I just found this article:

I read the whole thing with disbelief, I thought the author was Christopher Hitchens, but it is his recently converted brother Peter. It is cool to see the same keen intellect and biting wit which makes Christopher so entertaining is also bestowed upon his brother.

Regardless of your opinions this article is a great read.

If I'm an ignorant idiot it is always nice to see my idiocy lines up well with a noted intellectual genius.


admin said...

I like how the author of that article calls someone "pro-Darwin".

Hey, can I be pro-Tesla, or pro-Newton?

admin said...

Anyway, Steve, you continue to miss the point.

Everyone knows that Hitler WAS influenced by Darwin. That's why we call it 'social Darwinism'. That doesn't mean he knew anything about biology. It also doesn't make natural selection somehow 'bad'.

Charles Manson was influenced by a Beatles song. Obviously Helter Skelter is an evil song that has no merit and should be banned because of this...

Brett said...

Boy the apple certainly fell far from the tree, rolled down the hill and was taken away by a bird. IF that's what you call an intellectual genius (I never heard of him) then I see we have a more than the evolution/ID disagreements betwixed us. I had to stop reading due to the stupid.

Even IF Hitler was influenced by Darwin, he did it WRONG. That is not how evolution works. Even farmers have far more sense about breeding then the Nazi's did. By limiting the gene pool in an animal that reproduces slowly you allow the bad genes to get in and take over. To me it has more in common with the which hunts in Europe and xenophobia than anything else. Kind of like Texans who think just being born a Texan makes you better than anyone else. replace Texan with Aryan and it's the same thing. It's the whole like breeds to like mindset. Once again BAD breeding ideas.