Hitler Shrine in Walworth County
-
Did you get that rumor from Indiana Jones?
No, but from various books and articles. Google "nazi occultism", and you'll find lots of information on the subject.
-
Actually he suppressed Christian Churches in Germany and very infrequently invoked Christianity, so he was by no means a religious fanatic (if he was even a theist). The above quote was probably taken from a speech directed at pious people in order to win them over. In fact, he stopped attending church (he was Catholic as a youth) altogether as a teenager and discarded the teachings in favor of a secular-based aryan (derived from darwinism) mentality. His zeal was derived from secular nationalistic desires to expand his race. But I agree that fanatics (especially the atheist variety) act in similar ways.
espeir wrote:
The above quote was probably taken from a speech directed at pious people in order to win them over.
So you are saying that he didn't believe his own words from that speech? Are you suggesting that in his speech invoking his "Lord and Savior Jesus" he was lying? That he did not believe Jesus was his Lord and Savior? That he did not practice what he believed the Bible was telling him? And you know this .... how?
-
Just like the KKK, communism and now Mulism extremists. Taking care of leftists has proven to be a long and arduous task, but we're making progress.
-
thealj wrote:
In fact, the Bible, the Qu'ran, what-have-you are nothing more than allegorical stories to me. Sure, the ideas and morals are nice, but beyond that they aren't worth taking seriously or fighting over. My bible is modern physics. It's much nicer than your typical religion-of-the-month because people of all colours and races can practice it without killing one another. That's the beauty of it.
5! :) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New):) I think I was on a roll there...
-
thealj wrote:
In fact, the Bible, the Qu'ran, what-have-you are nothing more than allegorical stories to me. Sure, the ideas and morals are nice, but beyond that they aren't worth taking seriously or fighting over. My bible is modern physics. It's much nicer than your typical religion-of-the-month because people of all colours and races can practice it without killing one another. That's the beauty of it.
5! :) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Ironically that's the same religion practiced by Hitler. Physicalism (the modern religion that most modern leftists follow without even realizing) was born out of Darwinism, which is the basis of eugenics and consequently the concept of an Aryan Nation.
-
Ironically that's the same religion practiced by Hitler. Physicalism (the modern religion that most modern leftists follow without even realizing) was born out of Darwinism, which is the basis of eugenics and consequently the concept of an Aryan Nation.
Eugenics isn't a science. It's a perversion. The transition from Darwinisn to eugenics to Aryanism is hardly what I would call scientific. It's absurd to equate "physicalism" with the ideology of Hitler. Besides, physicalism is metaphysics. It's not science at all. :rolleyes:
-
espeir wrote:
The above quote was probably taken from a speech directed at pious people in order to win them over.
So you are saying that he didn't believe his own words from that speech? Are you suggesting that in his speech invoking his "Lord and Savior Jesus" he was lying? That he did not believe Jesus was his Lord and Savior? That he did not practice what he believed the Bible was telling him? And you know this .... how?
led mike wrote:
So you are saying that he didn't believe his own words from that speech? Are you suggesting that in his speech invoking his "Lord and Savior Jesus" he was lying? That he did not believe Jesus was his Lord and Savior? That he did not practice what he believed the Bible was telling him? And you know this .... how?
It's not known with any certainty. What is known, however, is that: 1) He did not attend church. 2) He actively put the secular state above churches. 3) He actively suppressed churches. 4) He vocally rejected the Catholic Church (the one under which he was raised) when he became a teenager and did not subsequently join any others. 5) The philosophy of the Aryan Nation is a eugenics-based philosophy, which is implemented Darwinism. It was very atypical of Christians of the day to accept Darwinism (let alone practice it) as there was little scientific evidence supporting it. Germany was a very Christian nation back then, and he would not have had any success with the people if he had publicly condemned Christianity. However, he actively rejected it in his personal life and in practice approached it similarly to a modern day leftist.
-
Eugenics isn't a science. It's a perversion. The transition from Darwinisn to eugenics to Aryanism is hardly what I would call scientific. It's absurd to equate "physicalism" with the ideology of Hitler. Besides, physicalism is metaphysics. It's not science at all. :rolleyes:
thealj wrote:
Eugenics isn't a science. It's a perversion.
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being practiced in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
thealj wrote:
The transition from Darwinisn to eugenics to Aryanism is hardly what I would call scientific.
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
thealj wrote:
It's absurd to equate "physicalism" with the ideology of Hitler. Besides, physicalism is metaphysics. It's not science at all.
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism. -- modified at 11:19 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
Taking care of leftists has proven to be a long and arduous task, but we're making progress.
Way to keep the "hate" alive... like any true follower of Christ.
Actually we're trying to eliminate the hate in a peaceful and intellectual way. We don't like people being manipulated into hating us, so we're waging an intellectual counterattack for the minds of our youth.
-
thealj wrote:
Eugenics isn't a science. It's a perversion.
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being practiced in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
thealj wrote:
The transition from Darwinisn to eugenics to Aryanism is hardly what I would call scientific.
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
thealj wrote:
It's absurd to equate "physicalism" with the ideology of Hitler. Besides, physicalism is metaphysics. It's not science at all.
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism. -- modified at 11:19 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
espeir wrote:
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
espeir wrote:
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
espeir wrote:
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled. While believers in metaphysics claim that they support physics, this isn't actually true. They accept the existence of stupid intangibles such as "qualia". It's ridiculous, not to mention nonphysical, and no better than a religious argument. You make think it's the same thing, but as a practitioner, I reject it utterly and completely.
-
thealj wrote:
Eugenics isn't a science. It's a perversion.
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being practiced in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
thealj wrote:
The transition from Darwinisn to eugenics to Aryanism is hardly what I would call scientific.
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
thealj wrote:
It's absurd to equate "physicalism" with the ideology of Hitler. Besides, physicalism is metaphysics. It's not science at all.
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism. -- modified at 11:19 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
espeir wrote:
imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Guffaw.
-
Yes, that was the impression I was getting. Holocaust, Shmolocaust, what about Palestine? No wonder Jews are leaving France in droves. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Unfortunately, many other ACTUAL problems are left behind, in favor of Holocaust and related topic. I don't mean that Holocaust was not a big problem, but it is no more actual.... :wtf:
-
espeir wrote:
Actually it technically falls under genetics and is even actively (and acceptably) being in the UK today. Doctors have begun testing babies for "imperfections" in the womb so that they can be aborted if less than perfect. I agree that it is perverse, but it's definately a science and is based on the basis of physicalism.
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
espeir wrote:
Darwinism is the study of natural selection and eugenics is its practice. It's less of a leap than it is a step between the two.
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
espeir wrote:
Physicalism is the metaphysics of science. It states what it believes science implies. Whether you give any thought to metaphysics or not is really irrelevant. The fact is that your statement that modern physics is "your bible" means that you adhere to the beliefs of physicalism. It does not imply that you support eugenics, but to imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled. While believers in metaphysics claim that they support physics, this isn't actually true. They accept the existence of stupid intangibles such as "qualia". It's ridiculous, not to mention nonphysical, and no better than a religious argument. You make think it's the same thing, but as a practitioner, I reject it utterly and completely.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
Google disagrees: link[^] One of the supplied definitions (from the British Library) states that it is: "Derived from Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. The Nazis used false scientific arguments to discourage procreation by members who they considered were 'unfit' to live in society, either physically, mentally or socially." And another (from the NRDC) states: "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Darwinism is the study of natural selection. In the early 20th century, eugenics was actually pretty mainstream science and was even advocated in the US.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
thealj wrote:
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled.
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
-
espeir wrote:
imply that Hitler's fanaticism grew out of Christianity is absurd, because it was clearly an implementation of Darwinism.
Guffaw.
Are you being serious when you say that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism? Or do you truly adhere that blindly to your secular religion?
-
led mike wrote:
So you are saying that he didn't believe his own words from that speech? Are you suggesting that in his speech invoking his "Lord and Savior Jesus" he was lying? That he did not believe Jesus was his Lord and Savior? That he did not practice what he believed the Bible was telling him? And you know this .... how?
It's not known with any certainty. What is known, however, is that: 1) He did not attend church. 2) He actively put the secular state above churches. 3) He actively suppressed churches. 4) He vocally rejected the Catholic Church (the one under which he was raised) when he became a teenager and did not subsequently join any others. 5) The philosophy of the Aryan Nation is a eugenics-based philosophy, which is implemented Darwinism. It was very atypical of Christians of the day to accept Darwinism (let alone practice it) as there was little scientific evidence supporting it. Germany was a very Christian nation back then, and he would not have had any success with the people if he had publicly condemned Christianity. However, he actively rejected it in his personal life and in practice approached it similarly to a modern day leftist.
-
Actually we're trying to eliminate the hate in a peaceful and intellectual way. We don't like people being manipulated into hating us, so we're waging an intellectual counterattack for the minds of our youth.
-
Yes but 1 thru 4 all match someone that believes their interpretation of Christianity is correct and the established religions are wrong.
Not really. What Martin Luther did would match what you're saying. Hitler placed a secular state that oppressed churches of all sorts at the top while adopting a eugenics (Darwinist/atheist) based policy as one of the bases of his government. That's inconsistent with what I would expect from someone who is a theist of any sort.
-
Congratulations on your 34 word excuse. I don't think excuses are supported by Christ either, but that will be your problem not mine. good luck
Are you implying that ideological dissent is now a hate crime? Do you see why we want to ensure that your ideology is effectively countered and destroyed?
-
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is a philosophy. It is not a science being practiced. It is a social issue. While genetic testing may aid it's acceptance/rejection, the fact that genetic tests are utilized does not a science make it. If anything, it's a social program.
Google disagrees: link[^] One of the supplied definitions (from the British Library) states that it is: "Derived from Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. The Nazis used false scientific arguments to discourage procreation by members who they considered were 'unfit' to live in society, either physically, mentally or socially." And another (from the NRDC) states: "the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Darwinism is the study of natural selection. In the early 20th century, eugenics was actually pretty mainstream science and was even advocated in the US.
thealj wrote:
Eugenics is not the practice of Darwinism. Eugenics is pre-selective breeding. There's a huge difference.
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
thealj wrote:
Stating that I use modern physics as my bible is not philosophically tantamount to stating I believe in physicalism. Physicalism is monist theory in disguise (see: monads) for which we have Leibniz to "thank". Don't be fooled.
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
espeir wrote:
Google disagrees:
Good for Google. I am still correct when I assert that eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the idea of natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural selection. The two are not equivalent. Natural selection is not pre-selective breeding. It doesn't take a search engine to understand that.
espeir wrote:
Explain that difference as I see none. Darwinism is natural selection. Eugenics is natural selection implemented. The relationship is identical as the one between science and engineering.
It's a huge difference and it is not equivalent to the analogy of engineering and science. By canonical definition you cannot implement natural selection. It's as fundamental as the difference between the words "natural" and "pre-selective". Selective breeding implies three concepts: 1. isolation 2. artificial selection 3. inbreeding Not one of those qualifies as "natural selection". I fail to understand why the difference is not clear to you.
espeir wrote:
Monism denotes oneness with God while physicalism denoted absolute godlessness, so the two are not equivalent. Physicalism is the belief that all attributes of the universe can be successfully described through physics and that our "soul" is a derivitive of those physical properties. The two are quite different.
Seeing as you like Google so much, I'll refer you to wikipedia's entry on physicalism[^] where it clearly and directly states: Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is a form of monism. Monists understand "God" to exist and operate within the universe. Hence, they believe God to be a physical essence.
-
thealj wrote:
In fact, the Bible, the Qu'ran, what-have-you are nothing more than allegorical stories to me. Sure, the ideas and morals are nice, but beyond that they aren't worth taking seriously or fighting over. My bible is modern physics. It's much nicer than your typical religion-of-the-month because people of all colours and races can practice it without killing one another. That's the beauty of it.
5! :) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)