"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

"Backwardly wired retina an optimal structure"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#481  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 31, 2014 11:43 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

Bollocks. It IS a slander, and a particularly egregious and duplicitous one at that, because what GENUINELY influences the "narrative", as you keep calling it, about human origins, is DATA IN ENORMOUS AMOUNTS. Data such as the thousands of hominid fossils, data such as the phylogenetic data arising from whole genome comparisons of humans and other primates, data which ALL not only flushes the fantasies you peddle here down the toilet and pulls the flush hard, but also points inexorably to your "atheist ideology" mantra being a fiction and a lie. With this mendacious and utterly morally bankrupt fiction you keep peddling, you traduce the thousands of hard-working, honest scientists who let the DATA shape their ideas, NOT your fictitious "atheist ideology". Now once and for all, JayJay, shove this duplicitous fiction back into the orifice you manifestly pulled it from, because it IS a fiction, and it IS a lie. Moreover, the only reason you're peddling this fiction and this lie, is because the DATA says that the assorted fantasies you're peddling here are fantasies, and that the only method open to you to hand-wave away the data, is to try and smear the scientists uncovering that data as operating in the same way as creationists, who are the REAL pedlars of ideology here.

This egregiously maleficent fiction you have been peddling has not only been demonstrated to be a maleficent fiction repeatedly, but is becoming more and more boring with every resurrection thereof on your part. This fiction of yours stinks, JayJay, it stinks with a foul odour of discoursive duplicity and criminality that makes numerous organoselenium compounds seem florally fragrant by comparison. It is long overdue for you to drop this fiction once and for all, JayJay, and continued peddling of this fiction after this post will be regarded by everyone here as suppuratingly dishonest.


I count it as quite an achievement to have reduced you to this frustrated spluttering.


Only someone entertaining some seriously febrile delusions could describe the above presentation of facts as "frustrated spluttering"


“odour of discoursive duplicity and criminality that makes numerous organoselenium compounds seem florally fragrant by comparison.” It’s fair to call that frustrated spluttering.

Only if you fail to understand what fair means.
There is no admission or expression of frustration anywhere in the bit you quoted, nor is there any spluttering.
The entire quote is phrased correctly.
Or do you also not understand what spluttering means?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Strange that you seem proud of it.

Pathetic that you keep returning to this pseudo-psychology bullshit, even after being called on it several times. :yuk:

Jayjay4547 wrote:That must be learned. Posters at Richard Dawkins.Net and now here have mutually groomed each other into treating spluttering as admirable.

Except there is no spluttering. But do continue to make a fool out of yourself by asserting there is in contradiction to the facts.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But like I said, if any outsiders do happen to come along, you won’t look so good to them. You can change and the quality of argument here would improve if you did.

Allow me to remind you of the desperate fallaciousness of this line of reasoning:
http://larianlequella.blogspot.nl/2010/04/goldenmanes-third-rule-of-public.shtml

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Once again, what part of "the data shapes ideas in science, not unsupported assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact", do you not understand?


It’s true that data is used to support ideas in science as in History

Again, it's history, not History.

Jayjay4547 wrote: but historians appreciate that alternative narratives can be constructed by highlighting different data and that motivations at the social level guide that choice.

Eh no they don't Jayjay, I seriously advice you to stop making shit up about things you clearly have no knowledge about.
What-if history is a big no-no. People can have all kinds of idiosyncratic views about the world, as you yourself so aptly demonstrate, but history unfolds in 1 way, not different ways at the same time.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Those motivations can derive from ideologies, for example atheism.

Except that atheism is no more an ideology that not collecting stamps is.
Continuing to mindlessly regurgitate this bullshit only demonstrates the dishonest nature of your positions and arguments, like theropod pointed out before.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Those guys aren’t in your pocket Cali.


They're not in yours either. Moreover, they'll almost certainly point and laugh at your above caricature if they happen to know how science actually works, as opposed to the caricature thereof you repeatedly peddle here.


That notion of “pointing and laughing” is used often here, it brings up an image of a jeering crowd which is your crowd; you-all act like a jeering crowd. But the danger you face is that an outsider will not join the jeering, but be put off.

The site is pretty clear what it's about.
Anyone who reads your posts with a rational and inquisitive mind would laugh at the bollocks you post and keep regurgitating.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The bias that I claim so see in the established human origin narrative is no more radical than they have been educated to accept in the respected discipline of History.


Pull the other one, JayJay, it's got fucking bells on. You're erecting your caricatures for one purpose and one purpose only, as I described above, namely, to try and erect a fake "symmetry" between evidence-based science and assertion-laden doctrine, for the purpose of dismissing any evidence that happens not to genuflect before your ideological presuppositions. It's a supernaturalist tactic that's been deployed so often here, JayJay, and not just by you, that it's transparently obvious to the point of having no refractive index. Your entire "atheist ideology" bullshit is erected for this specific purpose, just as it's erected for the same purpose by every other creationist who peddles it. No one who paid attention in science class is fooled by this discoursive elision.


Nope, I’m arguing that the understanding and presentation of evolution has been influenced and damaged by atheist ideology.

Except that it hasn't. as there's no such thing.
FFS Jayjay, put your money where your mouth is:
What is this supposed atheist ideology and what's your evidence that it exists?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Though the natural history bias I’m claiming is particularly interesting.


Only a creationist could possibly describe paying attention to the real world evidence as "natural history bias". Congratulations on exposing your own manifest ideological presuppositions once more, JayJay.


To even propose a bias is to be ipso facto wrong?

No, to insinuate the bias is towards ideology instead of facts is wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway, what I mainly wanted to discuss was your long paste purporting to show that Hitler was Christian. That was all quote mining


Oh now you're treading on dangerous soil here, JayJay. What I presented was NOT "quote mining", because I didn't attempt via those quotes to distort the author's intent. Retract this blatant falsehood NOW.


Quote mining is extracting little veins of data that support one’s view, from an ore body that contains also data that points in other directions.

Incorrect. It's quoting a a book or person, without the context of where the quote originated, be it paper or statement, in attempt to make it appear to be something else than as actually said/written.
It has to to with the immediate context Jayjay, not whatever is happening around the event.

Jayjay4547 wrote:For example, other things Hitler said make him seem anti-Christian.

False, anti-Catholic church, not anti-Christian.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Your Hitler-was-Christian posting was made entirely from stuff gleaned by anti-Christians, copy and pasted by you to assemble a sort of Frankenstein-Monster.

Arsewater. They're quotes from Mein Kampf, Hitler's own book.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The way to move towards the truth isn’t to assemble counter-quote mining, it’s to place those quotes in historical context as I did.

That's not quote-mining Jayjay/
And you historical context is riddled with falsehoods.

Jayjay4547 wrote:However egregiously selected, the mined quotes were real and they need explanation.

Except that they weren't quote-mines as those relate to the immediate context, not related ones.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:let’s put it in the context of the very bones of 20th century history.


Oh, you think I'm not aware of any of this? Oh this is going to be so fucking good.


I think you don’t look at the historical context, which does explain the Nazi atrocities as arising from freeing themselves from the halters of the morality opf the Christianity of their day.

Nonsense.
Do you mean the same morality of Christianity that opposed abortions, preached that homosexuality was a sin, that perpetuated pedophelia? Those morals Jayjay?
Hitler and co were convinced their views were in line with Christianity, not opposed to it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.


What the fuck does this have to do with Mein Kampf, and the author's thoughts as he dictated the contents thereof to Rudolf Hess in their shared cell?


It sets the stage for presenting Nazism as primarily a reaction against communism, as I said later.

Which is also bollocks.
Nazism was primarily a reaction against postwar Germany and the hardships and humilation it suffered.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: and pro-science.


Trofim Lysenko, anyone?

The power that Lysenko wielded arose out of the inflated hope that Stalin placed that science would vindicate an analogy to communist “nurture” to revolutionise agriculture.

Exactly he was a useful pawn to further the Soviet economy.
The Soviets only reached for 'science' when they needed it. Meanwhile they were decidedly anti-intellecual.

Jayjay4547 wrote:A generation before the state had put its hope in Rasputin.

Who was a faith healer, not a scientist and who was supported by the ruling Romanovs, not the Bolsheviks.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Both Russia and Germany did see “science” as the new guiding light.

False. Both Russia and Germany saw it as a useful tool in propaganda in emergencies.
The SU was decidely anti-intellecutal and Germany was primarily interested in engineering and anything else that could power their warmachines.
There was no science as we know it today: independent of the government and ideological control.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:It sought to extend communism throughout the world.


Once again, what has this to do with Hitler's race theories, and the thoughts he presented in Mein Kampf?


The expansionist aim of communism made it a threat to all the governments in Europe. I’m placing Hilter in his historical role as a champion of anti-communism.

Which has nothing to with him being a Christian or with Cali's quotes.
Nor was it the primary reason he seized power or founded the Nazis.
Ergo it's completely irrelevant to the original discussion.

Jayjay4547 wrote:In Wikipedia’s entry on Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler he is quoted in Mein Kampf:
InHitler's mind, communism is the primary enemy of Germany:
“ In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

By all means view the other quotes in Wiki. Seems he associated communism with a Jewish plot to subjugate the world.

See, this is akin to quote-mining, because if you read the rest of the book, you'd know he made similar statements about capitalists.
And again, what's this got to do with Cali's quotes or Hitler being a Christian?

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1918 Germany surrendered after a revolution with a communist heart


Actually, that surrender was brought about by the realisation, on the part of the Imperial German high command, that they could not sustain indefinitely the level of attrition they were facing. But I suppose 3 million dead German soldiers had nothing to do with that surrender, did it? You do realise that the Axis Powers suffered a total of 16.4 million casualties?


Wiki has a good entry on the German revolution, showing that it did have a communist heart.[/quote]
So fucking what? Cali never said it hadn't!
It's completely irrelevant whether the revolution was communist or not. The fact remains that it wasn't the cause for Germany's surrender.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m at a loss about the significance of Axis casualties but it may be relevant that over 90% of those were caused by the Russians.

It has to do with the real reason Germany surrendered, as explained by Cali. Unlike your historical fantasy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: but the communists were beaten by right-wing capitalist reaction, ending with the compromise of the weak but democratic Weimar republic.


So what? What has this to do with the relevant content I presented from Mein Kampf?


I’ll get to that, read the whole argument instead of trying to bite off little bits every sentence leading up to it.

He doesn't have to as this has squat to do with the quotes Cali presented.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The relevance is that communism was defeated in Germany in 1918 but remained a political threat.

:facepalm2:
Which has fuck all to do with the quotes Cali provided.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany as an explicitly anti-communist party. They made a concordat with the Catholic political party in which, in exchange for withdrawing from politics, the Catholics would be protected and funded by the Reich, as they still are.


Given the ruthlessness with which they exeterminated a range of political opponents from other parties, JayJay, one has to ask why they dispensed this largesse to the Catholic Party. Or why they signed a concordat with the Vatican, for that matter, which was signed in 1933.

I mentioned the concordat. It shows that in 1933 the Catholics were prepared to make a deal with Hitler.

So were other parties, yet they were exterminated anyway.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Hitler was a natural ally of the Catholics against the deadly enemy of atheist communism.

Anti-theist communism. Atheism had nothing to do with it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1937 the Pope issued Mit Brennender Sorge, an encyclical smuggled into Germany and to be read to all Germans. He complained about a breach of contract by the Nazis and warned of the evil of the Fuhrer principle, of paying ultimate allegiance to a man and a State rather than to God.


Here's some words on that encyclical, written by Carlo Falconi, Catholic journalist and former ordained priest:

So little anti-Nazi is it that it does not even attribute to the regime as such, but only to certain trends within it, the dogmatic and moral errors widespread in Germany. And while the errors indicated are carefully diagnosed and refuted, complete silence surrounds the much more serious and fundamental errors associated with Nazi political ideology, corresponding to the principles most subversive of natural law that are characteristic of absolute totalitarianisms. The encyclical is in fact concerned purely with the Catholic Church in Germany and its rights and privileges, on the basis of the concordatory contracts of 1933. Moreover the form given to it by Cardinal Faulhaber, even more a super-nationalist than the majority of his most ardent colleagues, was essentially dictated by tactics and aimed at avoiding a definite breach with the regime, even to the point of offering in conclusion a conciliatory olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence. Nevertheless, even within these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world. It was, indeed, the encyclicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it possessed."


I’d go along with all that. The Pope’s courage astonished the world.

You missed this bit:
"It was, indeed, the encyclicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it possessed."


Jayjay4547 wrote: I find it myself an astonishing document today.

That's because of the blinkers and your ignorance of the fact that the pope did nothing further to actually oppose Nazi Germany.

Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1937 about the only other Westerner I know of who was prepared to speak bluntly about the moral weaknesses of Nazism was Churchill.

Once again demonstrating your historical ignorance.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: In spite of the brutal anti-Christian actions where communists had taken control in Russia, Mexico and Spain, involving the deaths of thousands of Catholic clergy, and in spite of the trial war in Spain between the Nazis and Communists, there had been a falling out between Nazis and Catholics in Germany. That is documented in Richard J Evans’ The Third Reich in Power. In spite of the Nazis having every strategic interest in an anti-communist alliance with the Catholics, Hitler’s government undermined the Catholics at every turn; trapping clergy using prostitutes and closing down schools and seminaries.


Actually, you'll find that much of this activity was a reaction to that encyclical
.

You think Mit Brennender Sorge could have been written without good cause?

Yes. You think it can't have?
Not that this actually adresses Cali's point. But that's par for the course I guess.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:At the same time the Protestants were undermined by building up a toady Lutheran faction from which the Confessing church broke away. The disaffection between Nazis and organised Christianity is symbolised by the facts that Stauffenberg who tried to blow Hitler up, was a Catholic and Dietrich Bonhoeffer the theologian who was hanged on piano wire for his role in that, was a Lutheran.


No kidding? I don't remember saying otherwise.

I'm still waiting for you to address the fact that on 24th October, 1933, Hitler uttered these words in Berlin:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.


Or that in 1938, nearly eighteen months after the encyclical was issued, Hitler uttered these words in Nuremberg:

National Socialism is not a cult-movement—a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will—not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.


Oh, and how about addressing the fact that Hitler's racial theories originated with Lanz von Liebenfels, as I documented in detail in the relevant past post? Care to do that, JayJay, given that this is now considered to be accepted and evidentially supported by just about every historian studying the relevant period? And as a corollary, his racial theories had nothing to do with science, let alone evolution?


Gosh what was Hitler talking about? Not about going to a house of worship, but “exclusively cultivation of the natural”. Sounds like a science-worshipper. But not of healthy science.

And you have to gall the ask theropod where you've expressed intellectual dishonesty.
What part of this sounds like science worship Jayjay?
But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, [b]we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will—not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There were no shortage of things Hitler said in public speeches, to align Nazism to the Anti-Communist Christian West. But the Fuhrer was no church-goer nor was his party of thugs.


There are plenty of people who don't go to church, but who adhere to the relevant doctrines.


We could have a discussion about that.

You could and based on your behaviour here, you wouldn't get very far as you'd ignore anything contradicting your beliefs.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The fact is that Hitler, in spite of being the natural strategic ally of Christianity against the existential threat of communism and in spite of everything he said at rallies, positioned himself outside of any church discipline, undermined and suppressed the churches as far as he dared, bearing in mind his need to rally all of society in the war he had started.

The Catholic church =/= Christianity Jayjay.
Hitler was a selfavowed Christian and repeatedly stated he defended Christianity against the evils of the world be they communist or Jews.
That he disagreed with the Catholic churhc doesn't change that.
That's like arguing the Protestants aren't true Christians because they refused to cooperate with the Catholic church.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The Christian virtues of gentleness and mercy had no role in their polity.

You mean the Christian virtues that led to the Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts etc?
Those Christian virtues?

Jayjay4547 wrote:They considered themselves as the New Men, freed from the moral halters of superstitious Jew-instigated religion.

They considered themselves Christians doing the Divine Will of God.
That you keep ignoring that this is what Hitler explicitely said only demonstrates your refusal to discuss this honestly.

Jayjay4547 wrote:This wasn’t something that happened 500 years ago but within the lifetimes of people still living today.

How is that relevant?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#482  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 31, 2014 11:49 am

The worship of the natural in Hitlers quote is not science, but an opposition to artifical constructions like Chruches.
He's saying they won't worship God in churches but in the open air.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#483  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 01, 2014 7:34 am

He keeps peddling this "atheist ideology" bullshit again and again, despite having been repeatedly schooled on why it's bullshit, by reference to the facts. But then, all he's doing is establishing how his ideology is dependent upon ignoring inconvenient facts, when said facts drive a tank division through his assertionist bullshit. I couldn't really ask for a better demonstration of the aetiology of genuine ideological adherence, than his posts.

I'll simply re-state, at this point, the question he keeps dodging and avoiding the way Kent Hovind dodged and avoided paying taxes, namely:

WHEN IS NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT AN "IDEOLOGY"?

He's never once answered this. He's merely erected the usual tiresome apologetic fabrications to try and hand-wave away this inconvenient question, the avoidance of which merely demonstrates yet again that he is the one peddling an ideology here.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#484  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 01, 2014 7:44 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The bias that I claim so see in the established human origin narrative is no more radical than they have been educated to accept in the respected discipline of History.

1. It's history not History.
2. There is no bias in how the origin of humanity is discussed in history, other than a bias towards the facts.


“History” can mean two things: (a) what happened in the past (b)The discipline of the study of what happened in the past. By starting the word with caps I meant to convey the latter sense.

Look up the Wikipedia entry on Historiography to see that historians don’t see their discipline as “merely driven by a bias towards the facts”. If the study of the biological past ever gets the monkey of atheist ideology off its back it might evolve towards the same sophistication and humility.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Though the natural history bias I’m claiming is particularly interesting. I’m claiming that when Treves and Palmquist said “When considering hominin anti-predator behavior, many scholars looked first to material culture, such as fire or weaponry” they were representing as scientific progress a swerve away from an already biased approach to treating human ancestors as embedded within and "created" by the biome expressed through the trophic pyramid. The ideological background driving that swerve was partly reaction within the Evo/Creo polarity, let’s call it a dialectic. Atheist scientists aren’t looking good here Cali, this is a vulnerability in an unexpected quarter. You need to lift your game.

You need to actually start presenting evidence instead of piling on the assertionist arsewater.
And 'atheist scientists' is just as meaningful a term as bearded scientists.

I already discussed the problems with the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s article and I discussed Cali’s reply to that- to which he replied with one of his spluttering-generality posts. If you want to pick it up, I’d be happy.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway, what I mainly wanted to discuss was your long paste purporting to show that Hitler was Christian.

No purporting took place.
It's an established fact as evident from the facts presented by Cali and myself.

Nope.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:that was all quote mining

Just because a quote contradicts what you believe, doesn't make it quotemining Jayjay.
Quotemining refers to quoting part of a text out of the context of the larger text or conversations it originated from.
Not what other people were thinking or doing at the time.


I provided the political conversation that Hitler’s religious quotes came from: that his party was first and foremost anti-communist, the communists were avowedly atheist and indeed Christian clergy tended to die wherever communists took power. Hitler had every political motivation to present himself as Christian. But what he and his party did showed them to be free from religious control. For them, Christianity was old, silly and soon to be dead.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.

Nope. Already you start with a incorrect statement.
The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, after a general revolution. And they didn't seize power to get out of the Great War as your statement implies.

Revolutions are always more structured by political factions than you seem to be suggesting. The Wiki article on the Russian revolution clearly records the importance of the Great War in it.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The new government was internationalist,

It was anything but. It greatly feared the response of the international community to their revolution.

Oh for heaven’s sake Thomas. The communists hoped to extend communism throughout the world. From that Wiki entry:

”Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918–1919, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands”.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:avowedly anti-Christian and pro-science.

More bollocks, it was anti-religion, not specifically anti-Christian and it sought to replace religion with it's own cult, the cult of Bolshevism and later Stalin.
More-over it wasn't pro-science, if anything it was anti-intellectual.
It only sought to educate people to extent that they could be used to serve the nation and it produced several pseudo-scientific theories.


Sure, the communists were anti-religion in a general sense, but that played out as anti-Christian in the West, more specifically anti-Catholic in Mexico and Spain. Bolshevism wasn’t a cult it was a majoritarian workerist anti-capitalist political movement. Marx was a major public intellectual who believed he was putting political economics on a proper scientific basis. The communists certainly saw properly directed science as their guiding light out of the superstitious mess of the past.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It sought to extend communism throughout the world.

How is this, or any of the previous pseudo-historic crap relevant to whether Hitler was an Christian or not?
Hitler was neither a Boslhevik nor a Russian.


What I had said up to that point was not pseudo-historic crap, it was the bare bones of history to set the stage for explaining that in terms of strategic alliance, Hitler and the Nazis should have been champions of Christianity.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1918 Germany surrendered after a revolution with a communist heart

Seriously, where did you get your historical education? I advise you to get your money back.
The Germans surrendered because they could not longer maintain the war, both financially and morally.

I read a book about the German revolution, can’t recall the author after all these years. But you can look that revolution up in Wikipedia. Germany did surrender after a revolution with a communist heart. They couldn’t have done that if the war had been going well for Germany, as for Russia in 1917.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:but the communists were beaten by right-wing capitalist reaction, ending with the compromise of the weak but democratic Weimar republic.

Again, what's this got to do with Hitler being a Christian? None of this makes Cali's quotes, quotemines.


The quotemines that Cali had so assiduously collected need to be placed in a context that I was providing: where Hitler had every political interest in presenting himself as defender of Western Christianity against the atheist communist hordes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany as an explicitly anti-communist party.

And anti-Jews, anti-capitalist etc.

I don’t know about anti-capitalist; the capitalists thought they had Hitler in their pocket as street-fighting anti-communists. Don’t make out that Hitler was just anti-communist as part of being generally anti. History is more structured than that.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They made a concordat with the Catholic political party in which, in exchange for withdrawing from politics, the Catholics would be protected and funded by the Reich, as they still are.

You don't find that odd? That a supposedly anti-Christian nation would sign such an alliance with the biggest Christian origanisation in the world?


I didn’t claim that Germany was an anti-Christian nation, quite the opposite in 1933. They ran the biggest opposition party at that time – I think it may have been the ancestor of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU. And the German “nation” didn’t sign the concordat- the Nazis signed it with the Catholics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1937 the Pope issued Mit Brennender Sorge, an encyclical smuggled into Germany and to be read to all Germans. He complained about a breach of contract by the Nazis and warned of the evil of the Fuhrer principle, of paying ultimate allegiance to a man and a State rather than to God.

Doesn't change that the Church refuses to outright oppose Hitler.
And it certainly doesn't change that Hitler and the Nazi's were Christians.


Thomas, no one opposed Hitler, not even the Dutch. Not openly. Except those who stood outside of Hitler’s power. In the interwar years, the Catholics particularly, were in a difficult position. On the one hand international communism was their sworn enemy. On the other hand the main defense against communism acted against them in increasingly brazen and brutal ways. Hence Mit Brennender Sorge. I’m not claiming the Catholics had clean hands either; in Italy they toadied up to Mussolini who despised them. In Mexico they supported a hopeless peasant’s revolt.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Something important had happened to produce that encyclical. In spite of the brutal anti-Christian actions where communists had taken control in Russia, Mexico and Spain, involving the deaths of thousands of Catholic clergy, and in spite of the trial war in Spain between the Nazis and Communists, there had been a falling out between Nazis and Catholics in Germany. That is documented in Richard J Evans’ The Third Reich in Power. In spite of the Nazis having every strategic interest in an anti-communist alliance with the Catholics, Hitler’s government undermined the Catholics at every turn; trapping clergy using prostitutes and closing down schools and seminaries. At the same time the Protestants were undermined by building up a toady Lutheran faction from which the Confessing church broke away. The disaffection between Nazis and organised Christianity is symbolised by the facts that Stauffenberg who tried to blow Hitler up, was a Catholic and Dietrich Bonhoeffer the theologian who was hanged on piano wire for his role in that, was a Lutheran. Hitler reportedly had the plotters' pants pulled down, supposedly to show what sort of men they were, but really telling us something about Hitler.

That he was opposed to the orginized churches. Not that he was not a Christian, unless you want to appeal to the No True Christian fallacy.

What “fallacy” is that? To oppose Christinaity is to oppose the institutions of Christian worship, whereby Christianity is realised.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There were no shortage of things Hitler said in public speeches, to align Nazism to the Anti-Communist Christian West.

Indeed, proving that he was Christian.

If Hitler were a Christian we should have found a chapel at Berchtesgaden , crucifixes in his Berlin Bunker, holy water bowls at the entrance of his bedroom and the Bible in his hand when he shot himself.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But the Fuhrer was no church-goer nor was his party of thugs.

And? Most Christian today in my country, hardly, if ever attend church.

The situation in Holland might be similar to that among some social classes in my country, where Christianity has been hollowed out by the intellectual appeal of atheism and by secularism. Is someone who never attends worship, never prays, never sings a hymn, never pays money to a church, never makes Sunday different from Saturday- is that person a Christian? The fact that Hitler was no church-goer, nor was his party of thugs, does call into question whether he could be called Christian.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They were totalitarian.

They were Christian.

That’s what you say, but your justification is merely that they could have been Christian because like the Dutch, they didn’t go to church. And Hitler said some things aligning himself against the atheist communists. But all material signs that might have backed your assertion are missing. The Nazis undermined and suppressed Christianity especially before the war. They showed their true colours.

It’s bizarre to contradict my calling the Nazis “totalitarian” by saying “they were Christian”. You can’t begin to understand the Nazis without understanding their totalitarian nature. And you get no insight from calling them “Christian” I would have thought, it's really important for a European to understand the European totalitarianisms of the 20th Century. Hang, I was once bicycling along a path in Holland, came across a little sign saying I was actually in the Bundesrepublik. Focused my mind. There is so much to be understood about the 20th century,suggest you give it higher priority than trying to pin "Christianity" on Hitler.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They explicitly freed their minds from the moral halters of the Lutheran and Catholic churches of their day, to wreak cruel havoc wherever their power spread.

Bollocks. They explicitly freed themselves from the interference of other religious authorities and interpeted Christianity for themselves, just as the Protestants had done before them.


The Protestants actually rekindled the Christian faith by referring back to its origin and its canonical texts, printed in the languages of the people. They were quite different in that from the Nazis, who tried, not very hard, to reinvent from a mishmash of pre-Christian European mythologies, some vision of a God of National Destiny who expressed their fuehrer-principle ego-mania.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#485  Postby Animavore » Aug 01, 2014 7:53 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s what you say, but your justification is merely that they could have been Christian because like the Dutch, they didn’t go to church. And Hitler said some things aligning himself against the atheist communists. But all material signs that might have backed your assertion are missing. The Nazis undermined and suppressed Christianity especially before the war. They showed their true colours.



You've already been schooled on this.

Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a movement within Nazi Germany which blended ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity. Hitler included use of the term in Article 24[1] of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating "the Party represents the standpoint of Positive Christianity". Non-denominational, the term could be variously interpreted, but allayed fears among Germany's Christian majority as to the expressed hostility towards the established churches of large sections of the Nazi movement.[2] In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained "Positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.[3] To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Christianity and is considered apostasy by Catholics and Protestants.

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

The Nazis believed in a form of Christianity which removed the Jewish aspects from the Bible (like the OT) and portrayed Jesus as an Aryan battling the Jews. They believed that white people were created by God separately from the other races and came from Atlantis.

The Nazis and Hitler were not atheists. The SS even banned atheists from their ranks because they thought that their lack of belief in a higher power was a problem.

Deal with it.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 45104
Age: 45
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#486  Postby Coastal » Aug 01, 2014 7:59 am

If Hitler were a Christian we should have found a chapel at Berchtesgaden , crucifixes in his Berlin Bunker, holy water bowls at the entrance of his bedroom and the Bible in his hand when he shot himself.


:rofl: :rofl:
User avatar
Coastal
 
Posts: 663
Age: 47
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#487  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 01, 2014 10:44 am

Coastal wrote:
If Hitler were a Christian we should have found a chapel at Berchtesgaden , crucifixes in his Berlin Bunker, holy water bowls at the entrance of his bedroom and the Bible in his hand when he shot himself.


:rofl: :rofl:


Indeed, these appurtenances were usually reserved for clerics. But you'll find that JayJay has a habit of manufacturing his own "facts" in his posts. ;)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#488  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 01, 2014 11:45 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The bias that I claim so see in the established human origin narrative is no more radical than they have been educated to accept in the respected discipline of History.

1. It's history not History.
2. There is no bias in how the origin of humanity is discussed in history, other than a bias towards the facts.


“History” can mean two things: (a) what happened in the past (b)The discipline of the study of what happened in the past. By starting the word with caps I meant to convey the latter sense.

In both cases there's no capital letter.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Look up the Wikipedia entry on Historiography to see that historians don’t see their discipline as “merely driven by a bias towards the facts”.

I'm a historian. And yes historians do try to eliminate all personal bias and only look at the facts.
Your blind referral to wikipedia notwithstanding.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If the study of the biological past ever gets the monkey of atheist ideology

Still talking shit then? You have yet to define, much less provide evidence of this atheist ideology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:off its back it might evolve towards the same sophistication and humility.

Allowing bias into your studies is anything but sophisticated.
Looking only at the facts is the epitome of humility. Biology, just like any other science follows these rules.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Though the natural history bias I’m claiming is particularly interesting. I’m claiming that when Treves and Palmquist said “When considering hominin anti-predator behavior, many scholars looked first to material culture, such as fire or weaponry” they were representing as scientific progress a swerve away from an already biased approach to treating human ancestors as embedded within and "created" by the biome expressed through the trophic pyramid. The ideological background driving that swerve was partly reaction within the Evo/Creo polarity, let’s call it a dialectic. Atheist scientists aren’t looking good here Cali, this is a vulnerability in an unexpected quarter. You need to lift your game.

You need to actually start presenting evidence instead of piling on the assertionist arsewater.
And 'atheist scientists' is just as meaningful a term as bearded scientists.

I already discussed the problems with the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s article and I discussed Cali’s reply to that- to which he replied with one of his spluttering-generality posts. If you want to pick it up, I’d be happy.

If you'd cite the relevant bits, because, again, there hasn't been a single post wherein someone spluttered.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway, what I mainly wanted to discuss was your long paste purporting to show that Hitler was Christian.

No purporting took place.
It's an established fact as evident from the facts presented by Cali and myself.

Nope.

Ah so we've gone down to kindergarten arguments now? "Does not!1!"?
Who do you think you're fooling with blind dismissal like this?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:that was all quote mining

Just because a quote contradicts what you believe, doesn't make it quotemining Jayjay.
Quotemining refers to quoting part of a text out of the context of the larger text or conversations it originated from.
Not what other people were thinking or doing at the time.


I provided the political conversation that Hitler’s religious quotes came from: that his party was first and foremost anti-communist, the communists were avowedly atheist and indeed Christian clergy tended to die wherever communists took power.

No, what you did was actually a quote mine as Mein Kampf contains similar claims about the Jews.
Voila:
...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

So Hitler didn't just consider the Jews the enemy of the Germans, he considered them to be evil incarnate.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Hitler had every political motivation to present himself as Christian.

You're begging the question that he wasn't. You haven't provided any evidence for that assumption.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But what he and his party did showed them to be free from religious control.

Here's a newsflash for you: organised religion =/= Christianity.
That Hitler had a problem with the Catholic and Lutheran churches doesn't change that he was a Christian.

Jayjay4547 wrote:For them, Christianity was old, silly and soon to be dead.

Utterly false and yet another blind assertion.
The Catholic and Lutheran churches were seen as obselete and unnatural, as evidenced by the quote discussed earlier. But Christainity was very much alive to Hitler and he identified himself as such.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.

Nope. Already you start with a incorrect statement.
The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, after a general revolution. And they didn't seize power to get out of the Great War as your statement implies.

Revolutions are always more structured by political factions than you seem to be suggesting.

I didn't suggest anything about any political factions Jayjay. I reported the facts.
The February revolution was started by the workers and sailors of St. Petersburg and other cities, not by the Bolsheviks or any other organised political party.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki article on the Russian revolution clearly records the importance of the Great War in it.

You might want to get your info from some textbooks instead of wikipedia.
Especially since you've resorted to making empty assertions about wikipedia says without actuyally providing quotes or citations.
I'll let you in on something good; the Bolsheviks themselves were divided on if, when and how Russia should get out of the Great War.
Your assertionist fantasy that the revolution was started by the Bolsheviks to end Russias participation in the Great War, is just that, a fantasy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The new government was internationalist,

It was anything but. It greatly feared the response of the international community to their revolution.

Oh for heaven’s sake Thomas. The communists hoped to extend communism throughout the world.

FFS Jayjay, being internationalist =/= spreading your ideology across the globe.
Yes the Bolsheviks wanted the entire world to become communist and then have this communist paradise work together, but the point is that the world wasn't communist at the start of WW2 and the Bolsheviks were very much afraid of international response to their revolution. They sought international communication with other communist parties, but beyond that they were pretty isolationist.

Jayjay4547 wrote:From that Wiki entry:

Get away from wikipedia and get yourself a history textbook, preferably senior high or better.

Jayjay4547 wrote:”Leon Trotsky said

Trotsky was quickly ousted from power after the revolution. Quoting Trotsky as influencial figure in Communist and especially Stalinist Russia is pointless. Unless you want to get his perspective on things.

Jayjay4547 wrote: that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918–1919, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands”.

None of this refutes what I just stated:
1. The Russians were indeed trying to spread the revolution, but
2. They failed to succeed/
3. They were afraid of Western intervention and rightfully so.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:avowedly anti-Christian and pro-science.

More bollocks, it was anti-religion, not specifically anti-Christian and it sought to replace religion with it's own cult, the cult of Bolshevism and later Stalin.
More-over it wasn't pro-science, if anything it was anti-intellectual.
It only sought to educate people to extent that they could be used to serve the nation and it produced several pseudo-scientific theories.


Sure, the communists were anti-religion in a general sense, but that played out as anti-Christian in the West,

Of course it did, Christianity was and is by far the dominant religion in the West.
That doesn't mean they didn't persecute Jews just as much btw.


Jayjay4547 wrote: more specifically anti-Catholic in Mexico and Spain.

And? You find it strange that an anti-theistic group would be predominantly occupied with removing the dominant religion in a country?
What's the point of mentioning this obvious fact? It doesn't refute anything I've said, nor does it support your position.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Bolshevism wasn’t a cult it

Stalinism was.
And I know what Bolshevism is, I wrote a paper on them.

Jayjay4547 wrote: was a majoritarian workerist anti-capitalist political movement. Marx was a major public intellectual who believed he was putting political economics on a proper scientific basis.

Marx was long dead by the time the Bolsheviks took power.
The Bolsheviks had already deviated from Das Kapital by that point.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The communists certainly saw properly directed science as their guiding light out of the superstitious mess of the past.

Arsewater and I've already pointed this out to you Jayjay, referencing Marx, who was long dead and his original idea modified won't help you.
The Soviet Union only took to science when:
A. They had not choice.
B. It could be used to support their regime and propaganda.
The SU was decidedly anti-intellectual. There was no free and organised science.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It sought to extend communism throughout the world.

How is this, or any of the previous pseudo-historic crap relevant to whether Hitler was an Christian or not?
Hitler was neither a Boslhevik nor a Russian.


What I had said up to that point was not pseudo-historic crap,

It was riddled with it, your blind denial notwithstanding.

Jayjay4547 wrote:it was the bare bones of history

No, it was assertionist claptrap, very loosely based on facts, to attempt to support your initial position.

Jayjay4547 wrote:to set the stage for explaining that in terms of strategic alliance, Hitler and the Nazis should have been champions of Christianity.

And Hitler was.
Your continued attempts at the No True Christian fallacy, because he didn't agree with the established churches, is just that, a fallacy. Faulty reasoning, illogical.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1918 Germany surrendered after a revolution with a communist heart

Seriously, where did you get your historical education? I advise you to get your money back.
The Germans surrendered because they could not longer maintain the war, both financially and morally.

I read a book about the German revolution, can’t recall the author after all these years. But you can look that revolution up in Wikipedia.

Again, stuff wikipedia and get a textbook.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Germany did surrender after a revolution with a communist heart.

Except that
A. They didn't. The first armistice was signed during, not after the revolution.
B. They surrendered because they could no longer sustain the war, not because of the revolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote: They couldn’t have done that if the war had been going well for Germany, as for Russia in 1917.

Complete non-sequitur. And the war wasn't going well for Russia, they were loosing way to many troops.
The only positive side was that in total the Allies weren't loosing.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but the communists were beaten by right-wing capitalist reaction, ending with the compromise of the weak but democratic Weimar republic.

Again, what's this got to do with Hitler being a Christian? None of this makes Cali's quotes, quotemines.[/quote]

The quotemines that Cali had so assiduously collected[/quote]
Again this did not take place. This has been explained to you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:need to be placed in a context that I was providing: where Hitler had every political interest in presenting himself as defender of Western Christianity against the atheist communist hordes.

So once again you willfully ignore the facts. Quotemining deals with the immediate, not surrounding context.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany as an explicitly anti-communist party.

And anti-Jews, anti-capitalist etc.

I don’t know about anti-capitalist;

Hitler believed all industry should serve the nation.
Jayjay4547 wrote:the capitalists thought they had Hitler in their pocket as street-fighting anti-communists.

And they were wrong. Not that it matters, because we're looking at facts, not what people thought the facts were.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Don’t make out that Hitler was just anti-communist as part of being generally anti.

Who are you responding to here? I never made that claim. I was merely pointing out that Hitler wasn't focussed either primarily or exclusively.

Jayjay4547 wrote: History is more structured than that.

Word salad, not to mention that your historical knowledge displayed so far is not just sub-par, but often incorrect.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They made a concordat with the Catholic political party in which, in exchange for withdrawing from politics, the Catholics would be protected and funded by the Reich, as they still are.

You don't find that odd? That a supposedly anti-Christian nation would sign such an alliance with the biggest Christian origanisation in the world?


I didn’t claim that Germany was an anti-Christian nation

You claimed that the Nazi's were.

Jayjay4547 wrote:quite the opposite in 1933. They ran the biggest opposition party at that time – I think it may have been the ancestor of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU. And the German “nation” didn’t sign the concordat- the Nazis signed it with the Catholics.

The Nazi's were the government and hence the nation in that respect, just when any other government signs an alliance.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1937 the Pope issued Mit Brennender Sorge, an encyclical smuggled into Germany and to be read to all Germans. He complained about a breach of contract by the Nazis and warned of the evil of the Fuhrer principle, of paying ultimate allegiance to a man and a State rather than to God.

Doesn't change that the Church refuses to outright oppose Hitler.
And it certainly doesn't change that Hitler and the Nazi's were Christians.


Thomas, no one opposed Hitler, not even the Dutch.

1. Irrelevant.
2. I never said they did.
The fact remains that the Church did not openly oppose him.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Not openly. Except those who stood outside of Hitler’s power. In the interwar years, the Catholics particularly, were in a difficult position.

Let me guess, they were being persecuted? Despite being the dominant majority in many countries?
Got any evidence for this or is this yet more rectal matter flung in desperation?

Jayjay4547 wrote:On the one hand international communism was their sworn enemy.

Beyond the SU there was no international communism.
There were communist parties but they had very little power or influence.
Christians, Catholic or otherwise were hardly threatened by communists.

Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand the main defense against communism acted against them in increasingly brazen and brutal ways.

Actually the main defense against the communists would be the Allies, not Hitler.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Hence Mit Brennender Sorge. I’m not claiming the Catholics had clean hands either; in Italy they toadied up to Mussolini who despised them. In Mexico they supported a hopeless peasant’s revolt.

Then why bring up this irrelevant nonsense?
It doesn't refute that Hitler was a Christian, nor does it prove that Cali quote-mined.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Something important had happened to produce that encyclical. In spite of the brutal anti-Christian actions where communists had taken control in Russia, Mexico and Spain, involving the deaths of thousands of Catholic clergy, and in spite of the trial war in Spain between the Nazis and Communists, there had been a falling out between Nazis and Catholics in Germany. That is documented in Richard J Evans’ The Third Reich in Power. In spite of the Nazis having every strategic interest in an anti-communist alliance with the Catholics, Hitler’s government undermined the Catholics at every turn; trapping clergy using prostitutes and closing down schools and seminaries. At the same time the Protestants were undermined by building up a toady Lutheran faction from which the Confessing church broke away. The disaffection between Nazis and organised Christianity is symbolised by the facts that Stauffenberg who tried to blow Hitler up, was a Catholic and Dietrich Bonhoeffer the theologian who was hanged on piano wire for his role in that, was a Lutheran. Hitler reportedly had the plotters' pants pulled down, supposedly to show what sort of men they were, but really telling us something about Hitler.

That he was opposed to the organized churches. Not that he was not a Christian, unless you want to appeal to the No True Christian fallacy.

What “fallacy” is that?

To claim that someone isn't a Christian because he doesn't visit church or doesn't belong to one of the major denominations.

Jayjay4547 wrote:To oppose Christinaity is to oppose the institutions of Christian worship, whereby Christianity is realised.

But Hitler did no such thing. He was opposed to organised religion and church buildings not Christianity.
By your logic Protestants are not Christians because they opposed their contemporary institutions of Christian worship.
What you're doing here is a good example of a No True Christian fallacy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There were no shortage of things Hitler said in public speeches, to align Nazism to the Anti-Communist Christian West.

Indeed, proving that he was Christian.

If Hitler were a Christian we should have found a chapel at Berchtesgaden

No we shouldn't because he explicitely said that worship should not take place in unnatural structures like churches.
You're arbitrarily defining Christianity as worshiping Christ in a church or chapel.
This is what is meant by No True Christian.
Point to me where in the bible it says Christians must worship in a church or chapel.

Jayjay4547 wrote:crucifixes in his Berlin Bunker, holy water bowls at the entrance of his bedroom and the Bible in his hand when he shot himself.

Utter nonsense.
More No True Christan question begging.
Do you really believe you'll fool anyone with these ridiculous criteria?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But the Fuhrer was no church-goer nor was his party of thugs.

And? Most Christian today in my country, hardly, if ever attend church.

The situation in Holland might be similar to that among some social classes in my country, where Christianity has been hollowed out by the intellectual appeal of atheism and by secularism.

So now that you've done the No True Christian fallacy, you're moving right along to poisoning the well?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Is someone who never attends worship, never prays, never sings a hymn, never pays money to a church, never makes Sunday different from Saturday- is that person a Christian?

Can you actually provide evidence that Hitler never prayed?
Care to quote the passages of the bible that says you should attend church?
Pay money to the church?
Need to sing hymns?
That there is a day that needs to be special?
That that day is Sunday and not Friday?

This continued appeal to an evermore restricted form of Christanity only demonstrates that you are willing to bend and twist reality to not have to abandon your position or acknowledge you're wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote: The fact that Hitler was no church-goer, nor was his party of thugs, does call into question whether he could be called Christian.

Except that it really doesn't as this is still a No True Christian fallacy.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They were totalitarian.

They were Christian.

That’s what you say, but your justification is merely that they could have been Christian because like the Dutch, they didn’t go to church.

No, my justification is that:
A. Hitler called himself one and professsed to worship the Christian god.
B. Neither the definition of Christianity or Christian includes "must go to church".
A great many Christians would disagree with you and rightfully so. You're putting arbitrary limits on Christianity without providing rational arguments for these restrictions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And Hitler said some things aligning himself against the atheist communists.

You mean male communists.
Again atheism has very little to with communism.
They were anti-theists not just atheists.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more. It has no claims or dogma which leads one to communism, capitalism or any other ideology.

But all material signs that might have backed your assertion are missing. The Nazis undermined and suppressed Christianity especially before the war. They showed their true colours.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s bizarre to contradict my calling the Nazis “totalitarian” by saying “they were Christian”.

Except I'm not contradicting, I'm adding.
I'm not denying they were tolitarian. I'm merely pointing out that they were also Christian.
By the way Christian and tolitarian are not mutually exclusive. If you'd known anything about the Middle Ages you'd know that.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You can’t begin to understand the Nazis without understanding their totalitarian nature.

Again, I'm a historian, you're attempts to lecture me on these subjects are hilarious, especially in light of how many things you get wrong.
I never denied they were tolitarian, I added information.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And you get no insight from calling them “Christian”

Except that you do. It tells you they're theists, not atheists. It tells you which god they worship.
And I wasn't mentioning it to provide insight, I was mentioning it, because you keep denying it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I would have thought, it's really important for a European to understand the European totalitarianisms of the 20th Century.

And if I had expressed any ignorance or request for information on that topic it would be.
However I've done no such thing. This is just a result of your reading things into my post that weren't there.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Hang, I was once bicycling along a path in Holland, came across a little sign saying I was actually in the Bundesrepublik. Focused my mind. There is so much to be understood about the 20th century,suggest you give it higher priority than trying to pin "Christianity" on Hitler.

I suggest you don't read things into people's posts that aren't there.
Again, to clarify, I never denied that the Nazis were tolitarian, nor have I expressed any ignorance on the subject.
You're hardly one to lecture someone on 20th century European history as you're getting quite a bit of it wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They explicitly freed their minds from the moral halters of the Lutheran and Catholic churches of their day, to wreak cruel havoc wherever their power spread.

Bollocks. They explicitly freed themselves from the interference of other religious authorities and interpeted Christianity for themselves, just as the Protestants had done before them.


The Protestants actually rekindled the Christian faith by referring back to its origin and its canonical texts, printed in the languages of the people.

Correction, they reformed Christian by referring to their own interpetations of translations of translation of an already selectively assembled book.

[/quote]
Jayjay4547 wrote:They were quite different in that from the Nazis, who tried, not very hard, to reinvent from a mishmash of pre-Christian European mythologies, some vision of a God of National Destiny who expressed their fuehrer-principle ego-mania.

Oh you mean like the original Christians did with things like the Winter Solstice and Mithras?
The fact remains that Hitler was an avowed Christian and considered himself a defender of the Christian faith.
Just becaus he disagreed with the dominant churches and your particular worldviews doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#489  Postby Sendraks » Aug 01, 2014 2:39 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:What you don’t understand is that habitual use of something that isn’t the self-e.g. a weapon in the case of the pompom crab and a stick and stone in the case of Australopithecus – sets up a relationship that over time and through natural selection, is likely to change the body to make that relationship more effective in relations with the environment.


What you don't understand is that a symbiotic relationship is entirely dependent on both the organisms involved getting something out of the relationship. If the sea anemone did not benefit in some way from its relationship with the crab, then the symbiosis wouldn't work.

Furthermore, the sea anemone is not used as a "weapon" in so far as the crab is reliant on the recognition of the anenome both for camoflauge and also that other organisms tend to leave sea anemones alone because of their sting.

There is nothing symbiotic about the use of a sharpened stick. It is tool use. There is nothing in it for the stick.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s why I said you were shaking the word “symbiosis” in my face like a voodoo doll.

And that's why I've been saying your arguments display a disturbing level of ignorance.

Jayjay4547 wrote: that necessity if they were to forage on the savanna in the face of skilled sympatric predators and skilled alternative prey.

This is an assertion, You have provided no evidence or presented a compelling argument that australopiths required anything to survive on the savannah (which is in and of itself a move beneficial to species survival and evolution), beyond the adaptations they already possessed. You are added complexity where none is needed nor supported.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#490  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 01, 2014 9:09 pm

Actually, the relationship between Lybia tessellata and other crabs in the Genus, and various sea anemones, is facultative from the standpoint of the crabs. These crabs are observed living without anemones, and in some cases, observed substituting sponges and corals for the anemones. However, the choice of anemone is interesting to note here: the anemone chosen by those crabs that do carry anemones with them, is Triactis producta, which possesses especially powerful cnidoblasts. This anemone is capable of delivering a painful sting to humans, despite only being a small species (individuals selected for use by Lybia crabs are usually just 8mm tall or less). Consequently, it's possible that some crabs gain protection from carrying around any sessile invertebrate that looks sufficiently like a Triactis anemone, to ward off predators, without actually carrying these venomous anemones themselves. It would be interesting to see if the other sessile invertebrates chosen were actually proper Batesian mimics of the Triactis anemone.

Moreover, the crabs don't always use the anemone as a weapon. Sometimes, they use anemones as a visual signal in ritualistic territorial disputes. Of course, in the case of crabs that carry around far less dangerous sessile invertebrates, they can hardly use these as actual weapons. In the case of crabs carrying small sponges, sponges tend not to be armed with cnidoblasts, though quite a few are defended against predation themselves by generating defensive toxins. However, predators are only exposed to these toxins if they actually eat the sponge.

Also, if a crab cannot find a Triactis anemone, it will sometimes look for certain coral polyps as an alternative, usually polyps such as Zoanthus, which don't secrete stony protective outer layers. Zoanthids tend not to possess powerful cnidoblasts, but many of them are brightly coloured.

Incidentally, the Triactis anemones have their own facultative relationship with different organisms, in the form of zooxanthellae, a clade of algae. These algae are encouraged to grow within the anemone's tissues, where the excess sugar products of their photosynthesis help to feed the anemone in daylight.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#491  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 02, 2014 8:36 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

“History” can mean two things: (a) what happened in the past (b)The discipline of the study of what happened in the past. By starting the word with caps I meant to convey the latter sense.

In both cases there's no capital letter.


Oh alright. And I was being ponsy.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Look up the Wikipedia entry on Historiography to see that historians don’t see their discipline as “merely driven by a bias towards the facts”.

I'm a historian. And yes historians do try to eliminate all personal bias and only look at the facts.
Your blind referral to wikipedia notwithstanding.


Are you prepared to say that as a historian your view of history is not influenced by your social mileu, and your role as social actor? My referral to Wikipedia is anything but blind.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: If the study of the biological past ever gets the monkey of atheist ideology

Still talking shit then? You have yet to define, much less provide evidence of this atheist ideology.

Atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at its influence on the human origin narrative. I try to expose that on this forum.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:off its back it might evolve towards the same sophistication and humility.

Allowing bias into your studies is anything but sophisticated.
Looking only at the facts is the epitome of humility. Biology, just like any other science follows these rules.

Of course everyone looks at the facts but what distinguishes the arrogance of some evolutionists from historians (the ones I know) is that the latter admit their reading of the past is influenced by social factors.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I already discussed the problems with the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s article and I discussed Cali’s reply to that- to which he replied with one of his spluttering-generality posts. If you want to pick it up, I’d be happy.

If you'd cite the relevant bits, because, again, there hasn't been a single post wherein someone spluttered.

In post 452 Cali said this:
”This egregiously maleficent fiction you have been peddling has not only been demonstrated to be a maleficent fiction repeatedly, but is becoming more and more boring with every resurrection thereof on your part. This fiction of yours stinks, JayJay, it stinks with a foul odour of discoursive duplicity and criminality that makes numerous organoselenium compounds seem florally fragrant by comparison.”
I call that spluttering.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway, what I mainly wanted to discuss was your long paste purporting to show that Hitler was Christian.

No purporting took place.
It's an established fact as evident from the facts presented by Cali and myself.

Nope.

Ah so we've gone down to kindergarten arguments now? "Does not!1!"?
Who do you think you're fooling with blind dismissal like this?

The notion that either you or Cali have established that Hitler was a Christian is so risible that a short reponse was fair. But I’m happy to go into more detail.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I provided the political conversation that Hitler’s religious quotes came from: that his party was first and foremost anti-communist, the communists were avowedly atheist and indeed Christian clergy tended to die wherever communists took power.

No, what you did was actually a quote mine as Mein Kampf contains similar claims about the Jews.
Voila:
...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

So Hitler didn't just consider the Jews the enemy of the Germans, he considered them to be evil incarnate.

Surely, a quotemine needs to include a quote? I didn’t quote Hitler or anyone else. I placed Cali’s quote mines in their historical context as statements by a anti-communist who had every motivation to present himself as champion of the Christian West against the atheist communist hordes.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Hitler had every political motivation to present himself as Christian.

You're begging the question that he wasn't. You haven't provided any evidence for that assumption.

Oh but I have. I pointed out that Hitler subverted the protestant churches, and suppressed the civil-society functions of the catholics. That is set out by Richard J Evans’ :”The Third Reich in Power”. As a historian, could you show where Evans is wrong? Animavore posted the Nazi minister for church affairs propounded “Positive Christianity” that actually replaced Jesus with Hitler in a “new revelation”.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But what he and his party did showed them to be free from religious control.

Here's a newsflash for you: organised religion =/= Christianity.
That Hitler had a problem with the Catholic and Lutheran churches doesn't change that he was a Christian.

For Hitler to have been a Christian he needed to have been recognised by other Christians as a Christian, and needed to have acted on behalf of that faith. As a historian, surely you can’t divorce Christianity from “organised Christianity”? “”Organised Christianity” is the cultural vessel though which the belief has been developed, preserved and proselytised.
I’m really having trouble with your information that you are a historian. Do people pay you money to study history?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:For them, Christianity was old, silly and soon to be dead.

Utterly false and yet another blind assertion.
The Catholic and Lutheran churches were seen as obselete and unnatural, as evidenced by the quote discussed earlier. But Christainity was very much alive to Hitler and he identified himself as such.

Not by any reasonable or useful classification of what a particular religious adherence might require.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.

Nope. Already you start with a incorrect statement.
The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, after a general revolution. And they didn't seize power to get out of the Great War as your statement implies.

Revolutions are always more structured by political factions than you seem to be suggesting.

I didn't suggest anything about any political factions Jayjay. I reported the facts.
The February revolution was started by the workers and sailors of St. Petersburg and other cities, not by the Bolsheviks or any other organised political party.

In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki article on the Russian revolution clearly records the importance of the Great War in it.

You might want to get your info from some textbooks instead of Wikipedia
Especially since you've resorted to making empty assertions about wikipedia says without actuyally providing quotes or citations.

If you are a historian you might cite some source for your own points. Wikipedia is excellent and accessible about what is generally understood about the world. The Wiki entry on the Russian revolution is suffused with references to the Great War.
Thomas Eshuis wrote: I'll let you in on something good; the Bolsheviks themselves were divided on if, when and how Russia should get out of the Great War.
Your assertionist fantasy that the revolution was started by the Bolsheviks to end Russias participation in the Great War, is just that, a fantasy.

I didn’t say that was the Bolshevik’s purpose but once any revolution takes hold of a country it cannot prosecute an external war. That’s also what happened in the German revolution.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Oh for heaven’s sake Thomas. The communists hoped to extend communism throughout the world.

FFS Jayjay, being internationalist =/= spreading your ideology across the globe.
Yes the Bolsheviks wanted the entire world to become communist and then have this communist paradise work together, but the point is that the world wasn't communist at the start of WW2 and the Bolsheviks were very much afraid of international response to their revolution. They sought international communication with other communist parties, but beyond that they were pretty isolationist.


What the communists had to fear mainly was Nazi Germany. The world wasn’t communist at the start of WW2 partly because of reactionary movements like the Nazis.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:From that Wiki entry:

Get away from wikipedia and get yourself a history textbook, preferably senior high or better.

As a historian, you should be citing some alternative authority
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:”Leon Trotsky said

Trotsky was quickly ousted from power after the revolution. Quoting Trotsky as influencial figure in Communist and especially Stalinist Russia is pointless. Unless you want to get his perspective on things.

Jayjay4547 wrote: that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918–1919, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands”.

None of this refutes what I just stated:
1. The Russians were indeed trying to spread the revolution, but
2. They failed to succeed/
3. They were afraid of Western intervention and rightfully so.

I’m not interested in refuting any of that. I’m pointing out that strategically it was important for Hitler to present himself as champion of the Christian West against atheist communism. And in spite of that, and the things he said at rallies, he was the antithesis of Christian. The first thing to recognise about the Nazis is that they had pure contempt for meekness. Christ said, in his most coherent sustained teaching; “Blessed are the meek”. The Nazis weren’t for that.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Sure, the communists were anti-religion in a general sense, but that played out as anti-Christian in the West,

Of course it did, Christianity was and is by far the dominant religion in the West.
That doesn't mean they didn't persecute Jews just as much btw.

I don’t understand your point. The Nazis persecuted the Jews more than they did Christians. The only Christians who were explicitly persecuted far as I know, were the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the Lutherans were undermined and the Catholic institutions broken down.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: more specifically anti-Catholic in Mexico and Spain.

And? You find it strange that an anti-theistic group would be predominantly occupied with removing the dominant religion in a country?
What's the point of mentioning this obvious fact? It doesn't refute anything I've said, nor does it support your position.

It helps to demonstrate why Hitler had motivation to present himself as champion of Western Christianity against the atheist communists. In Spain the Nazis fought the communists.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The communists certainly saw properly directed science as their guiding light out of the superstitious mess of the past.

Arsewater and I've already pointed this out to you Jayjay, referencing Marx, who was long dead and his original idea modified won't help you.
The Soviet Union only took to science when:
A. They had not choice.
B. It could be used to support their regime and propaganda.
The SU was decidedly anti-intellectual. There was no free and organised science.

That doesn’t seem to be the consensus view. The Wiki entry on Science and technology in the Soviet Union says “The Soviet government made the development and advancement of science a national priority and showered top scientists with honours.”

I’m not saying it was always good science, but then I’m not saying that the current Western origin narrative of humanity is good science either. Culture and politics influences science as it does the discipline of history.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:[My to set the stage for explaining that in terms of strategic alliance, Hitler and the Nazis should have been champions of Christianity.

And Hitler was.
Your continued attempts at the No True Christian fallacy, because he didn't agree with the established churches, is just that, a fallacy. Faulty reasoning, illogical.

If you could find some body of extant Christian doctrine that Hitler adhered to, then you could claim he was Christian. But Animavore’s posting clearly shows that Hitler was technically the Antichrist. He allowed himself to be presented by his minister for church affairs, as the source of a new revelation, displacing Christ. And Nazi doctrine was the opposite pole to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Not coincidentally.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1918 Germany surrendered after a revolution with a communist heart

Seriously, where did you get your historical education? I advise you to get your money back.
The Germans surrendered because they could not longer maintain the war, both financially and morally.

I read a book about the German revolution, can’t recall the author after all these years. But you can look that revolution up in Wikipedia.

Again, stuff wikipedia and get a textbook.

What sort of a historian are you, to not offer a specific text? It doesn’t compute.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Germany did surrender after a revolution with a communist heart.

Except that
A. They didn't. The first armistice was signed during, not after the revolution.
B. They surrendered because they could no longer sustain the war, not because of the revolution.

Just as with the Russians, when in the midst of a revolution, they could not prosecute a war. This is nit-picking.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: They couldn’t have done that if the war had been going well for Germany, as for Russia in 1917.

Complete non-sequitur. And the war wasn't going well for Russia, they were loosing way to many troops.
The only positive side was that in total the Allies weren't loosing.

What’s positive? Yes like I said, the war had being badly for the Russians.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: but the communists were beaten by right-wing capitalist reaction, ending with the compromise of the weak but democratic Weimar republic.

Again, what's this got to do with Hitler being a Christian? None of this makes Cali's quotes, quotemines.


The quotemines that Cali had so assiduously collected

Again this did not take place. This has been explained to you.

What you call “explain” is just denial of the vast fact of Cali’s having dropped in his large pre-prepared stock of quote mines purporting to show that Hitler was a Christian.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:need to be placed in a context that I was providing: where Hitler had every political interest in presenting himself as defender of Western Christianity against the atheist communist hordes.

So once again you willfully ignore the facts. Quotemining deals with the immediate, not surrounding context.

If Hitler said some apparently pro-Christian things and at other times he said some anti-Christian things, but only the first are cited, then its fair to call that quote mining. And an effective way to counter it isn’t to just throw the opposite collection back, but to place the quotes in their historical context.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany as an explicitly anti-communist party.

And anti-Jews, anti-capitalist etc.

I don’t know about anti-capitalist;

Hitler believed all industry should serve the nation.

That is more nit-picking. The Nazis did come to power as an explicitly a ti-communist party. And the communists were explicitly anti-Christian. And therefore Hitler had every motivation to present himself as the champion of Christianity. Which he inevitably fucked because he was actually an antichrist figure.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the capitalists thought they had Hitler in their pocket as street-fighting anti-communists.

And they were wrong. Not that it matters, because we're looking at facts, not what people thought the facts were.

What capitalists thought was of course relevant, because it determined who they backed.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They made a concordat with the Catholic political party in which, in exchange for withdrawing from politics, the Catholics would be protected and funded by the Reich, as they still are.

You don't find that odd? That a supposedly anti-Christian nation would sign such an alliance with the biggest Christian origanisation in the world?


I didn’t claim that Germany was an anti-Christian nation

You claimed that the Nazi's were.

Jayjay4547 wrote:quite the opposite in 1933. They ran the biggest opposition party at that time – I think it may have been the ancestor of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU. And the German “nation” didn’t sign the concordat- the Nazis signed it with the Catholics.

The Nazi's were the government and hence the nation in that respect, just when any other government signs an alliance.

The Nazi party signed the Concordat with the Catholic church to get the Catholics out of national politics and they made an extremely attractive offer, which the Church still benefits from. The Nazis sure as hang didn’t present themselves to the Catholics as an anti-Christian party- that praxis only revealed itself from what the Nazis actually did once in power.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In 1937 the Pope issued Mit Brennender Sorge, an encyclical smuggled into Germany and to be read to all Germans. He complained about a breach of contract by the Nazis and warned of the evil of the Fuhrer principle, of paying ultimate allegiance to a man and a State rather than to God.

Doesn't change that the Church refuses to outright oppose Hitler.
And it certainly doesn't change that Hitler and the Nazi's were Christians.


Thomas, no one opposed Hitler, not even the Dutch.

1. Irrelevant.
2. I never said they did.
The fact remains that the Church did not openly oppose him.

The Dutch failed to oppose Hitler largely I guess, because they were afraid. For example, they were afraid that if they destroyed their civil records giving the religion of all citizens, the Gestapo would kill them. The Nazis instilled fear, they were openly and determinedly pitiless. It’s quite relevant to point out to a Hollander who says the Churches didn’t openly oppose Hitler therefore Hitler was Christian, that even the Dutch didn’t openly oppose Hitler.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Not openly. Except those who stood outside of Hitler’s power. In the interwar years, the Catholics particularly, were in a difficult position.

Let me guess, they were being persecuted? Despite being the dominant majority in many countries?
Got any evidence for this or is this yet more rectal matter flung in desperation?

I cited the rather good historian Richard J Evans as detailing how Hitler placed the Catholics in a difficult position, in “The Third Reich in Power”. I’m not desperate Thomas and the only rectal matter around here is your claim that Hitler was a Christian.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:On the one hand international communism was their sworn enemy.

Beyond the SU there was no international communism.
There were communist parties but they had very little power or influence.
Christians, Catholic or otherwise were hardly threatened by communists.

Except in Spain and Mexico.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand the main defense against communism acted against them in increasingly brazen and brutal ways.

Actually the main defense against the communists would be the Allies, not Hitler.

That’s arguable, but anyway the churches in Germany were certainly in a difficult position. Not in Britain or the US. There the religious institutions were left alone, not so in Nazi Germany.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Hence Mit Brennender Sorge. I’m not claiming the Catholics had clean hands either; in Italy they toadied up to Mussolini who despised them. In Mexico they supported a hopeless peasant’s revolt.

Then why bring up this irrelevant nonsense?
It doesn't refute that Hitler was a Christian, nor does it prove that Cali quote-mined.

Attempt at balance is a good idea. The proof that Cali quote mined lies in his long post of quotes assiduously mined by atheists single-mindedly looking for ways to pin Christianty on Hitler.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That he was opposed to the organized churches. Not that he was not a Christian, unless you want to appeal to the No True Christian fallacy.

What “fallacy” is that?

To claim that someone isn't a Christian because he doesn't visit church or doesn't belong to one of the major denominations.

The only “denomination” one could slot Hitler’s belief into would be the so-called “Positive Christianty” dreamed up by his Minister for Church Affairs. And that, revealingly, made Hitler the AntiChrist. There has to be some objective correlative to a claim of religious belief. If the claim is to have any use.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:To oppose Christinaity is to oppose the institutions of Christian worship, whereby Christianity is realised.

But Hitler did no such thing. He was opposed to organised religion and church buildings not Christianity.
By your logic Protestants are not Christians because they opposed their contemporary institutions of Christian worship.
What you're doing here is a good example of a No True Christian fallacy.

The Protestants pointed to particular practices of the contemporary Catholic institutions, as not having Biblical sanction, and therefore saw the mother church as corrupt. And there were enough of them, and they worshipped together, so that any outside observer could note the validity of their claim and the continuous historical thread that had led them to their position. But “Postive Christianity” of a Nazi minister actually broke with any historical roots in the Old or the New Testaments. it was a real mess, the religion of the AntiChrist.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If Hitler were a Christian we should have found a chapel at Berchtesgaden

No we shouldn't because he explicitely said that worship should not take place in unnatural structures like churches.
You're arbitrarily defining Christianity as worshiping Christ in a church or chapel.
This is what is meant by No True Christian.
Point to me where in the bible it says Christians must worship in a church or chapel.

There are many Christian practices that developed culturally and express spirituality without being identified in the Bible, for example the great European cathedrals and also the spare Quaker meeting rooms. Hitler’s objection to these as “unnatural places” was just a rejection of the Christian culture of his society.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:crucifixes in his Berlin Bunker, holy water bowls at the entrance of his bedroom and the Bible in his hand when he shot himself.

Utter nonsense.
More No True Christan question begging.
Do you really believe you'll fool anyone with these ridiculous criteria?

What is ridiculous is your claim that Hitler was a Christian although he showed no objective sign of practicing as one. If the AntiChrist says he is a Christian, do we have to accept it at face value? No, we look to the cultural roots of his position, to see whether they lie with Christianity. I can call myself a Hindu but no Hindu will accept that as a significant fact about me, unless I act somewhat like a Hindu. If I don’t quack then I’m not a duck.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But the Fuhrer was no church-goer nor was his party of thugs.

And? Most Christian today in my country, hardly, if ever attend church.

The situation in Holland might be similar to that among some social classes in my country, where Christianity has been hollowed out by the intellectual appeal of atheism and by secularism.

So now that you've done the No True Christian fallacy, you're moving right along to poisoning the well?

Like I said In my country Christianity has been hollowed out amongst some social classes by the intellectual appeal of atheism and my secularism. I’m just guessing it’s the same in Holland. Christian belief can just fade away to the merest shadow of its former fullness. That’s not a No True Christian fallacy. It’s just sociology.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Is someone who never attends worship, never prays, never sings a hymn, never pays money to a church, never makes Sunday different from Saturday- is that person a Christian?

Can you actually provide evidence that Hitler never prayed?
Care to quote the passages of the bible that says you should attend church?
Pay money to the church?
Need to sing hymns?
That there is a day that needs to be special?
That that day is Sunday and not Friday?

This continued appeal to an evermore restricted form of Christanity only demonstrates that you are willing to bend and twist reality to not have to abandon your position or acknowledge you're wrong.


No, I’m just pointing to the need for an objective correlative, to support a claim that Hitler was a Christian. I have never seen a pic of Hitler praying, if one were extant I expect the atheist miners would have found it. Christian practice for two millennia has richly involved churches. An adherent to any belief needs to support it in some way, if only to keep the thread of culture alive, hymn singing is a notable feature of most Christian worship, the 3rd(Lutheran) or 4th(reformed) commandment is to keep the Sabbath holy and most sects make that Sunday.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: The fact that Hitler was no church-goer, nor was his party of thugs, does call into question whether he could be called Christian.

Except that it really doesn't as this is still a No True Christian fallacy.

It’s not a fallacy, religions are all deeply expressed in long-lived social or communal institutions. You can call yourself what you like, but an outside observer will only classify you according to material signs that you know what this thing is you call yourself and prove it in some objective way. .
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
That’s what you say, but your justification is merely that they could have been Christian because like the Dutch, they didn’t go to church.

No, my justification is that:
A. Hitler called himself one and professsed to worship the Christian god.
B. Neither the definition of Christianity or Christian includes "must go to church".
A great many Christians would disagree with you and rightfully so. You're putting arbitrary limits on Christianity without providing rational arguments for these restrictions.

Bring on a few of these great many Christians Thomas, and we can talk. What I predict is that Cali’s quotes of what Hitler said and the even more bizarre form of “positive Christianity” would be recognised by a Christian as weird and non-Christian to say the least.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:And Hitler said some things aligning himself against the atheist communists.

You mean male communists.
Again atheism has very little to with communism.
They were anti-theists not just atheists.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more. It has no claims or dogma which leads one to communism, capitalism or any other ideology.

The whole mess that communism eventually turned into was because of its atheism. Atheists believe that the human intellect is supreme and can do things like plan an economy better than it can run itself. You are an atheist and an anti-theist in your determination to pin Christianity on the AntiChrist.



Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You can’t begin to understand the Nazis without understanding their totalitarian nature.

Again, I'm a historian, you're attempts to lecture me on these subjects are hilarious, especially in light of how many things you get wrong.

You need to demonstrate some historical competence then, so far all you have come up with are unreferenced assertions in defense of a poorly moderated position of what sort of a man Hitler was.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: And you get no insight from calling them “Christian”

Except that you do. It tells you they're theists, not atheists. It tells you which god they worship.
And I wasn't mentioning it to provide insight, I was mentioning it, because you keep denying it.

Worship is in act, and it involves submission. The Nazis didn’t worship the Christian god. They were theists, but their theology marked an explicit break with contemporary Christianty. it tried to draw from pagan and spiritist and pseudo-science.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Protestants actually rekindled the Christian faith by referring back to its origin and its canonical texts, printed in the languages of the people.

Correction, they reformed Christian by referring to their own interpetations of translations of translation of an already selectively assembled book.

There’s no correction, sure filtering over millennia contributed to the Protestant vision. The important thing is that the protestants reformed by looking within the Christian cannon,. not outside to pagan and pseudo-scientific whoo.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They were quite different in that from the Nazis, who tried, not very hard, to reinvent from a mishmash of pre-Christian European mythologies, some vision of a God of National Destiny who expressed their fuehrer-principle ego-mania.

Oh you mean like the original Christians did with things like the Winter Solstice and Mithras?


Can’t you see the difference between Christian assimilation of pagan festivals into their own continuous religious culture, and the efforts of Hitler’s Minister of Church affairs to turn Christianity on its head while still calling it Christianity?
Thomas Eshuis wrote: The fact remains that Hitler was an avowed Christian and considered himself a defender of the Christian faith.
Just becaus he disagreed with the dominant churches and your particular worldviews doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian.

Hitler disagreed with all the churches except that one dreamed up by his Minister for Church Affairs. They all held that The Sermon on the Mount expressed central spiritual truths. But Hitler quite explicitly explored its polar opposite. And that was no accident. Nazism was at least a holiday from Christianity and in the end it showed itself as the devil incarnate.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#492  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 02, 2014 12:42 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Look up the Wikipedia entry on Historiography to see that historians don’t see their discipline as “merely driven by a bias towards the facts”.

I'm a historian. And yes historians do try to eliminate all personal bias and only look at the facts.
Your blind referral to wikipedia notwithstanding.

Are you prepared to say that as a historian your view of history is not influenced by your social mileu, and your role as social actor?

Are you ever going to quite shifting the goal posts?
Any human being has biases, that doesn't change the fact that historians just as biologists and chemists, try to eliminate that bias whenever possible.

Jayjay4547 wrote:My referral to Wikipedia is anything but blind.

It is, because you fail to cite or quote the relevant article or statements.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: If the study of the biological past ever gets the monkey of atheist ideology

Still talking shit then? You have yet to define, much less provide evidence of this atheist ideology.

Atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at its influence on the human origin narrative. I try to expose that on this forum.

For umpteenth time: You have yet to adequatly define what this supposed atheist ideology is!
Until then all you're doing is slinging a pathetic ad-hominem.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:off its back it might evolve towards the same sophistication and humility.

Allowing bias into your studies is anything but sophisticated.
Looking only at the facts is the epitome of humility. Biology, just like any other science follows these rules.

Of course everyone looks at the facts but what distinguishes the arrogance of some evolutionists from historians (the ones I know) is that the latter admit their reading of the past is influenced by social factors.

More horseshite Jayjay. Biologists and others scientists know and admit that they have biases, that doesn't change that they try to eliminate them as much as possible.
Nor does it change the fact that there is no, zilch, nada evidence for creationism/ID and an abundance for evolution.
This has nothing to do with bias and everything with facts.
Stating that people have biases proves nothing Jayjay. Falsely asserting that biologists do not acknowledge this is pathetic and yet another attempt at empty rethoric.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I already discussed the problems with the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s article and I discussed Cali’s reply to that- to which he replied with one of his spluttering-generality posts. If you want to pick it up, I’d be happy.

If you'd cite the relevant bits, because, again, there hasn't been a single post wherein someone spluttered.

In post 452 Cali said this:
”This egregiously maleficent fiction you have been peddling has not only been demonstrated to be a maleficent fiction repeatedly, but is becoming more and more boring with every resurrection thereof on your part. This fiction of yours stinks, JayJay, it stinks with a foul odour of discoursive duplicity and criminality that makes numerous organoselenium compounds seem florally fragrant by comparison.”
I call that spluttering.

Once again demonstrating that you do not know what spluttering means:
splutter
Line breaks: splut|ter
Pronunciation: /ˈsplʌtə
/
verb
[no object]
1Make a series of short explosive spitting or choking sounds:
1.1 [reporting verb] Say something rapidly, indistinctly, and with a spitting sound, as a result of anger, embarrassment, or another strong emotion:
1.2 [with object] Spit (something) out from one’s mouth noisily and in small splashes:

None of these apply as Cali made no choking or spitting sounds, nor was his statement indistinct.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No purporting took place.
It's an established fact as evident from the facts presented by Cali and myself.

Nope.

Ah so we've gone down to kindergarten arguments now? "Does not!1!"?
Who do you think you're fooling with blind dismissal like this?

The notion that either you or Cali have established that Hitler was a Christian is so risible that a short reponse was fair.

Only if you maintain elementary school discussion rules.
A rational discussion doesn't stop because someone says "Does not!".
This is empty handwaving and you're not fooling anyone.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m happy to go into more detail.

It would be nice if you could actually stick to relevant facts this time, but I'm not holding my breath.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I provided the political conversation that Hitler’s religious quotes came from: that his party was first and foremost anti-communist, the communists were avowedly atheist and indeed Christian clergy tended to die wherever communists took power.

No, what you did was actually a quote mine as Mein Kampf contains similar claims about the Jews.
Voila:
...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

So Hitler didn't just consider the Jews the enemy of the Germans, he considered them to be evil incarnate.

Surely, a quotemine needs to include a quote?

Yes and you provided one of Hitler saying the Communist were the greatest threat:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The expansionist aim of communism made it a threat to all the governments in Europe. I’m placing Hilter in his historical role as a champion of anti-communism. In Wikipedia’s entry on Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler he is quoted in Mein Kampf:
InHitler's mind, communism is the primary enemy of Germany:
“ In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

By all means view the other quotes in Wiki. Seems he associated communism with a Jewish plot to subjugate the world.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I didn’t quote Hitler or anyone else.

You did, as evidenced by the quote above. You also quoted Trotsky. So you're now either outright lying or can't even remember what you posted yourself.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I placed Cali’s quote mines in their historical context as statements by a anti-communist who had every motivation to present himself as champion of the Christian West against the atheist communist hordes.

You can stop regurgitating this mindless nonsense.
What you did was fabricate a fantastical historical narrative, loosely based on the facts, with lots of red herrings in an attempt to disprove Hitler was a Christian.
You failed.
You also failed to establish that Cali was quote-mining as you failed to provide a contradicting context from the immediate context of the quote.
Again the related historical context is irrelevant Jayjay. Quote-mining deals with the immediate context of the source of the quote.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Hitler had every political motivation to present himself as Christian.

You're begging the question that he wasn't. You haven't provided any evidence for that assumption.

Oh but I have.

No you haven't. You've repeatedly attacked a No True Christian straw-man of your own creation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I pointed out that Hitler subverted the protestant churches, and suppressed the civil-society functions of the catholics.

And I pointed out to you that doesn't exclude him from being a Christian.
Opposition to organised religion =/= opposition to Christianity.
Not wanting to be part of any particular denomination within Christianity does not exclude you from being a Christian.
Nor does not wanting to pray in churches.

Jayjay4547 wrote: That is set out by Richard J Evans’ :”The Third Reich in Power”.

And I haven't refuted those facts. I have thouroughly eviscareted your desperate attempts to erect a No True Christian based on those facts.

Jayjay4547 wrote: As a historian, could you show where Evans is wrong?

I don't have to Jayjay. I'm not disputing Evans, I'm disputing your No True Christian.
You might want to stick to what I've actually said, instead of trying to shift the discussion in whatever which you can to avoid adressing the nonsense you claim.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Animavore posted the Nazi minister for church affairs propounded “Positive Christianity” that actually replaced Jesus with Hitler in a “new revelation”.

No it didn't. Stop making shit up Jayjay, it only demonstrates the dishonest nature of your position.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But what he and his party did showed them to be free from religious control.

Here's a newsflash for you: organised religion =/= Christianity.
That Hitler had a problem with the Catholic and Lutheran churches doesn't change that he was a Christian.

For Hitler to have been a Christian he needed to have been recognised by other Christians as a Christian,

No he doesn't. This yet another blind assertion on your part and special pleading.
Also he was recognised by other Christians. Just not Catholics and Protestants.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and needed to have acted on behalf of that faith.

And he did.

Jayjay4547 wrote:As a historian, surely you can’t divorce Christianity from “organised Christianity”?

I can very easily, because as a historian and someone who get's around in the world sometimes, I'm aware that there are many people of many faiths that do not take part of the organised forms of their religions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:“”Organised Christianity” is the cultural vessel though which the belief has been developed, preserved and proselytised.

So what? It isn't the one true form of Christianity. That's once again question begging.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m really having trouble with your information that you are a historian.

That's your problem not mine. The amount of historical fantasy you've presented so far is quite telling though.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Do people pay you money to study history?

:what:
It's my education. I'm studying to become a teacher.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:For them, Christianity was old, silly and soon to be dead.

Utterly false and yet another blind assertion.
The Catholic and Lutheran churches were seen as obselete and unnatural, as evidenced by the quote discussed earlier. But Christainity was very much alive to Hitler and he identified himself as such.

Not by any reasonable or useful classification of what a particular religious adherence might require.

Keyword being particular.
You're still comitting the No True Christian fallacy and mindlessly repeating it won't help you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nope. Already you start with a incorrect statement.
The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, after a general revolution. And they didn't seize power to get out of the Great War as your statement implies.

Revolutions are always more structured by political factions than you seem to be suggesting.

I didn't suggest anything about any political factions Jayjay. I reported the facts.
The February revolution was started by the workers and sailors of St. Petersburg and other cities, not by the Bolsheviks or any other organised political party.

In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.

You just blindly stick to you spiel don't you?
The revolution came first Jayjay, only then did they leave the war.
The revolution was started by workers and sailors against the Tsarist government, not to end the war.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki article on the Russian revolution clearly records the importance of the Great War in it.

You might want to get your info from some textbooks instead of Wikipedia
Especially since you've resorted to making empty assertions about wikipedia says without actuyally providing quotes or citations.

If you are a historian you might cite some source for your own points.

Which points specifically?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Wikipedia is excellent and accessible about what is generally understood about the world. The Wiki entry on the Russian revolution is suffused with references to the Great War.

FFS. I can't even...
1. The problem is the words generally understood. It's opensourced anyone can edit anything whether it's factual or made up.
2. Wikipedia articles on history, including the one on the Russian revolution tend to be very generalised and miss crucials details or nuanced statements.
3. Just because there are references to the Great War, doesn't prove the Revolution was about the Great War.
Of course there are many references, because the war was taking place at the same time as the revolution.
That doesn't change that the revolution was to overthrow the Tsarist regime and end the opression and food shortage.
Read: The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: I'll let you in on something good; the Bolsheviks themselves were divided on if, when and how Russia should get out of the Great War.
Your assertionist fantasy that the revolution was started by the Bolsheviks to end Russias participation in the Great War, is just that, a fantasy.

I didn’t say that was the Bolshevik’s purpose but once any revolution takes hold of a country it cannot prosecute an external war.

Image
Ever heard of this little thing called the American Revolution?

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s also what happened in the German revolution.

Except that it isn't. They surrendered because they didn't have recourses anymore, even before the revolution started.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Oh for heaven’s sake Thomas. The communists hoped to extend communism throughout the world.

FFS Jayjay, being internationalist =/= spreading your ideology across the globe.
Yes the Bolsheviks wanted the entire world to become communist and then have this communist paradise work together, but the point is that the world wasn't communist at the start of WW2 and the Bolsheviks were very much afraid of international response to their revolution. They sought international communication with other communist parties, but beyond that they were pretty isolationist.

What the communists had to fear mainly was Nazi Germany.

Nope, they also had to fear their own allies as the UK for example had supported the Whites during the Russian civil war after th revolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The world wasn’t communist at the start of WW2 partly because of reactionary movements like the Nazis.

Irrelevant to the point I made.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:From that Wiki entry:

Get away from wikipedia and get yourself a history textbook, preferably senior high or better.

As a historian, you should be citing some alternative authority

I would if you'd clarify on which points.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918–1919, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands”.[/i]

None of this refutes what I just stated:
1. The Russians were indeed trying to spread the revolution, but
2. They failed to succeed/
3. They were afraid of Western intervention and rightfully so.

I’m not interested in refuting any of that.

Then what was the point of that quote?

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m pointing out that strategically it was important for Hitler to present himself as champion of the Christian West against atheist communism.

Jayjay calling it atheist communism is about as useful as calling it male communism.
Atheism has nothing to do with other than that communism has no gods.
Atheism isn't an ideology, it makes no claims other than that the person who is an atheist has no belief in gods.
More-over Hitler did consider himself a champion of Christianity as obvious from his statements in Mein Kampf among other things.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And in spite of that, and the things he said at rallies, he was the antithesis of Christian.

So you keep blindly asserting based on a No True Christian fallacy.
You're question begging and comitting this fallacy and you're not fooling anyone.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The first thing to recognise about the Nazis is that they had pure contempt for meekness.
Christ said, in his most coherent sustained teaching; “Blessed are the meek”. The Nazis weren’t for that.

And the Catholics were for divorce and against getting rid of your earthly possesions and in favor of killing people.
The Catholics and Protestants violate and contradict the bible just as much if not more than the Nazi's Jayjay.
I've yet to meet a Christian who sticks to letter of the bible.
You know why? Because each and every Christian interpets the bible to suit his or her views.
And they can do that because the bible is very ambiguous on many points and the 1000s of Christian denominations can't agree amongst themselves what true word of god is.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Of course it did, Christianity was and is by far the dominant religion in the West.
That doesn't mean they didn't persecute Jews just as much btw.

I don’t understand your point.

My point is that your point is moot.
Of course communism was anti-Catholic in regions were Catholicism was the dominant religion. They're anti-religion and it's the dominant religion.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The Nazis persecuted the Jews more than they did Christians. The only Christians who were explicitly persecuted far as I know, were the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But the Lutherans were undermined and the Catholic institutions broken down.

Again, still completely irrelevant.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And? You find it strange that an anti-theistic group would be predominantly occupied with removing the dominant religion in a country?
What's the point of mentioning this obvious fact? It doesn't refute anything I've said, nor does it support your position.

It helps to demonstrate why Hitler had motivation to present himself as champion of Western Christianity against the atheist communists.

Again, Hitler did present himself as such. He just didn't view Catholicism and Protestantism as true forms of Christianity.
And again atheist communism is about as useful as male communism.
It's anti-theist not atheist communism.

Jayjay4547 wrote:In Spain the Nazis fought the communists.

In France the Belgiums fought the Germans.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Arsewater and I've already pointed this out to you Jayjay, referencing Marx, who was long dead and his original idea modified won't help you.
The Soviet Union only took to science when:
A. They had not choice.
B. It could be used to support their regime and propaganda.
The SU was decidedly anti-intellectual. There was no free and organised science.

That doesn’t seem to be the consensus view.
The Wiki entry on Science and technology in the Soviet Union says

Hint: Wikipedia isn't the consensus view of historians. It's whatever the last few persons edited it to be.

Jayjay4547 wrote:“The Soviet government made the development and advancement of science a national priority and showered top scientists with honours.”

Thank you for providing an excellent example of Wikipedia being unreliable.
The quote in question is unsourced. More-over this rosy-tinted view is contradicted in another wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
Suppressed research in the Soviet Union refers to scientific fields which were banned in the Soviet Union. All humanities and social sciences were additionally tested for strict accordance with historical materialism.[citation needed] These tests were alleged to serve as a cover for political suppression, to terrorize scientists who engaged in research labeled as "idealistic" or "bourgeois".[1]

In several cases the consequences of ideological influences were dramatic. The suppression of research began during the Stalin era and continued after his regime.[2]

Certain scientific fields in the Soviet Union were suppressed primarily after being labeled as ideologically incorrect.[1][3]

Again, science was only used in so far as it suited the ruling elite.
It wasn't celebrated as it's own independent insitution.
It was strictly controlled by the government, for the government.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not saying it was always good science, but then I’m not saying that the current Western origin narrative of humanity is good science either.

That's because you refuse to look at and/or acknowledge the facts. Not something to toot your horn about btw.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Culture and politics influences science as it does the discipline of history.

More empty rethoric.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And Hitler was.
Your continued attempts at the No True Christian fallacy, because he didn't agree with the established churches, is just that, a fallacy. Faulty reasoning, illogical.

If you could find some body of extant Christian doctrine that Hitler adhered to, then you could claim he was Christian.

He worshipped the Christian god.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But Animavore’s posting clearly shows that Hitler was technically the Antichrist.

It did no such thing.
Jayjay4547 wrote: He allowed himself to be presented by his minister for church affairs, as the source of a new revelation, displacing Christ.

Nonsense. Jesus was a crucial part of the Nazi denomination of Christianity.
Read the source Ani cited isntead of embarassing yourself by this continuous stream of arsewater.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And Nazi doctrine was the opposite pole to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Not coincidentally.

Again, Catholics and Protestants also contradict the bible's edict on a regular basis. This is not new.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Again, stuff wikipedia and get a textbook.

What sort of a historian are you, to not offer a specific text? It doesn’t compute.

You did not ask for citations or quotes.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except that
A. They didn't. The first armistice was signed during, not after the revolution.
B. They surrendered because they could no longer sustain the war, not because of the revolution.

Just as with the Russians, when in the midst of a revolution, they could not prosecute a war. This is nit-picking.

It isn't nitpicking, it's reporting the fact instead of ideological fantasy.
And I already took you to school on your can't prosecute a war during a revolution fantasy.
The Dutch revolution also applies btw.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
What’s positive? Yes like I said, the war had being badly for the Russians.

No your statement translates to the war having gone well for the Russians.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
What you call “explain” is just denial of the vast fact of Cali’s having dropped in his large pre-prepared stock of quote mines purporting to show that Hitler was a Christian.

No, it has pointed out that you:
A. Do not know what quotemining actually is.
B. Have failed to demonstrate that Cali quotemined.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If Hitler said some apparently pro-Christian things and at other times he said some anti-Christian things, but only the first are cited, then its fair to call that quote mining.

Nope. Not in the first place because he didn't say any anti-Christian things.
Again, being anti organised religion or anti-Catholic =/= being anti Chrsitian!
Secondly, quotemining only applies ot the immediate context.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And an effective way to counter it isn’t to just throw the opposite collection back, but to place the quotes in their historical context.

And you failed to this.
1. You contructed a historical fantasy riddled with irrelevancies and fallacious appeals to a No True Christian fabrication.
2. It's not the immediate context of the quote.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
That is more nit-picking.

It isn't Jayjay and blinly crying nitpicking won't help you.
Capitalism entails a free marketplace, no or little government control.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The Nazis did come to power as an explicitly a ti-communist party.

Again, that's bollocks. They came to power as an explictily National Socialist party.
Being anti-communist is just a collary of that. They were anti many things.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And the communists were explicitly anti-Christian.

Stop trying to twist history to suit your ideology Jayjay.
The communist were explicitely anti-theist.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And therefore Hitler had every motivation to present himself as the champion of Christianity.

And so he did!

Jayjay4547 wrote:Which he inevitably fucked because he was actually an antichrist figure.

Image


Jayjay4547 wrote:
What capitalists thought was of course relevant, because it determined who they backed.

No it was irrelevant because in reality the Nazi's weren't capitalists

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The Nazi party signed the Concordat with the Catholic church to get the Catholics out of national politics and they made an extremely attractive offer, which the Church still benefits from.

How very Christian of the Church to sell their principles for convenience.
I say that without sarcasm or irony.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The Nazis sure as hang didn’t present themselves to the Catholics as an anti-Christian party- that praxis only revealed itself from what the Nazis actually did once in power.

Except that it didn't.
Anti Catholicism =/= anti-Christian.
No matter how many times you mindlessly regurgitate this.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
The Dutch failed to oppose Hitler largely I guess, because they were afraid.

And rightfully so as we had no army to speak of so we couldn't really oppose him anywway.
Not that this matters fuck all to the question of whether Hitler was an atheist or whether the Catholic church openly opposed him.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s quite relevant to point out to a Hollander who says the Churches didn’t openly oppose Hitler therefore Hitler was Christian, that even the Dutch didn’t openly oppose Hitler.

1. I'm not a Hollander:

2. I did not say Hitler was a Christian because the Catholic church refused to oppose him. I said that the Catholic church refused to openly opose him, period.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I cited the rather good historian Richard J Evans as detailing how Hitler placed the Catholics in a difficult position, in “The Third Reich in Power”.

You can cite Britannia Encyclopedia on Warblers. It's about as relevant.
Anti-Catholicism =/= anti-Christianity.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not desperate Thomas

You are, as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge the facts and your continued regurgitation of already refuted fallacies, fantasies and outrigt false claims.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and the only rectal matter around here is your claim that Hitler was a Christian.

QED.
I'm done.
All you've done is make blind counterfactual assertions.
Twist facts into your own ideological narrative.
Erect a No True Christian fallacy.
And repeatedly misrepresented what I posted.
Perhaps when hell freezes over you will be prepared to discuss this rationally and honestly, but until then I'm done engaging with you.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Aug 02, 2014 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#493  Postby Oldskeptic » Aug 02, 2014 7:44 pm

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Excuse me JayJay but it was this by you that started this line of discussion.


Speaking of centuries, the one that poses the greatest puzzle to us here and now is the last one, when godless totalitarianisms, all of which saw science as man’s escape from the blind superstitions of the past, loosed the most terrible genocidal destruction on mankind. It was believers in the faith of Abraham who were machine gunned into the pits. And not by religious zealots, but by zealots for the Fuhrer principle, the exaltation of human will.


Your claim was that Nazi Germany was godless. It was not by any stretch of the imagination godless, and it was a Christian nation. That they didn't act like your idyllic model of what a Christian should be matters not, a vast number of Christians have not fit the model.

Christianity has never been the kind of restraint on human behavior that you would like to believe it is. Genocide is not exclusive to any religion or lack of religion. During the 15th through the mid 20th century Christianity did not stand in the way of genocide in the Americas, or in Australia, or in Africa, or in India, or in Asia. Christianity did not stand in the way of world wide slavery in colonies established by Christian nations. Nor did it stand in the way of trade in slaves kidnapped from Africa and Asia, and shipped to other colonies.

Your idea that Nazi Germany wasn't Christian because they didn't act like Christians is laughable. Given many examples from the past they were acting very much like Christians throughout history. Conquest, enslavement, genocide are all integral parts of European Christian history.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#494  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 04, 2014 5:14 am

Oldskeptic wrote: Image

Excuse me JayJay but it was this by you that started this line of discussion.


Speaking of centuries, the one that poses the greatest puzzle to us here and now is the last one, when godless totalitarianisms, all of which saw science as man’s escape from the blind superstitions of the past, loosed the most terrible genocidal destruction on mankind. It was believers in the faith of Abraham who were machine gunned into the pits. And not by religious zealots, but by zealots for the Fuhrer principle, the exaltation of human will.


I had been replying to Rumraket who tried to pin mayhem on remote barbarisms in Christian society by saying:

"So let's get this straight. When it is argued, with mere words, on the internet, that some ideas are terrible ideas and need to be (figuratively) destroyed, this is equal to centuries of torture, rape, murder, disease, theft, poverty, war, corruption and superstition almost all of which was instigated by fundamentalist abrahamic religious zealots?
It doesn't get any more stupid than this."


Oldskeptic wrote: Your claim was that Nazi Germany was godless. It was not by any stretch of the imagination godless, and it was a Christian nation. That they didn't act like your idyllic model of what a Christian should be matters not, a vast number of Christians have not fit the model.


I didn’t exactly claim that Nazi Germany was godless, I claimed the SS machine gunners were zealots for the Fuhrer principle, the exaltation of human will

The pics you posted were all Nazi propaganda aimed at showing the German people that the Nazi party and Hitler, were Christian. As I argued with Thomas, the Nazis had every strategic interest in presenting themselves as defenders of Christianity against the atheist communist threat. But when it came down to actualities, the Nazis interfered with, undermined, disassembled and looked forward to exterminating Christianity. All that is well set out in the Wiki entry on their “positive Christianity”. By the way the last pic in your post, with “DC” banners, is reproduced there. Animavore pasted in this quote from that entry, I suppose to show that the Nazis were Christian, when in fact the entry tells the opposite story:

In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained "Positive Christianity" as not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor in "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, but rather, as being represented by the Nazi Party: "The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.[3] To accord with Nazi antisemitism, Positive Christianity advocates also sought to deny the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible. In such elements Positive Christianity separated itself from Christianity and is considered apostasyby Catholics and Protestants.

Is a “faith” that replaces Christ with Hitler, a Christian faith? Rosenberg sought to replace the Bible with Mein Kampf (see same entry) Is that a Christian faith? No, within Christianity such steps have long been recognised as an option for an anti-Christian ideology and identified with the antichrist.

But the opposition between Christianity and Nazism is completely basic. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5) The Nazis didn’t hold with that, they believed that the violently competitive would inherit the earth.

Oldskeptic wrote: Christianity has never been the kind of restraint on human behavior that you would like to believe it is. Genocide is not exclusive to any religion or lack of religion. During the 15th through the mid 20th century Christianity did not stand in the way of genocide in the Americas, or in Australia, or in Africa, or in India, or in Asia. Christianity did not stand in the way of world wide slavery in colonies established by Christian nations. Nor did it stand in the way of trade in slaves kidnapped from Africa and Asia, and shipped to other colonies.


I don’t have rose-tinted glasses about restraint on human behaviour. I'm just out to counter bad propaganda. I think that in the cases you mention, and so far as I know, it was Christian elements that put a brake on cruelty, typically against secular interests.

In the Americas, according to Jonathan Kandell’s “The Capital” the Catholic church rapidly made itself indigenous in Mexico City and came to oppose the rapacious European Spaniards.

In Australia, after the “famous” hunt of Tasmanian aboriginals, it was Christian missionaries who protected the remnant from further murder - not very ably it seems.

In Africa it was Lutheran missionaries who blew the whistle on the German genocide of the Herero and American missionaries who blew the whistle on the Belgian genocide in the Congo.

Regarding slavery, it was British Christian anti-slavers like Wilberforce and later violent American Christians like John Brown and peaceful American Quakers who were at the forefront of the emancipation campaigns.

One can point to Southern slave Owners justifying their institution from the Bible but the truth remains that in the 19th and 20th century, reforming fire tended to come from Christians acting on moral and scriptural grounds, while oppression came from venial commercial secular interests.

Oldskeptic wrote: Your idea that Nazi Germany wasn't Christian because they didn't act like Christians is laughable. Given many examples from the past they were acting very much like Christians throughout history. Conquest, enslavement, genocide are all integral parts of European Christian history.


I repeat, I didn't claimed that Nazi Germany wasn’t Christian- it was the Nazi party that wasn’t. And your use of Nazi propaganda pics to try to show that they were is beyond laughable, it’s abominable.

Consider this question. Admitting as I hope you will that there was deep religious turmoil in Germany in the interwar years and that turmoil involved the Nazi party, why wasn’t there something equivalent happening in “Christian” Britain during those years? Where was the Conservative party attempt to put a British politician as the head of a new Christian sect? Where are the propaganda pics of Churchill to prove he was Christian? Where were the attempts by British politicians to deny the Hebrew background to Christianity? No the British churches just trundled on as they had in the previous hundred years, with no such controversy. The antichrist wasn’t working there.

Don't bring the Queen into this.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#495  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 04, 2014 5:15 am

Edit: double posting
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#496  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Aug 04, 2014 6:08 am

Lol Jayjay, religion is politics. God is an imaginary, idealized warlord. Hitler was a real one. People use religion for political gain. And in other news, water is wet.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#497  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 04, 2014 8:49 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Look up the Wikipedia entry on Historiography to see that historians don’t see their discipline as “merely driven by a bias towards the facts”.

I'm a historian. And yes historians do try to eliminate all personal bias and only look at the facts.
Your blind referral to wikipedia notwithstanding.

Are you prepared to say that as a historian your view of history is not influenced by your social milieu, and your role as social actor?

Are you ever going to quite shifting the goal posts?
Any human being has biases, that doesn't change the fact that historians just as biologists and chemists, try to eliminate that bias whenever possible.

Come on Thomas, just say whether your view of history is influenced by your social milieu and your role as social actor. It’s not simply about “biases” is it? Do you think that if you eliminated all biases, you would come to tell the truth about history? Is there a historical truth waiting there and historians are sort of approximating ever closer to it by eliminating biases? My pennyworth is that a historian’s social milieu and role as social actor enable the historian to see the past in a particular way; the richer the milieu and the more profound the historian’s role as social actor the richer and more profound the historical narrative will be.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: If the study of the biological past ever gets the monkey of atheist ideology

Still talking shit then? You have yet to define, much less provide evidence of this atheist ideology.

Atheist ideology can be mapped by looking at its influence on the human origin narrative. I try to expose that on this forum.

For umpteenth time: You have yet to adequatly define what this supposed atheist ideology is!
Until then all you're doing is slinging a pathetic ad-hominem.

It’s not ad hominem to try to map an ideology by pointing to its effects on the way an origin narrative is expressed. It’s not personal.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:off its back it might evolve towards the same sophistication and humility.

Allowing bias into your studies is anything but sophisticated.
Looking only at the facts is the epitome of humility. Biology, just like any other science follows these rules.

Of course everyone looks at the facts but what distinguishes the arrogance of some evolutionists from historians (the ones I know) is that the latter admit their reading of the past is influenced by social factors.

More horseshite Jayjay. Biologists and others scientists know and admit that they have biases, that doesn't change that they try to eliminate them as much as possible.
Nor does it change the fact that there is no, zilch, nada evidence for creationism/ID and an abundance for evolution.


That depends on what you mean by “creationism” I read it broadly, as meaning that we were created by something we can’t scope, we are carried along blindly by the creation and we have reason to praise the creator. The real insight of the last couple of centuries is that we might be able to damage the creator.
Thomas Eshuis wrote: This has nothing to do with bias and everything with facts.
Stating that people have biases proves nothing Jayjay. Falsely asserting that biologists do not acknowledge this is pathetic and yet another attempt at empty rethoric.

The way ideology works on origin narrative, seems to be to turn it upside down, rather than pull it a bit off-centre as implied by the word “bias” For example posters present the australopiths as completely estranged from their predators, who are seen at once as vast creatures utterly careless of puny primates and yet as a threat that abstract “numbers” could nullify . But all modern African mammals of hominin size live in ultimately close intimacy with sympatric predators, who in effect harvest them and where prey success depends on limiting the harvest and maximising their own ability to forage when where and how they like. So the story is about estrangement and mutual ignorance but the actual biological context was more realistically one of intimacy, opportunity, fear, expertise, courage, and mutual knowledge.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I placed Cali’s quote mines in their historical context as statements by a anti-communist who had every motivation to present himself as champion of the Christian West against the atheist communist hordes.

You can stop regurgitating this mindless nonsense.
What you did was fabricate a fantastical historical narrative, loosely based on the facts, with lots of red herrings in an attempt to disprove Hitler was a Christian.
You failed.
You also failed to establish that Cali was quote-mining as you failed to provide a contradicting context from the immediate context of the quote.
Again the related historical context is irrelevant Jayjay. Quote-mining deals with the immediate context of the source of the quote.


No Thomas, quote mining is the fallacy of quoting out of context and I provided the political context for Hitler’s presenting himself as a Christian when he actually fitted the Christian construct of the antichrist. Cali didn’t provide that context and you have done everything you possibly could to throw sand over the context.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I pointed out that Hitler subverted the protestant churches, and suppressed the civil-society functions of the catholics.

And I pointed out to you that doesn't exclude him from being a Christian.
Opposition to organised religion =/= opposition to Christianity.
Not wanting to be part of any particular denomination within Christianity does not exclude you from being a Christian.
Nor does not wanting to pray in churches.


Putting text in size 150 doesn’t make that text true. You really aren’t looking at this issue sensibly. The only organised religion that Hitler had any time for was his own bizarre “German Church” founded on the ideology of “Positive Christianity”. And that was his political toy. Every pre-existing and therefore authentic sect he undermined, demolished or persecuted. They Jews (a people who revere the Old Testament) he actually did his best to entirely destroy.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Animavore posted the Nazi minister for church affairs propounded “Positive Christianity” that actually replaced Jesus with Hitler in a “new revelation”.

No it didn't. Stop making shit up Jayjay, it only demonstrates the dishonest nature of your position.


.Look up the Wiki entry on “Positive Christianity” before calling my position dishonest. Or find something that contradicts that entry. You can change Wiki.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:As a historian, surely you can’t divorce Christianity from “organised Christianity”?

I can very easily, because as a historian and someone who get's around in the world sometimes, I'm aware that there are many people of many faiths that do not take part of the organised forms of their religions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:“”Organised Christianity” is the cultural vessel though which the belief has been developed, preserved and proselytised.

So what? It isn't the one true form of Christianity. That's once again question begging.

Your notion of a “one true form of Christianity fallacy” is a crock. Hitler proved by what he did to them that he was the enemy of every pre-existing expression of Christianity. All these sects together form the vehicle whereby what is “Christianity” was carried through Europe and developed.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m really having trouble with your information that you are a historian.

That's your problem not mine. The amount of historical fantasy you've presented so far is quite telling though.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Do people pay you money to study history?

:what:
It's my education. I'm studying to become a teacher.

You don’t sound to me like a historian. You might become a good historian and I hope you do. If you ever get to teach children modern history I do hope you won’t assert and try to ram down their throats using the same contemptuous tactics as you have used with me, that Hitler was a Christian.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: In 1917 Russia took herself out of the Great War in a Bolshevik revolution.

You just blindly stick to you spiel don't you?
The revolution came first Jayjay, only then did they leave the war.
The revolution was started by workers and sailors against the Tsarist government, not to end the war

So what? The success of the Russian revolution created an existential threat to German capitalism which they mobilised against just in time in the German revolution.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Wikipedia is excellent and accessible about what is generally understood about the world. The Wiki entry on the Russian revolution is suffused with references to the Great War.

FFS. I can't even...
1. The problem is the words generally understood. It's opensourced anyone can edit anything whether it's factual or made up.
2. Wikipedia articles on history, including the one on the Russian revolution tend to be very generalised and miss crucials details or nuanced statements.
3. Just because there are references to the Great War, doesn't prove the Revolution was about the Great War.
Of course there are many references, because the war was taking place at the same time as the revolution.
That doesn't change that the revolution was to overthrow the Tsarist regime and end the opression and food shortage.
Read: The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick.

Where does Sheila Fitzpatrik contradict that in 1917 the Bolshevik revolution took Russia out of the great War? Again, you are just trying to throw dust over constructing a context for Hitler’s quopte-mined pro-Christian statements. A historian should be offering an alternative view of the context. [/quote]
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I didn’t say that was the Bolshevik’s purpose but once any revolution takes hold of a country it cannot prosecute an external war.


Ever heard of this little thing called the American Revolution?

Like your argument above, you are just trying to obscure context. The American Revolution so called was technically a colonial war of liberation.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s also what happened in the German revolution.

Except that it isn't. They surrendered because they didn't have recourses anymore, even before the revolution started.

Instead of nattering about dates, present your own context, to explain the communist vs Nazi nexus that made it strategic for Hitler to present himself as a champion of Christianity.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m pointing out that strategically it was important for Hitler to present himself as champion of the Christian West against atheist communism.

Jayjay calling it atheist communism is about as useful as calling it male communism.
Atheism has nothing to do with other than that communism has no gods.
Atheism isn't an ideology, it makes no claims other than that the person who is an atheist has no belief in gods.

Well wherever communists took power, Christians were killed: in Russia, Mexico and Spain. Naturally Christians took note of that. And there atheism was established as the only acceptable position for a communist. So never mind whether there is an Atheist Ideology, there surely was a rational Christian fear of Atheism and it was in Hitler’s interests to play on those.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: More-over Hitler did consider himself a champion of Christianity as obvious from his statements in Mein Kampf among other things.

Yes, at the time he wrote Mein Kampf, which was a political tract from start to finish. But when he came to power Hitler showed himself to be the antichrist.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The first thing to recognise about the Nazis is that they had pure contempt for meekness.
Christ said, in his most coherent sustained teaching; “Blessed are the meek”. The Nazis weren’t for that.

And the Catholics were for divorce and against getting rid of your earthly possesions and in favor of killing people.
The Catholics and Protestants violate and contradict the bible just as much if not more than the Nazi's Jayjay.
I've yet to meet a Christian who sticks to letter of the bible.
You know why? Because each and every Christian interpets the bible to suit his or her views.
And they can do that because the bible is very ambiguous on many points and the 1000s of Christian denominations can't agree amongst themselves what true word of god is.


There’s not just a lot of conformity between Christian sects but also with other world religions. None of them promote the notion that the violently competitive will inherit the earth; which was the core of Nazi belief.


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The Soviet Union only took to science when:
A. They had not choice.
B. It could be used to support their regime and propaganda.
The SU was decidedly anti-intellectual. There was no free and organised science.

That doesn’t seem to be the consensus view.
The Wiki entry on Science and technology in the Soviet Union says

Hint: Wikipedia isn't the consensus view of historians. It's whatever the last few persons edited it to be.

These days Wiki attracts knowledgeable experts in geodesy which I know about, I wouldn’t diss it so lightly as a consensus view. See how it knocked Britannica out the window.
Jayjay4547 wrote:“The Soviet government made the development and advancement of science a national priority and showered top scientists with honours.”


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not saying it was always good science, but then I’m not saying that the current Western origin narrative of humanity is good science either.

That's because you refuse to look at and/or acknowledge the facts. Not something to toot your horn about btw.

I’m snipping your posting that Soviet science wasn’t always good science, which I’m happy to acknowledge.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But Animavore’s posting clearly shows that Hitler was technically the Antichrist.

It did no such thing.
Jayjay4547 wrote: He allowed himself to be presented by his minister for church affairs, as the source of a new revelation, displacing Christ.

Nonsense. Jesus was a crucial part of the Nazi denomination of Christianity.
Read the source Ani cited isntead of embarassing yourself by this continuous stream of arsewater.

Well in the source Ani cited, which was the Wiki entry on “Positive Christianity” I find this:

A proponent of "Positive Christianity", he [Alfred Rosenberg] planned the "extermination of the foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany", and for the Bible and Christian cross to be replaced with Mein Kampf and the swastika.[3]

“True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity... the Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation".
— Hans Kerrl, Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, 1937

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
If Hitler said some apparently pro-Christian things and at other times he said some anti-Christian things, but only the first are cited, then its fair to call that quote mining.

Nope. Not in the first place because he didn't say any anti-Christian things.

Oh Hitler did, there are mines of quotes with just as many anti-Christian sayings as Cali brought up on the other side They tend to be badly presented on the web and they tend to have more the flavour of Hitler actually speaking his mind.
http://spiritualwarfare666.webs.com/Hitler_Quotes_Against_Christianity.htm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The Nazi party signed the Concordat with the Catholic church to get the Catholics out of national politics and they made an extremely attractive offer, which the Church still benefits from.

How very Christian of the Church to sell their principles for convenience.
I say that without sarcasm or irony.

It wasn’t the most far-sighted thing the Catholics ever did. But those were scary times for the Church.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The Dutch failed to oppose Hitler largely I guess, because they were afraid.

And rightfully so as we had no army to speak of so we couldn't really oppose him anywway.
Not that this matters fuck all to the question of whether Hitler was an atheist or whether the Catholic church openly opposed him.

It does matter because it brings the issue home to you, it’s all very well to say the churches should have done this or that, but what would you have done? Throughout occupied Europe, the national honour was upheld where at all, by Christians and jews, like the Ten Booms in Holland.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not desperate Thomas

You are, as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge the facts and your continued regurgitation of already refuted fallacies, fantasies and outrigt false claims.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and the only rectal matter around here is your claim that Hitler was a Christian.

QED.
I'm done.
All you've done is make blind counterfactual assertions.
Twist facts into your own ideological narrative.
Erect a No True Christian fallacy.
And repeatedly misrepresented what I posted.
Perhaps when hell freezes over you will be prepared to discuss this rationally and honestly, but until then I'm done engaging with you.


You are a grossly impolite poster Thomas, shape up before you seriously tackle teaching as a career.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#498  Postby Sendraks » Aug 04, 2014 8:56 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You are a grossly impolite poster Thomas, shape up before you seriously tackle teaching as a career.


Hypocrite much?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#499  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 04, 2014 10:58 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You are a grossly impolite poster Thomas

I'm polite to people who engage honestly with me. If you can't do that I see no reason to be courteous to you.
Again, welcome to the Third Rule.

Jayjay4547 wrote:shape up before you seriously tackle teaching as a career.

Stuff your passive agressive crap.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Aug 04, 2014 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#500  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 04, 2014 1:51 pm

Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this;

[2] Tell us why, despite the vast supporting evidence to the contrary, not treating unsupported assertions as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", despite having been schooled on this so often even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest