Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by photon

I want to make a book about how chemistry has never been proven and about how Hitler used chemistry to kill millions of people. Chemistry is evil.

Well there goes my work. If you are going to put me out of a job could I at least write the foreword to your book.

I for one would love to get a copy of their 50-page introduction.

edit: Just noticed that the special intro is available through the Facebook link.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Thor

He has the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but he's not exorcising his freedom to think.

Oh, maybe he IS.....

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm pretty sure Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran. He at the very least hung with more Catholic clergy than Lutherans. In any case he could have found anti Semitic writings in any of the major Christian denominations.

The thing is Hitler never used the Catholic or Protestant notion that they had replaced the Jews as God's anointed people. He also never spoke about the Jews being the enemies of God or that his was a Holy war. He spoke about superior races.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the full title of Darwin's ground breaking book. "Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" sounds an awful lot like "superior races". Hitler wasn't alone in developing this notion as well. If you believe that mankind has evolved from lower forms of life and is still evolving; it's not unreasonable to assume that within our species there would be stronger progressive races and others that are weaker and in decline. Hitler viewed his race as superior and saw it as only natural to eliminate those who stood in the way of his races dominance. I mean if we are but animals isn't any action we take natural and amoral?

Sigh, like this hasn't been debunked, corrected a 1000 times over.

Read:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Some highlights:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )

Thank the Lord, Germanic democracy means just this: that any old climber or moral slacker cannot rise by devious paths to govern his national comrades, but that, by the very greatness of the responsibility to be assumed, incompetents and weaklings are frightened of.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“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.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933. )

“The anti-Semitism of the new [Christian Social] movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 119. )

The hatred towards Jews and inferior races like the gypsies has pre-dated Darwin by 2000 yrs. The fact is that in the case of Jews, the hatred is spawned from the institutional hatred of the people since the crucifixion of Jesus. To suggest Science is to blame is about as clueless as you can get, the fact this long standing hatred of these minorities comes from 100's if not 1000's of years of hatred and distrust, ignorance, racism, and bigotry. Many of them accepted and propogated by the churches of western Europe.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Oh, maybe he IS.....

Just like Tom Cruise has the right to believe in Xenu.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Are you serious? Hitler was clearly influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, and is plainly evident in Mein Kampf.

One does not blame Newton when a lunatic bludgeons someone to death with a club.

[TheU]

seriously were going to debate what influenced hitler?

has anyone even bothered mentioning ww1?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by TheU

seriously were going to debate what influenced hitler?

has anyone even bothered mentioning ww1?

That would be like being the obvious police

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by TheU

seriously were going to debate what influenced hitler?

has anyone even bothered mentioning ww1?

Or perhaps, megalomania?

This kind of stuff clearly needs to be rebutted notwithstanding what any resident fundies/YEC'ists may think....

First they came for the scientists... And I said nothing...

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Thor

Just like Tom Cruise has the right to believe in Xenu.

Wooooosh!!!

Not sure about how you see things, but there is a HUGE difference between exercising and exorcising

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh, like this hasn't been debunked, corrected a 1000 times over.

Read:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Some highlights:











The hatred towards Jews and inferior races like the gypsies has pre-dated Darwin by 2000 yrs. The fact is that in the case of Jews, the hatred is spawned from the institutional hatred of the people since the crucifixion of Jesus. To suggest Science is to blame is about as clueless as you can get, the fact this long standing hatred of these minorities comes from 100's if not 1000's of years of hatred and distrust, ignorance, racism, and bigotry. Many of them accepted and propogated by the churches of western Europe.

Hitler used religious language much the same as US presidents often use religious language: to appeal to the religious folks. After Bush's first term someone analyzed Bush's State of the Union speeches and compared them to Clintons. They found that on average that Clinton had more references to God in his speeches than Bush. Do you think that was because Clinton was so religious? The point is that politicians from time memorial have used religious language to appeal to their based. Using and believing doesn't equate to the same thing. The notion of a "superior race" comes out of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

There is a reason you have sites that try to twist history into making World War II a religious war or the holocaust caused for religious reasons. They are desperately trying to prove their tired old mantra that "all wars(bad things) are caused by religion"; It's simply not true. The fact that they can't abandon their disproved mantra demonstrates that Atheists aren't operating logically. They are emotionally attached to their particular view of the world: It's called faith.

That same deep emotional angst has caused this thread. "Kirk Cameron must be stopped" because Kirk Cameron is challenging some folk's faith here and he has the audacity to do it on holy ground: A college campus. Well until the Atheists gain that majority they are dreaming about and religious expression/thought becomes illegal Kirk Cameron won't be stopped. Crying about it not going to help.

[Matata]

"Each copy will have a 50 page intro about how evolution has never been proven"

Not true, the discovery and analysis of DNA supported all the concepts of evolution (passing of genes, mutations, etc.) in a quantifiable and observable way, without any significant controversy. Evolution is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory.

Also, I don't have a problem with what they are doing. challenging one's beliefs and thought process' are exactly what university is about, regardless of what side of the coin you're on.

e: Calgaryborn, it's only the younger and more anxious atheists who get worked up about this sort of thing. Realizing that there is no god and we are alone is a lot for the brain to take in, it takes a few years to mellow out.

[4X4]

I was really hoping that this conversation would be about Mike Seaver. I was looking forward to making a 'Boner' joke. Hitler isn't as funny as the nickname Boner.

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I was really hoping that this conversation would be about Mike Seaver. I was looking forward to making a 'Boner' joke. Hitler isn't as funny as the nickname Boner.

I would think you'd be able to interchange the two, since they are both dicks.

[Hack&Lube]

As with many things, whether it was Darwin's Origin of Species or the writings of Martin Luther, I am more apt to say that Hitler latched onto parts and parcels of these materials to support his own megalomaniac beliefs which were already preexisting based on his own life experiences and political and racial prejudices. He saw the ayran race as homo superior and he saw himself the architect and savior of a new civilization and world order ruled by them (him) and he readily latched onto any science or philosophy he could use to back up that claim.

To say that he was influenced or caused to believe in these things solely because of Darwin or Luther (sadly the massive anti-semitic and hateful ravings of Luther are almost never spoken of given how revered he is in protestant culture) or even the widespread legacy of 2000 years of European antisemitism is saying too much. The Endlösung der Judenfrage certainly used many elements of Darwin's work in it's methodical and bureaucratic elimination of the Jewish race but that twisted pseudo-science was based on a century of work in accepted genetics (and centuries of animal and plant husbandry) by thousands of scientists. Saying that Darwin directly influenced Hitler to commit genocide on the Jews is like saying that the bombing of Hiroshima is to be blamed on Albert Einstein.

Can we have a decent discussion (argument) without resorting to Hitler? That's Godwin's Law in action folks.

[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Why should he be stopped? Because he has a different opinion than you?

Give it up already. He has different views than you, we get it. No need to persecute him, take away his freedom of speech and religion because he believes differently.

Your hate-on is childish and sad.

See to me it's not so clear cut as free speech, and here's why.

I'll use the concept of a flat earth because I think the parallels are very illustrative.

If some person has a website to try and convince everyone that the earth is flat; tells their friends, appears on Fox news, stands up on street corners, whatever, that's one thing... I have no problem with that because it's ok for someone else to stand up beside him and also exercise free speech and say "these ideas are wrong, here's why". Free speech also means being able to point out when ideas are completely wrong.

The difficulty comes with people like Cameron and some groups, for a couple of reasons. They have a captive audience and have cultivated a culture of unquestionable authority. Either you believe what the church believes or you are wrong, sometimes to the point of going to hell. So flat earth is taught from the pulpit and is ingrained in the culture, as if the church had any expertise or authority in the areas of science, but they don't. So it's deceptive.

Plus, the whole thing gets put behind the wall of religious freedom. So while I can stand beside the guy on the street and counter his flat earth claims, it is taboo in culture to counter the religious claims. You say it yourself, it's "freedom of religion". If the church wants to make claims that are within the power of science to test, then they should not be upset when they are tested. If there is freedom of religion, then there is also freedom to counter religion. But how many churches would allow someone with a varying viewpoint in to talk about a flat earth?

Then add in the whole orchestrated effort to subvert the secular education system for religious purposes. Imagine people going to court to have a flat earth taught in science class. Using "freedom of religion" deceptively as a lever to try and get religion in the classroom (because that is unquestionably their intent).

So while I agree with you that Kirk Cameron should be able to say what he wants to say (just like I should be able to say what he's saying is baloney), I think there are circumstances like above where it feels like one "side" is being told to adhere to the rules of free speech and such, while the other "side" gleefully subverts them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the full title of Darwin's ground breaking book. "Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" sounds an awful lot like "superior races".

Yeah "sounds an awful lot like" totally equates to "means for sure". Anyone who thinks about it can see through that paper thin reasoning.

You've said this before, and it's been pointed out before that the book hardly mentions humans at all. It's been pointed out to you before that races during Darwin's time and profession referred to different varieties of animals. It's been pointed out to you before that if you had read the book you would understand how the word is used.

But don't let facts get in the way of twisting a good phrase for your own benefit.

Plus anyone who understands evolution knows that it actually combats racism; it shows that humanity are all a single race; the most disparate humans are more genetically similar than two chimps in the same territory for example.

Maybe I should bring up a founding father of Creationism who Negroes and Mongoloids as "degenerate humans"?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Hitler wasn't alone in developing this notion as well. If you believe that mankind has evolved from lower forms of life and is still evolving; it's not unreasonable to assume that within our species there would be stronger progressive races and others that are weaker and in decline.

No, as I pointed out humanity is only one race.

There might be strong or weaker individuals or groups within the race, but that only means anything who thinks "might makes right" is a good moral code. Women are weaker than men and have been marginalized throughout history because of it, but that doesn't make it right.

Darwin's writing were banned books in Nazi Germany. Hitler based his racist ideas on divine right, not evolution. "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.", and "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".

Hitler's ideas were a perversion of religion, science, and everything, to try and use them to support anything rational is silly.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Hitler viewed his race as superior and saw it as only natural to eliminate those who stood in the way of his races dominance. I mean if we are but animals isn't any action we take natural and amoral?

No, going from "something is natural" to "something is ok" is a leap that you must project into someone who accepts evolution because then it justifies your view. Flawed reasoning. How something is does not mean that is how something ought to be.

Evolution is science; it makes no value judgments. Just like chemistry makes no value judgments. Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest", it's "change in frequency of alleles in a population over time due to mutation and natural selection."

The idea of social Darwinism (the weak should be allowed to fail and die) isn't even derived from Darwin, it's derived from Herbert Spencer and Lamarckian evolution (which isn't related to Darwin at all). Social Darwinism a misnomer, it doesn't have anything to do with Darwin.

[MRCboicgy]

I just wanted to post this picture.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by TheU

seriously were going to debate what influenced hitler?

has anyone even bothered mentioning ww1?

But didn't you know? WWI was caused by Darwin and religion hating scientists too! And if only we all knew the divine truth about bananas, there would be world peace!

[Hack&Lube]

Is Kirk Cameron in this picture? Or is that some other dweeb from Full House?

[GGG]

The whole arguements of Hitler was a Christian, No he was an athiest, Stalin was a christian no he was a athiest are stupid and pointless. Both sides are wrong.

Religion, Nationalism, Hatred, Scientific knowledge, fear all can be used as a means of control. Leaders (good and bad) use whatever means they have to control people to get them to do what they want.

So whether or not religion or Darwin was used by Hitler to convince people to follow him doesn't really matter. He is just like any other conspiricy threorist around you take enough pieces out of enough different things so it sounds plausible to a wide variety of people.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Thor

I agree, this is not about religion sucks but that Ray Comfort and Cameron are bat sh*t crazy morons.

BTW for those who don't know Comfort, lucky you, here's his infamous Atheist's nightmare, the BANANA.



Here's a wild banana:

Could not the same arguement be made for a monkey's hand?