Darwin, and evolution, are blamed for Hitler's hatred of the Jews. Wouldn't 400 years of German history starting with Jew hating Martin Luther have anything to do with it? How about the 2000 years that Jews were accused of murdering Jesus?
@TheKilgoretrout Religious nuts would love it if that statement were true, but like most claims the religious make it's unsupported by evidence. Then again, why need evidence when you can take things on faith.
it's a possibility it should be investigated and researched.
Now dawkins did admit that there could be a designer and in his book the God Delusion says that there is evidence that the earth was created at one time (along with everything in it) but he the (withought giving any evidence for his claim) dismisses it immediatly. And yes ID, creationism, Darwinism are all just IDEAS we can't definativly say this one for sure happened because none of us were there at all.
I believe this is horrable because we have the right to come up with ideas and research and investigate them to there fullest potential, but that hasn't been allowed to those scientests/ professors and anyone for that matter who mentions ID and that's not fair it's an idea
No hitler was not a christian he left the church and it's teaching very early in his life
Anyway the seen I believe you were referring to was the one of the Nazi army building a wall around the city correct? That was an example used to show that evolutionists or Darwinists have been shutting people down and removing them from there jobs just because they said or printed an article which even mentioned ID.
Dude could please sight your sources for all this information. When ever you post a video like this don't just start saying stuff and expect everyone to take it as truth(although those super hip sunglasses almost made me) you have to prove it to them with hard evidence. The same principal is used in science which you seem to know so much about.
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" Harvard University Press
"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created."
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit....The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.
Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Adolf Hitler
Quoted by Albert Speer (Hitler's closest companion and confidant during the Third Reich), "Inside the Third Reich", p. 96.
He admired the attitude these people had towards war. He felt the Christian establishment was too soft. Hitler was against the establishment, but he still believed in Christ.
INTERESTING, That you use the comparison in the Bible to support your race superior DOGMA.but if you would study your history(NOT WHITE HISTORy), and the geology of the earth, you will find that there is NO way the people in the Bible where NON MELAnin people......Its about as logical as peguins living/surviving in Death Valley.
You allege Hitler was a "devout Christian". Now who should we believe, a self-proclaimed internet expert, or Josef Goebbels?
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
Yes, he was deeply religious. He believed in Jesus, a Christ follower one might say, and he believed in the literal truth of the bible. He felt that the Church was in decay because, in his eyes, they were becoming too soft by pandering to the Jews instead of wiping them out.
"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith (Noted British anthropologist, atheist and evolutionist)
I guess you have me on this one. This random persons statement in his book totaly speaks to Hitler's beliefs moreso than the fact that he had "Origin of the Species" was banned in Nazi Germany. Since when is completely ignoring the concepts of evolutionary theory and attempting to further a political agenda based on religious prejudice considered being an "evolutionist".
The fact that you would refer to Sir Arthur Keith as a "random person", proves that you know very little of what you speak. Keith was one of the most highly regarded evolutionary anthropologists of the 20th century, and was knighted by the British Crown.
I'm also calling BS on your false claim that Hitler banned "Origin of Species". You've obviously never read "Biologists Under Hitler", by noted German evolutionary biologist Ute Deichmann, and published by Harvard University Press.
I actually know who he is. He was the biggest supporter of Piltdown Man. Most likely he was in on the hoax, but at the minimum he was highly unobservant and didnt know what he shouldve been looking for in his own field of expertise.
Also, hes quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation. This is unthinkable." The fact that as a scientist he'd just go along with one thing because he didn't like the other doesn't suggest a brilliant mind to me. Maybe he was, but it shouldn't be hard to see why I don't just take his word at face value.
"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
Well, I just read through Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf (both volumes), and I couldn't find that quote anywhere.
Even if it is there I can tell from what is written that he knows absolutely nothing about evolution, because that's not how it works. It has nothing to do with strong or weak, but just with whatever is fit to survive. Also, "intermingling" is actually good from an evolutionary standing. It increases genetic diversity which increases our chances of survival.
im not trying to be a dick, im not a nazi, and i am an atheist. i just wanted to point that out. sorry if i sounded like a know-it-all, im not, i've just done a lot of research on hitler and the nazi's.
Hitler actually believed in the ancient myth of Aryans. it sounds crazy but then again so was hitler. the mythical aryans were white blonde hair blue eyed giants, according to the myth. they were considered to be perfect in all aspects to those who believed in them, after hitler used catholicism to brainwash, he then started killing priests. he used his catholic background to manipulate people. another interesting fact is that he went to school for a while to become a priest.
for the most part you are right, the point that darwinism doesn't lead to nazism that is. hitler, for the most part, just used catholicism and protestant christianity in his speeches, to brainwash and sway the people of germany to follow him and to make them feel like his actions were some how in God's favor. I'm running out of remaining characters so ill type another comment.
Hitler was not a devout catholic. Why did you not cite the "biblical" source. Hitler quoted Darwin in his book Mein Kampf. In the movie they mentioned the fact that eugenics was long before Darwin. THINK!
The comedian Robin Ince puts it best "saying that without Darwin there wouldn't be Hitler is like saying without Newton there wouldnt be falling over and hurting my knee"
Hitler was not an evolutionist he was a creationists here are a few choice quotes from mein kampf
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi"
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x "
Hardly the words of someone who believed in evolution
It seems to me that only Atheist websites are making this ridiculous claim that Hitler was a Christian. The truth is that Hitler was very much into the occult and paranormal events. He was almost pagan yet adhered to no particular religion. Hitler may not have known completely about Darwin himself, yet his ideologies were similar to Darwinian evolution. He believed that the Jews were "lesser evolved". That you CAN take to the bank!
Hitler didn't think that Jews were "lesser evolved," he believed that they were "sub-human." There's a slight difference. The former is douchebaggery based on the misinformation of scientific theories, and the latter simply being douchebaggery based on religious prejudice. "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."
im stating it to prove a former poster wrong in the myth that hitler thought jews were lesser evolved and based his teachings on 'underlying' emphasis ala darwin's work.
Also, nowhere in "Mein Kampf", any of his personal journals, or in any of his speeches does Hitler ever mention Darwin, Natural Selection, or even the word evolution. There's nothing similar between evolution and Hitler's ideologies. Evolution doesn't promote, or even have anything to do with, genocide.
Hitler believed believed Jews were "lesser evolved"
last I checked so does Anne Coulter, or Billy Graham
There is an essence that anyone, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,-some of the most brillinat men alive-who resort to staunch atheism is utterly radical and illogical...because everything leads to question and there is no true answer to our existance nor our purpose.
I am an Agnostic, and I lean towards there being a higher existential being.
Hitler never mentions Darwin in any of his writings... There isn't even any evidence that Hitler even knew anything about Darwin. If he was so influenced by "Darwinism", don't you think he would have mentioned Darwin in his writings?
You're right in saying that Hitler never mentions anything relating to Darwin, but he did know at least enough about Darwin to put "Origin of the Species" on his list of banned books.
Hitler strongly believed in the survival of the fittest. He simply wanted to guide the evolutionary destiny of his people and not leave it up to random chance. What a better world it would be if only wanted white and healthy children were born instead of the all the useless eaters who are allowed to thrive among us. This Palin womam giving birth to a baby she knew would be retarded sickens me.
What does "not believe in evolution" mean ? Not "believing" that every generation bears more children than can possibly survive ? Just look around you. Not "believing" that in the long run those better fitted will survive more and have descendance ? Then why did marsupials disappear everywhere except in niches ? Not "believing" that part of the characteristics are inherited ? Well, show me a farm horse winning a race against thoroughbreds and I shall reconsider the question.
wow that was a great video, it seems like im not the only one who actually knows hitler as not an athiests, and even if he was. why would the actions of 1 person reflect on the actions ofa n entire belief system
Don't pay Ben Stein by paying for his movie! Your points are correct, and you could probably making a film far longer than expelled if you were to explain exactly how stupid every moment of that film is. You don't even need a high school education (at least, the one I got) to understand why creationists are stupid, so it scares me to think how terrible education must be for anyone to actually believe anything in Expelled. 90/10
hitler was not an atheist but he was a darwinist and a part of a group of darwinist that was involved with eugenics, hitler was involved deeply in the occult so he was not a christian either
I'm getting tired of saying this; Eugenics is not Darwinism, it's Social Darwinism. Darwinism deals only with Natural Selection, whereas once it is applied to a social setting, it is no longer natural.
"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."
every great leader claims to be doing God's work , if theirs no God they will be claiming to be doing it for the betterment of humanity, the religion has nothing to do with it, but for sure social darwinism did, but ill accepts that its slightly different, it isnt religions fault its just the easiest thing for rationalization in that time period, as it becomes less of a rationalization i new rationalization will emerge
I mostly agree with your point, but Darwinism isn't really an appropriate term. Evolutionary theory is more appropriate, since the theory of Evolution has moved on since Darwin's time.
Frankly, only Creationists still use Darwinism as a term, and they do it to make the scientific theory look like a religion where it is not.
its not so much evolution. darwin only explained why the species of finches(can be applied to all animals) had different beak qualities based on the habitat on the island they lived on, some had smaller beaks some had longer. and he noted that and formed his theory. so its not so much evolutionary, since its only a small branch. but ya they need to rename social darwinism. ben stein even said "athiests believe in darwinism, and from that you get social darwinism" which ticks me off
It's all a load of bullshit. Ben Stein's just a fucking ass-hat. Plain and simple, it's Eugenics. They attempt to label it "Social Darwinism" to cast a negative shadow on Evolutionary Theory. That part of it isn't what bothers me though. That's just a sign of the ignorance of those who make that claim. What bothers me is that there are people are stupid enough to buy the bullshit.
Hitler called Christianity the religion of the Aryian people because he hoped to use it to unite those people. Religion had worked well in uniting separate peoples before. It was perhaps the one thing all European countries had in common.
I do agree with you 100% that it is stupid to put blame on mechanisms and not on the people who misused them, but I do not think Ben Stein was trying to make that point. He was simply saying what Dofstoyefsky said (I think he is quoted in the movie). "If God is not, anything is permitted." Just as fear of police stops or reduces crime, Christian morals have, as a general rule, kept massmurderers such as Hitler or Stalin in check. Diluted versions such as Hitler's positive Christianity, failed.
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is an excellent book and is where I got most of my information. However, based on things Hitler himself said, I would not consider him a Christian. "Best to let Christianity die a slow death."-Hitler. Apparently, that was in his early days before he decided that Christians needed to be exterminated. I did not say that Social Darwinism is an offshoot of artificial selection. I said that I thought that it was an offshoot of Darwinism. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Mendel was a Christian and is called the father of genetics. Your attack on him is completely baseless. Mendal concerned himself mostly with plants. Your trying to shift blame from Darwin is good, I and Ben Stein will say that Darwin certainly would have been apalled at what Hitler was doing. However, the blame should not be shifted on to a monk just because he is a Christian. It should be shifted to early evolutionists such as Galton.
Galton would be one of those that I would put the blame on. I meant to mention him in the video, but forgot. The point I was attempting to make is that it's stupid to place the blame on the biological mechanisms or the people who discovered them; that rests solely on those who applied the science in such sadistic ways.
social Darwinism is not a "misdefinition". It is an offshoot. Ben Stein made it clear that he thought that Darwin wasn't to blame for Hitler. Many of the earliest evolutionists could be called social Darwinists in that they believed that artificial selection of the human race was beneficial or even necessary.
It actually is a misdefinition. You said it yourself that Social Darwinism is an offshoot of artificial selection; that's why I mentioned Mendel. It wasn't an attack on him, only pointing out that he was the one who discovered mechanics of selective breeding. Darwinian Evolution only deals with Natural Selection.
Hitler's nazies also confiscated every Bible they could find in Germany, and replaced church Bibles with Mein Kampf. Hitler's eugenics program was, as the movie pointed out, Hitler's idea of "steering" evolution. The wikipedia article on social Darwinism is pretty informative on that subject. Artaficial selection was not discovered by Mendel. It had been used by herdsmen thousands of years before him. Mendel did make it widely understood, but his work was not used by the nazies.
I can't comment on the Bibles because that's a piece of information I've never come across. If you can tell me where to find it, I'd love to read more. One book I do know that was banned and confiscated by the Nazis was "Origin of the Species." Hitler didn't believe in evolution, and most definitely wasn't trying to "steer" it. He was simply breeding people. Also, I know Mendel didn't discover Artificial Selection, he discovered the mechanism of how it occurred.
You are not entirely accurate about Hitler. Hitler was a politician, who used Christianity to get him votes, which he badly needed at several points in his career. It was uncovered at Nuremburg that Hitler and his Nazies planned the extermination of the Christian population of Europe. The people he surrounded himself with were almost entirely atheists. He himself was described by his friend Goebbles as "deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian."
He believed that Christianity was the religion of the Aryan people. Even though other peoples had adopted the religion, they were still inferior. Hitler planned on killing everyone who wasn't of the Aryan race, pure and simple. Apparently that included himself as well considering he blew his own head off.
Agreed. However, have you ever pondered the greater mystery of how they get the 'soft flowing carmel' inside of the Caramilk bar? You see, I'm always thinking...
Yes you right. I guess I just can't stand some philosophers. However, I'm a big fan of Dan Dennit (did I spell his name right?). He really understands modern science,he is a walking encyclopedia.
Also, science is about testing your theories using an hypothesis (something that philosophers didn't do). For example, look at String Theory (or M Theory). It has no testable hypothesis yet (this could change with the CERN collider), because of this many physicists put it in the realm of philosophy NOT science. However, I do get your point. I guess I'm just rambling...
I suppose I'm talking semantics. However, I feel that science and philosophy are different. Think of it this way: For a very long time it was the realm of the philosophical that dealt with trying to understand the world. However, people came to the conclusion that humans (no matter how astute) are prone to mistakes. This created the development of the scientific method, a means to keep peoples work as objective as possible.
Not only did Hitler not denounce the church, the church and it's pope Pius XII never denounced Hitler. If it had, much of the horror of the holocaust would never have been carried out. The church could have stopped it with a word.
As a student of philosophy, I do see many commited fallacies you've commited. We come from different fields, and this is where we clash. Instead of text comment, are you willing to explain your worldview to me on audio dialogue (recorded) where we both can cross examinine each other? I'm willing to bring my world view up to the plate of explanation, are you willing to do yours? We can do this after I listen to the show which will be some time next week (due to school exams). ???
Yeah send me some information of what I need to do.Also,keep in mind that philosopgy isn't science. However, I'm not cutting up philosopgy. However, I had to study some philosophers, like kierkegaard.I thought I was going to pull my hair out! Also, things like the electon/slit discussion are based on observation,it can't be refuted. However, I have lots of respect for the philosopher Daniel Dennet. HE understands science. ANd that to me, is a major plus...
also, as I said, check out the 'kluge' interview on quirks and quarks, and write back. Hey,you owe me,dude. Also, I believe that its ok to agree to disagree. In a world of 'american idol', perhaps the most important thing is to have the discussion...
"Where I draw the distinction between a logical and an illogical person is the ability to use 'evidence' in making a decision and being educated in how the world works (science)."
What is "evidence" to you? For example, what kind of relative evidence suffices for God to exist?
Anyhow check out the audio, it's only "fair", that I give you one as well. I have school exams so i wont be back for a while. We can certainly do an audio dialogue if you are up for it. ???
Evidence to me is something that is based on firm theoretical grounds (remember that in science a theory doesn't mean 'hypothetical' but is a body of knowledge about something that has been confirmed by observation, however theories can change as new evidence is brought to light), which is supported by observation, and that those observations have been replicated by others (whats known as the scientific method). As for evidence for GOd? Let me MEET him/her/it then I'll BELIEVE in him/her/it...
Also, logic is susceptible to our emotions.This makes logic fallible because our emotions can effect it (and emotions arent' logical, just ask Mr. Spock). Also, and I'm not being rude here but, if you are going to use my dialogue, I hope you do your homework and understand what we have been talking about,because I don't think you understand anything about what I have discussed with you.You said I sounded illogical,however this is because you don't understand what I'm talking about.
one more thing.I told you to go to quirks and quarks and check out 'kluge'. Make sure you do that and write and comment on it. Hey, I have wrote a ton of shit here. So do your duty...
one more thing about logic (I think this is the last comment). You claim that logic must be used to understand something. However, everthing I have discussed with you, you obviously don't understand. Again, thats good evidence that first you must learn something before you can logically use it. THink of it this way, the more you learn the 'sharper' you logical reasoning becomes. Now go and sharpen those logic skills by going to quirks and quarks....
I also have an audio I want you to check out. It's a debate between a materialist athiest VS christian presuppositionalist.
Type in "paul manata derek sansone" and the first link should serve you to the debate.
I may be dropping a few questions, but our discussion would be more intelligible if you have taken a logics course. If you have not it's still fine. As long as you agree that 1+1=2 still applies here, we can still have a logical discussion.
Speaking of absolute truth, I am not speaking of aesthetics, those are mere opinion as you have stated. I am speaking of the nature of something to be either true or false. So again, is there such a thing as absolute truth?
Give me examples of objective laws of the universe. Are they immaterial universal laws or just neuronic activities in our heads? For example, if i die, do the universal laws still exist relative to the universe, not to myself. Remember, you said "universe".
As far as universal laws goes here are a few, and sorry I'm not going to explain them to you,educate yourself on them if they interest you: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitional curvature of space time (do to mass), the speed of light, time dialation, nuclear fusion, law of conservation of mass and energy (by the way a 'law' in science does not change with time, thats why its called a law), law of thermodynamics, those should get you started...
Now concerning the electron slit theory, we are going off on a tangent because even our logic (yours and mines) still aplly to say that at the moment of the electron slit experiment, we still believe 1+1=2 more than we do 1+1= NOT 2. Science is inductive, and hence, it's laws and studies can overide themselves within time, so using what is mutable (and still a mystery) to objectively discredit a simple A = NOT A, or 1+1 = NOT 2, is not a very logical thing to do.
Also, about taking a logic course. I'm finishing a B.A. in Psychology and have taken a few logic courses and was top of the class,so... As far as the electron slit discussion, I don't think you know anything about quantum mechanics do you? The 1+1=2 statement, as I already said, was a metaphore (you understand what a metaphore is right?) to try and get you to understand that our logic or even our common sense notions of reality break down at the subatomic level. AND THIS IS A FACT!
".Logic requires more than mental abillity,it requires knowledge."
Actually, I would contend to say that knowlege requires logic first and foremost. It takes a logical mind to exert any amount of knowledge, and from our discussion, you are making logic to be something learned. But that's the problem, people use logic to gain knowledge. If it was the contrary as you had stated, then is that "knowledge" in anyway a "logical" knowledge before it learns what it logical/illogical?
Again, logic,As I define it, is the use of knowledge and other mental tools (that must be learned) such as critical/skeptical thinking. Also, how do people use logic to gain knowledge? I just learned how to use my new coffee maker, but I didn't use logic in the learning,I learned how to use it by instruction.For example one defintion of Logic is the searching for validity in something. However, I wasn't searching for the validity in coffee making when I was learning how to use the coffee maker.
(1)Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Well,if your talking about the objective laws of the universe: YES. If your talking about religion, art, ect: NO. A law of the universe affects us all equally. However, ones taste in art, for example, is more subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder).(2)Where I draw the distinction between a logical and an illogical person is the ability to use 'evidence' in making a decision and being educated in how the world works (science).
Let me expand on question(3).What we would call logical many years ago would be labeled illogical today.Logic not only depends on the use of our pre frontal cortex it also depends on the information we have about the world stored in our memory. Many years ago,before the birth of science, it was logical to assume that a plague was the scourge of GOd. However, today that wouldn't be logical based on what we know about science(viruses).Logic requires more than mental abillity,it requires knowledge.
before I answer anymore of you questions I have something to as of you: I want you to go to a site called 'quirks and quarks'. Its a radio science show out of Toronto Canada. ANyway, go to the site and click on 'past shows', the page it takes you to will be the 2007/2008 archive. Find a program with the title 'Kluge' (april 19/2008). They talk about logic and the brian. You have to watch it and retort to it before I answer anymore questions (its only fair). I await your response...
I was making a point about children not being logical (using the religion,cult example). Anyway, not being rude, but if you want me to answer these quesions you have to stop asking others, dude. Or I'll be up all night writing...
Since we're both on, I will let you answer my questions and come back tomorrow morning. I will need to have the questions answered.
I read the quantum theory of the electron and it sounds interesting, but I would like to add that two slits are not a compound of two electrons, and thus are different categories of substance. What I'm simply stating is this, does "1 electron + 1 electron= 2 electrons", NOT "1 electron + 1 electron= 2 barriers with slits".
Now to put the electron example into more earthly terms (which I will use to explain the quantum example),think of it like this: I am behind a large wall (the electron barrier),I throw a ball(electron) at 'one' of the 'two holes' (slits).Now you are behind the wall to 'catch' the ball (electron detector).Using your logic (the same logic behind 1+1=-2)you expect the ball to go through 'one' of the 'two holes',since logic tells you that the one ball cant pass through two holes at the same time.
Now as I said before the studies of quatum mechanics show that the electron went through both slits at the same time. That would be like one ball going through two holes at the same time. If this makes no sense thats because our brains just can't process that data in a way that make intuitive sense to us. Many physicist have said that even though they may understand quatum mechanics a little(they all say they don't understand it that much yet) they will never intuitively understand it.
I am sorry to say, the analogy of the electron and the barrier with two slits is an extremely weak analogy which can also be applied in the real world as such;
With one stone, I cannot hit two birds standing NOT in front, nor behind, BUT side by side together relative to where I am standing. Even your 'logic' would tell you that the stone would hit only one or the other bird (but not both at the same time because there is only 'one' stone and 'two' birds)
You don't understand the concept. I will try to be more clear: you have one electron, you 'throw' it in 'one' direction at a barrier with 'two' slits, behind the barrier is a detector that lets you know if the electron passed through the barrier. When the experiments were done they illustrated that the electron passed through 'both' slits 'at the same time'. That's impossible. Your
'bird analogy doesn't apply'. Now let me apply this to the real world to show how crazy this is.
Now since I stated that believe 1+1 always equal 2, you replied "If this is what you believe then I think your wrong". But in your world view, if 1+1 does not equal 2, then you can also say "If this is what you believe then I think you're right", Why?, because wrong=false and right=true, but if 1+1 does not always equal 2, then in the your world view, wrong/false can be right/true, and thus, I can also be right in a "quantum mechanic sense".
"Many mentally challenged people aren't logical because their brains is functioning at a child's level"
This is your problem. You are equating the laws of logic to the active neurons of a persons brain and with this you assume that children are illogical. Yet one genius child refutes your argument that children are "illogical". Be specific.
(3) Now I asked you earlier where you draw the distinction between the logical and the illogical person. I still need you to answer this question.
"...'learned' your not born with knowing how to do math"
In my world view, logic itself is NOT something you learn, it is a precondition of the human mind, though still conceptually existent if my brain "shuts down". Now concerning above, It would be a contradiction to say "logic never existed until I thought of it", when in fact, I used logic to prove logic. It is self refuting to say what you said above because math exclusively starts with logic itself, The Law of Identity.
I will agree that logic may be innate, in that it is a 'tool' that people learn how to use, by learing how to use certain parts of the brain (again the pre frontal cortex). Think of it like this: there have been cases where people have grown up alone, with no outside contact with people, they loose their ability to think clearly (logic,as well as other facilities like speach) these people can't be rehabilitated or be taught to think like you and me, they have the intelligence of a chimp.
Also, your example of a 'child genius' isn't fair, since he is a 'genius' thus is not typical of average child. Also, you have to understand that my statements are not my opinions but based on science. And the science is conclusive that children are not in the same logical level as adults, which is why parents have to watch them, and why they (as well as you and I when we were children) made foolish descisions. Why do you think that religions,cults,ect want to get people when the are children?
Also, what do you mean by "false" and "true", these terms can be used for intellectual as well as moral debates. And everything I have talked about is in the intellectual realm. However, morality is also created by you brain in an area called the 'limbic system' (an area important for emotions).
You could argue that 1+1=2 is a part of the universe, but that would be appealing to a universal truth (which has been my view); that logic in itself is an immaterial, invarient, immutable, and universally transendent (meaning logic works regardless of time and space).
In your worldview, the minute you die, your brain no longer functions, and in that respect, you are ultimately illogical. Since you don't believe in a soul, what happens to you upon your passing?
As far as Mentally challenged people are concerned they are the way they are because the brain didn't form, or doesn't operate corectly. Many mentally challenged people aren't logical because their brains is functioing at a child's level (logic is produced by the adult brain-pre frontal cortex). When you die your brain shuts down (just like you home computer) when that happens the essence of who you are is gone.
ALso, what do you mean by a universal truth? Do you mean that ono plus one 'always' equals two? If this is what you believe then I think your wrong. The universe has some pretty strange properties, and the mathmatical logic of 1+1=2 does not always apply, like in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics. Also, I just happened to come to this video and saw your statement. You have to hit the 'reply' button so I get the message that you have a comment for me.
About the reply comment, I want to, but can we leave it be for now due to flipping back and fourth on replies? Also, I hope you don't mind but, I'm also using our dialogues as a commentary for an upcoming video where one person will argue your what you argued here.
What do I mean by universal truths? We'll. I'll ask you a question first, and maybe we can move on from there. (1) Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
"..the mathmatical logic of 1+1=2 does not always apply..."
You're the first person who ever told me that 1+1 does not always equal two. (2) Explain to me how the subatomic world of quantum mechanics first goes from 1+1=2 to 1+1= NOT 2? This burden of proof is on you.
The 1+1=2 example was a metaphore for how things don't always happen the way we would expect them to happen in the quatum world. For example:if you'throw' a partical(an electron)at a barrier with two slits(your aiming it at the slits)and behind the slits is a detector (to show you that the electron past through the barrier).your 'logic' would tell you that the electron would go through only one or the other slits(but not both at the same time because there is only 'one' electron and 'two' slits)
However, the electon DOES go through TWO slits! Thats based on evidence NOT abstract theory. SO if the universe is bound by our logic 1+1=2(math in this case), then 'one' electron should only go through 'one' of the two slits, since it makes no sense for it to go through both at the same time (that defies logic and our commonsense notion of reality). However, it does go through both slits at the same time (the electron also stays intact, it doesn't break into two or anything).
"The concept of '1+1=2' is part and parcel of the brain."
All I asked earlier was that if the concepts of 1+1=2 are just mere biological entities of neutronic activity, do they then ultimately die relative to the universe? You asserted that mentally challenged people cannot do math, I agree with that statement, but guess what? In your worldview, they still possess neuronic activity in the brain hence, they're still logical. So where did you draw the line between the logical and illogical?
as far as 1+1=2 is concerned, again it is a product of your brain. The brain is like a computer, when you give it data (such as one plus one) it process it and gives you the answer (2). However, these skills have to be 'learned' your not born with knowing how to do math. You learn it through instruction (lanuage). However, certain people are better at math than others because their brains are better at processing problems that have to do with calculations.
"SO, it seems that logic (as well as other skills) are relegated to the brain".
When you utilized this statement, why did you used the verb "seem"? Are you in fact not really sure of this material hypothetical truth claim by process of lightened up protons? In other words, if the process of truth is found by way of measuring the neuronic activity of two persons, does the person with more neuonic activities truth claim outweigh the other persons truth claim by having more neuronic activity?
YOu arguments sound like philosophy. Also, MRI scanners don't "light up protons" they work on hemoglobin molecules in the blood. Also, What is you definition of "truth". What I meant was that when people are put into an MRI machine and asked to do a task (logical task) certain areas of the brain become more active. And no matter who is in the MRI those same brain areas come active. Logic, like other higer order skills is done by the brain and is a product of evolution.
Unless you are equating logic with neurons (in which you are), just how many [neurons] did you count in your own brian to justify a relative truth claim before to replying to this post?
The human brain has about 100 billion neurons each making millions (if not trillions) of connections. ALso, when you put somebody in a MRI scanner the same parts of the brain 'light up' when doing calculations or logic exercises (pre frontal cortex). Also, performance enhancing drugs can increase math skills (as well as other skills). SO, it seems that logic (as well as other skills) are relegated to the brain. ALso, I got your vids, but I screwed up and deleted the link. Please send again.
I asked you specific question crazyb, that is, will the laws of logic still exist when you die? Answering with "logic dies out with the system" is merely saying that the brain which utilizes "logic" will cease to use logic, which has no relevance to the nature logic itself.
If your mind tells you that 1+1=2, is that concept still true in itself when your system goes "off line"?
logic is the way that the brain processes data. The concept of '1+1=2' is part and parcel of the brain. Think of it this way: Some people who are mentally challenged can't do math. Why? Because their brains don't preform correctly. HOwever, I will challenge my own claim by stating that you could argue that 1+1=2 IS a part of the universe, since many information scientists look at the universe as a 'quantum computer' (don't ask me to explain this, I cant).
Can you explain to me how it is that you do not believe in immaterial entities, yet you appeal to immaterial entities such as the laws of logic, for argumentation?
logic is not 'immaterial' it is manifestation of the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. WE know this, and I'm sorry to say it is quite material (neurons, synapses,neuro transmitters,ect)...
If you have to ask a question like this one then I take it that you don't understand the brain. The logic dies out with the system when it goes 'off line' (the person dies). As far as Newton's laws is concerned we understand more fully what causes those laws, with Einstein's relativity. We know what gravity is (at least on a macro scale) and we have proof to illustrate it.
Uh hitlers whole idiology on aryan supremacy was based on evolution. And yes there are actually extreme social darwinists that believe that one race is genetically superior over another going so far as to even try and prove it with scientific evidence. So if people can makes claims that they are superior over another scientifically you can imagine the direction humanity would be going if we all just accpeted darwinist survival of the fitest philosophy.
Being an Agnostic, I usually have an open mind about most things but after researching this movie... I can see it is just a load of propaganda. Now denying deities or science as 100% myth or fact is a bit on the ignorant side. As of right now I am sticking on the side of science because it has proven itself to be much more reliable and actually has some backing evidence. Unless I see a god with my own eyes preforming miracles, I will not change my opinion.
> I'm not sure. It would be something that comes about through scientific methods, is peer reviewed, and then, through rigorous testing, is not falsified.
> I don't, but biological aliens are the only ones I'm lending probability to for the reasons I've already stated.
There's just selection, distinguishing between natural and artificial is superficial and for the layman. You could argue for primary selection and secondary selection (selection by the selected through primary selection). Humans are still very much part of the whole thing.
I have lost all respect for Ben Stein after researching expelled.
For example: If you paid two scientists a thousand dollars each to explain gravity. Scientist "A" comes back and says god makes gravity. Scientist "B" comes back and says the posative attraction between particles could account for gravity. Who would you choose? You see saying god does it explains nothing so scientist "B" is choosen because he furthers science understanding. Its not predjudism.
"A God is a supernatural being that exists outside the bounds of physical reality."
With respect to the Christian God, you are correct.
Now concerning "An alien civilization would consist of biological entities.", how do you know that? Remember, we are speaking of the the entity/entities which planted the first self-replication molecule. As an atheist, you are presupposing the possibility of aliens more than you do a god. How is it that you KNOW that aliens have a biological structure?
You find it probable to believe in an "alien civilization", but the when I brought up "Alien God", you automatically discredited it as if "alien civilizations" were more probable or "not too far of a stretch" to believe than an "Alien God". Why is this? Why not be consistent a equally reject both just as you do the christian god.
A God is a supernatural being that exists outside the bounds of physical reality. There is absolutely no evidence that supports such beings. An alien civilization would consist of biological entities. Biological entities exist. Since there currently isn't any evidence of biological entities existing somewhere besides Earth, the probability is low. Because the two conditions (life and other planets) each exist, the probability is slightly better than that of gods which have no evidence.
Oh and Darwin even encouraged white supremacy through his manifest destiny writings so there is plenty of proof that Hitlers idiologies were inspired by darwin.
Manifest destiny was the idea that America was destined to, by divine right, expand across North America. Yes, it supported Anglo-Saxon superiority, and was later expanded to justify a global spread of Democracy and Christianity.
What does any of that have to do with Darwin? I've never heard of these writings. I'd love to read them some time. What's the name of them? I want to go to the library and check them out.
"The Big Bang, the formation of the solar system/Earth, evolution, everything in the science books is what happened."
I see that you appeal to a theory (Big Bang) as to "what happened". Whether you truly believe in this or not, why in your worldview can there not be an "Alien God" who planted the the first self-replication molecule?
"It's not the actions or the words, it's the intent."
It is now interesting that "intent" is now the basis of one's ideology and overrides one's actions and claim (or word). At 1:08 seconds you appeal to one's "actions" for your argument and now you seem to speak contrary to your video. I just have to add that for one to truly know another persons intent requires for one to actually BE that person yourself.
I'm sorry, that's only half a thought I got distracted when I was typing that one. While a person's intent does override what they say or do, you're right that you can't know exactly what they intend. You were asking which speaks louder, actions or words. It really depends on the situation. Sometimes I'm going to believe what they say, and other times what they do. Those words and actions are a window to intent, and it's something that you have to judge for yourself.
In the second post below, I am adding the fact that if you compared Earth to the few planets around it (inductively), then stated, "it's not too much of a stretch to believe there is a God", why is that suggestion in itself less probable than the suggestion that "Aliens created earth"? Is this just mere subjective opinion?
Lastly I am asking if I can take your video out and critique it on my channel. I will give direct reference to your channel.
The senario isn't that "aliens created Earth." The Big Bang, the formation of the solar system/Earth, evolution, everything in the science books is what happened. The only difference in the alien senario is that instead of life coming into existence on Earth through a natural process an alien civilization, purposfully or not, put the chemical building blocks of life on Earth. They don't create anything, they merely place biological materials on Earth.
Concerning number 2., I find it interesting that inserting the word "God" with "Alien" into an answer automatically causes you to discredit the answer more than if it were "God" alone.
I can easily use your same argument as a man standing on the moon, and state that
I "lend it more possibility" that there are no moving entities like myself on the other planets (incl. earth), and so, it's not "too much of a stretch to imagine" that are no
entities like myself on other stars/planets. Thus, if someone were to say (after this conclusion) it's not too much of a stretch to believe there is a God, why discredit his statement anymore than you do your Alien statement?
Not exactly. I don't really have any neat little groups I fit into, but I do have another video that deals with that. I'll send you a PM with an attachment for it.
I would also caution you that you are now finding proof text in the bible to justify Hitler's actions, with no regard to Hitler's real subjective purpose of how he used the bible to support his actions. Remember, your definition of "devout" equates with what one claims more than what they practice. I can tell you that I'm an athiest, but if I attend mass and take sacraments, am I really and atheist? In the case of one who can do both (action and words), which speaks louder, actions or words?
If you're only going through the motions by attending mass and taking sacraments, and you honestly don't believe in God, yes you're an Atheist. Same senario, but you're not going through the motions and do believe, then no you're not. It's not the actions or the words, it's the intent.
For the Sermon on the Mount proof text you gave as a means of an excuse for Hilter to eliminate the Jewish race, the verse is speaking of Jesus fulfilling the punishment of the Law as an innocent man. The Law's were summed up and fulfilled in the death of Jesus as a propitiation of the sins of man. As stated, I do not expect you to understand, but I would encourage you to study the opponents view before speaking against it. This is what straw mans are made of.
I find it also interesting that you keep insisting that Hitler was devout in this religious views. You seem to believe in one's claim more than you do their practice. Then you attribute his actions to the whole- Christians. This goes back to the materialist question I asked you earlier.
Ben Stein needs to jump into a fire. Just another lying hypochristian.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
Thank you dinguswad. Now wait for the inevitable, What about Stalin/Mao/other-nonchristian-tyrant?
I used to think Ben Stein was funny, now I see he's a joke.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Darwin, and evolution, are blamed for Hitler's hatred of the Jews. Wouldn't 400 years of German history starting with Jew hating Martin Luther have anything to do with it? How about the 2000 years that Jews were accused of murdering Jesus?
TheKilgoretrout 2 years ago
Morelike the Christian usury laws which created a niche for Jewish businessmen in finance.
smoochym 1 year ago
@TheKilgoretrout Religious nuts would love it if that statement were true, but like most claims the religious make it's unsupported by evidence. Then again, why need evidence when you can take things on faith.
NotDuncan 9 months ago
But that shouldn't stop us from investigating all the possibilities/ ideas that may or may not explain the existence of life or it's originH
monsterenergy713 2 years ago
it's a possibility it should be investigated and researched.
Now dawkins did admit that there could be a designer and in his book the God Delusion says that there is evidence that the earth was created at one time (along with everything in it) but he the (withought giving any evidence for his claim) dismisses it immediatly. And yes ID, creationism, Darwinism are all just IDEAS we can't definativly say this one for sure happened because none of us were there at all.
monsterenergy713 2 years ago
@monsterenergy713 We must have read a different God Delusion.
NotDuncan 9 months ago
I believe this is horrable because we have the right to come up with ideas and research and investigate them to there fullest potential, but that hasn't been allowed to those scientests/ professors and anyone for that matter who mentions ID and that's not fair it's an idea
monsterenergy713 2 years ago
You seem angry in This movie
No hitler was not a christian he left the church and it's teaching very early in his life
Anyway the seen I believe you were referring to was the one of the Nazi army building a wall around the city correct? That was an example used to show that evolutionists or Darwinists have been shutting people down and removing them from there jobs just because they said or printed an article which even mentioned ID.
monsterenergy713 2 years ago
dumb & idiot. (video)
wandp7782 2 years ago
Dude could please sight your sources for all this information. When ever you post a video like this don't just start saying stuff and expect everyone to take it as truth(although those super hip sunglasses almost made me) you have to prove it to them with hard evidence. The same principal is used in science which you seem to know so much about.
Zman7307 2 years ago
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" Harvard University Press
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created."
Adolf Hitler, Anti-Christian
"Mein Kampf"
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit....The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.
Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Charles Darwin
Personal letter to William Graham
July 3, 1881
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Adolf Hitler
Quoted by Albert Speer (Hitler's closest companion and confidant during the Third Reich), "Inside the Third Reich", p. 96.
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
He admired the attitude these people had towards war. He felt the Christian establishment was too soft. Hitler was against the establishment, but he still believed in Christ.
dinguswad452 2 years ago
INTERESTING, That you use the comparison in the Bible to support your race superior DOGMA.but if you would study your history(NOT WHITE HISTORy), and the geology of the earth, you will find that there is NO way the people in the Bible where NON MELAnin people......Its about as logical as peguins living/surviving in Death Valley.
sheriffquick 2 years ago
You allege Hitler was a "devout Christian". Now who should we believe, a self-proclaimed internet expert, or Josef Goebbels?
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
Josef Goebbels
Quote from his personal diary
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
Yes, he was deeply religious. He believed in Jesus, a Christ follower one might say, and he believed in the literal truth of the bible. He felt that the Church was in decay because, in his eyes, they were becoming too soft by pandering to the Jews instead of wiping them out.
dinguswad452 2 years ago
"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith (Noted British anthropologist, atheist and evolutionist)
"Evolution and Ethics", p. 230, 1947.
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
I guess you have me on this one. This random persons statement in his book totaly speaks to Hitler's beliefs moreso than the fact that he had "Origin of the Species" was banned in Nazi Germany. Since when is completely ignoring the concepts of evolutionary theory and attempting to further a political agenda based on religious prejudice considered being an "evolutionist".
dinguswad452 2 years ago
The fact that you would refer to Sir Arthur Keith as a "random person", proves that you know very little of what you speak. Keith was one of the most highly regarded evolutionary anthropologists of the 20th century, and was knighted by the British Crown.
I'm also calling BS on your false claim that Hitler banned "Origin of Species". You've obviously never read "Biologists Under Hitler", by noted German evolutionary biologist Ute Deichmann, and published by Harvard University Press.
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
I actually know who he is. He was the biggest supporter of Piltdown Man. Most likely he was in on the hoax, but at the minimum he was highly unobservant and didnt know what he shouldve been looking for in his own field of expertise.
dinguswad452 2 years ago
Also, hes quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation. This is unthinkable." The fact that as a scientist he'd just go along with one thing because he didn't like the other doesn't suggest a brilliant mind to me. Maybe he was, but it shouldn't be hard to see why I don't just take his word at face value.
dinguswad452 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
Adolf Hitler, Evolutionist
"Mein Kampf", Chapter 11
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
Well, I just read through Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf (both volumes), and I couldn't find that quote anywhere.
Even if it is there I can tell from what is written that he knows absolutely nothing about evolution, because that's not how it works. It has nothing to do with strong or weak, but just with whatever is fit to survive. Also, "intermingling" is actually good from an evolutionary standing. It increases genetic diversity which increases our chances of survival.
dinguswad452 2 years ago
Comment removed
InfiniteMusic 2 years ago
im not trying to be a dick, im not a nazi, and i am an atheist. i just wanted to point that out. sorry if i sounded like a know-it-all, im not, i've just done a lot of research on hitler and the nazi's.
hooligantifa 3 years ago
Hitler actually believed in the ancient myth of Aryans. it sounds crazy but then again so was hitler. the mythical aryans were white blonde hair blue eyed giants, according to the myth. they were considered to be perfect in all aspects to those who believed in them, after hitler used catholicism to brainwash, he then started killing priests. he used his catholic background to manipulate people. another interesting fact is that he went to school for a while to become a priest.
hooligantifa 3 years ago
for the most part you are right, the point that darwinism doesn't lead to nazism that is. hitler, for the most part, just used catholicism and protestant christianity in his speeches, to brainwash and sway the people of germany to follow him and to make them feel like his actions were some how in God's favor. I'm running out of remaining characters so ill type another comment.
hooligantifa 3 years ago
Hitler was not a devout catholic. Why did you not cite the "biblical" source. Hitler quoted Darwin in his book Mein Kampf. In the movie they mentioned the fact that eugenics was long before Darwin. THINK!
stickletterhere 3 years ago
The comedian Robin Ince puts it best "saying that without Darwin there wouldn't be Hitler is like saying without Newton there wouldnt be falling over and hurting my knee"
Great video btw.
engurland 3 years ago
IT RUBS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN
benthemiester 3 years ago
Yes, Hitler WAS an evolutionist. Ha, ha, read books not the internet.
AugmentedMinor 3 years ago
Hitler was not an evolutionist he was a creationists here are a few choice quotes from mein kampf
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi"
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x "
Hardly the words of someone who believed in evolution
argetfalcon 3 years ago
WOW DO I DETECT ANGER IN YOUR VOICE? LOL
CNCJMAN 3 years ago
It seems to me that only Atheist websites are making this ridiculous claim that Hitler was a Christian. The truth is that Hitler was very much into the occult and paranormal events. He was almost pagan yet adhered to no particular religion. Hitler may not have known completely about Darwin himself, yet his ideologies were similar to Darwinian evolution. He believed that the Jews were "lesser evolved". That you CAN take to the bank!
ericblr 3 years ago
Hitler didn't think that Jews were "lesser evolved," he believed that they were "sub-human." There's a slight difference. The former is douchebaggery based on the misinformation of scientific theories, and the latter simply being douchebaggery based on religious prejudice. "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"
dinguswad452 3 years ago
agreed
im stating it to prove a former poster wrong in the myth that hitler thought jews were lesser evolved and based his teachings on 'underlying' emphasis ala darwin's work.
whiteduke76 3 years ago
Also, nowhere in "Mein Kampf", any of his personal journals, or in any of his speeches does Hitler ever mention Darwin, Natural Selection, or even the word evolution. There's nothing similar between evolution and Hitler's ideologies. Evolution doesn't promote, or even have anything to do with, genocide.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Hitler believed believed Jews were "lesser evolved"
last I checked so does Anne Coulter, or Billy Graham
There is an essence that anyone, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,-some of the most brillinat men alive-who resort to staunch atheism is utterly radical and illogical...because everything leads to question and there is no true answer to our existance nor our purpose.
I am an Agnostic, and I lean towards there being a higher existential being.
whiteduke76 3 years ago
Hitler was simply trying to improve the lives of his people and eliminate the parasites and useless eaters that were devouring Germany under Weimar.
GermanShepardd 3 years ago
Hitler never mentions Darwin in any of his writings... There isn't even any evidence that Hitler even knew anything about Darwin. If he was so influenced by "Darwinism", don't you think he would have mentioned Darwin in his writings?
FinnHawk 3 years ago
You're right in saying that Hitler never mentions anything relating to Darwin, but he did know at least enough about Darwin to put "Origin of the Species" on his list of banned books.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Hitler strongly believed in the survival of the fittest. He simply wanted to guide the evolutionary destiny of his people and not leave it up to random chance. What a better world it would be if only wanted white and healthy children were born instead of the all the useless eaters who are allowed to thrive among us. This Palin womam giving birth to a baby she knew would be retarded sickens me.
GermanShepardd 3 years ago
great video man!
FinnHawk 3 years ago
What does "not believe in evolution" mean ? Not "believing" that every generation bears more children than can possibly survive ? Just look around you. Not "believing" that in the long run those better fitted will survive more and have descendance ? Then why did marsupials disappear everywhere except in niches ? Not "believing" that part of the characteristics are inherited ? Well, show me a farm horse winning a race against thoroughbreds and I shall reconsider the question.
Paganel75 3 years ago
Actually, atomic theory was put forward by Democritus in Ancient Greece around 500BCE.
R055HP 3 years ago
wow that was a great video, it seems like im not the only one who actually knows hitler as not an athiests, and even if he was. why would the actions of 1 person reflect on the actions ofa n entire belief system
cptmiche 3 years ago
Just to be clear though atheism is no more a belief system than not believing mermaids exist is a belief system
jimmydoolittle22 3 years ago
im pretty sure everyone hates u
superfly0321 3 years ago
If there was a way to take back the 1 view i gave you from watching 2 seconds of this i would
TheMuscleShark1 3 years ago
"If there was a way to take back the 1 view i gave you from watching 2 seconds of this i would "
No need to comment then. Bye.
fs3d 3 years ago
Don't pay Ben Stein by paying for his movie! Your points are correct, and you could probably making a film far longer than expelled if you were to explain exactly how stupid every moment of that film is. You don't even need a high school education (at least, the one I got) to understand why creationists are stupid, so it scares me to think how terrible education must be for anyone to actually believe anything in Expelled. 90/10
generaleskimo 3 years ago
hitler was not an atheist but he was a darwinist and a part of a group of darwinist that was involved with eugenics, hitler was involved deeply in the occult so he was not a christian either
duox 3 years ago
I'm getting tired of saying this; Eugenics is not Darwinism, it's Social Darwinism. Darwinism deals only with Natural Selection, whereas once it is applied to a social setting, it is no longer natural.
"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)
dinguswad452 3 years ago
every great leader claims to be doing God's work , if theirs no God they will be claiming to be doing it for the betterment of humanity, the religion has nothing to do with it, but for sure social darwinism did, but ill accepts that its slightly different, it isnt religions fault its just the easiest thing for rationalization in that time period, as it becomes less of a rationalization i new rationalization will emerge
duox 3 years ago
his mother was a jew though...was he properly baptised as a christion..or he just claimed to be a christian?
ChrisSheaffe 3 years ago
"Darwinism deals only with Natural Selection"
I mostly agree with your point, but Darwinism isn't really an appropriate term. Evolutionary theory is more appropriate, since the theory of Evolution has moved on since Darwin's time.
Frankly, only Creationists still use Darwinism as a term, and they do it to make the scientific theory look like a religion where it is not.
fs3d 3 years ago
its not so much evolution. darwin only explained why the species of finches(can be applied to all animals) had different beak qualities based on the habitat on the island they lived on, some had smaller beaks some had longer. and he noted that and formed his theory. so its not so much evolutionary, since its only a small branch. but ya they need to rename social darwinism. ben stein even said "athiests believe in darwinism, and from that you get social darwinism" which ticks me off
cptmiche 3 years ago
"ben stein even said "athiests believe in darwinism, and from that you get social darwinism" which ticks me off"
Ben Stein is a fundamentalist Creationist and his arguments are about as far removed from logic as you can get. I don't let idiots like him bother me.
fs3d 3 years ago
It's all a load of bullshit. Ben Stein's just a fucking ass-hat. Plain and simple, it's Eugenics. They attempt to label it "Social Darwinism" to cast a negative shadow on Evolutionary Theory. That part of it isn't what bothers me though. That's just a sign of the ignorance of those who make that claim. What bothers me is that there are people are stupid enough to buy the bullshit.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Hitler was a Hitlerist, He thought he was a divine being.
SpikeIncorporated 3 years ago
Hitler called Christianity the religion of the Aryian people because he hoped to use it to unite those people. Religion had worked well in uniting separate peoples before. It was perhaps the one thing all European countries had in common.
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
I do agree with you 100% that it is stupid to put blame on mechanisms and not on the people who misused them, but I do not think Ben Stein was trying to make that point. He was simply saying what Dofstoyefsky said (I think he is quoted in the movie). "If God is not, anything is permitted." Just as fear of police stops or reduces crime, Christian morals have, as a general rule, kept massmurderers such as Hitler or Stalin in check. Diluted versions such as Hitler's positive Christianity, failed.
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is an excellent book and is where I got most of my information. However, based on things Hitler himself said, I would not consider him a Christian. "Best to let Christianity die a slow death."-Hitler. Apparently, that was in his early days before he decided that Christians needed to be exterminated. I did not say that Social Darwinism is an offshoot of artificial selection. I said that I thought that it was an offshoot of Darwinism. Sorry for the misunderstanding
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
Mendel was a Christian and is called the father of genetics. Your attack on him is completely baseless. Mendal concerned himself mostly with plants. Your trying to shift blame from Darwin is good, I and Ben Stein will say that Darwin certainly would have been apalled at what Hitler was doing. However, the blame should not be shifted on to a monk just because he is a Christian. It should be shifted to early evolutionists such as Galton.
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
Galton would be one of those that I would put the blame on. I meant to mention him in the video, but forgot. The point I was attempting to make is that it's stupid to place the blame on the biological mechanisms or the people who discovered them; that rests solely on those who applied the science in such sadistic ways.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
social Darwinism is not a "misdefinition". It is an offshoot. Ben Stein made it clear that he thought that Darwin wasn't to blame for Hitler. Many of the earliest evolutionists could be called social Darwinists in that they believed that artificial selection of the human race was beneficial or even necessary.
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
It actually is a misdefinition. You said it yourself that Social Darwinism is an offshoot of artificial selection; that's why I mentioned Mendel. It wasn't an attack on him, only pointing out that he was the one who discovered mechanics of selective breeding. Darwinian Evolution only deals with Natural Selection.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Hitler's nazies also confiscated every Bible they could find in Germany, and replaced church Bibles with Mein Kampf. Hitler's eugenics program was, as the movie pointed out, Hitler's idea of "steering" evolution. The wikipedia article on social Darwinism is pretty informative on that subject. Artaficial selection was not discovered by Mendel. It had been used by herdsmen thousands of years before him. Mendel did make it widely understood, but his work was not used by the nazies.
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
I can't comment on the Bibles because that's a piece of information I've never come across. If you can tell me where to find it, I'd love to read more. One book I do know that was banned and confiscated by the Nazis was "Origin of the Species." Hitler didn't believe in evolution, and most definitely wasn't trying to "steer" it. He was simply breeding people. Also, I know Mendel didn't discover Artificial Selection, he discovered the mechanism of how it occurred.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
You are not entirely accurate about Hitler. Hitler was a politician, who used Christianity to get him votes, which he badly needed at several points in his career. It was uncovered at Nuremburg that Hitler and his Nazies planned the extermination of the Christian population of Europe. The people he surrounded himself with were almost entirely atheists. He himself was described by his friend Goebbles as "deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian."
KuatBacktoid 3 years ago
He believed that Christianity was the religion of the Aryan people. Even though other peoples had adopted the religion, they were still inferior. Hitler planned on killing everyone who wasn't of the Aryan race, pure and simple. Apparently that included himself as well considering he blew his own head off.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
What! You mean my 'Caramilk question' wasn't good enough for you? Anyway, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42...
crazykb 3 years ago
Agreed. However, have you ever pondered the greater mystery of how they get the 'soft flowing carmel' inside of the Caramilk bar? You see, I'm always thinking...
crazykb 3 years ago
Yes you right. I guess I just can't stand some philosophers. However, I'm a big fan of Dan Dennit (did I spell his name right?). He really understands modern science,he is a walking encyclopedia.
crazykb 3 years ago
Also, science is about testing your theories using an hypothesis (something that philosophers didn't do). For example, look at String Theory (or M Theory). It has no testable hypothesis yet (this could change with the CERN collider), because of this many physicists put it in the realm of philosophy NOT science. However, I do get your point. I guess I'm just rambling...
crazykb 3 years ago
I suppose I'm talking semantics. However, I feel that science and philosophy are different. Think of it this way: For a very long time it was the realm of the philosophical that dealt with trying to understand the world. However, people came to the conclusion that humans (no matter how astute) are prone to mistakes. This created the development of the scientific method, a means to keep peoples work as objective as possible.
crazykb 3 years ago
nothing can exist
without something creating it
nothing creates its self
existence was created
since nothing can create its self
god doesn't exist
since god wasn't here to create existence
existence doesn't exist
TOLAROscipii 3 years ago
Great video! You make a number of excellent points.
Largo64 3 years ago
Not only did Hitler not denounce the church, the church and it's pope Pius XII never denounced Hitler. If it had, much of the horror of the holocaust would never have been carried out. The church could have stopped it with a word.
Largo64 3 years ago
As a student of philosophy, I do see many commited fallacies you've commited. We come from different fields, and this is where we clash. Instead of text comment, are you willing to explain your worldview to me on audio dialogue (recorded) where we both can cross examinine each other? I'm willing to bring my world view up to the plate of explanation, are you willing to do yours? We can do this after I listen to the show which will be some time next week (due to school exams). ???
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Yeah send me some information of what I need to do.Also,keep in mind that philosopgy isn't science. However, I'm not cutting up philosopgy. However, I had to study some philosophers, like kierkegaard.I thought I was going to pull my hair out! Also, things like the electon/slit discussion are based on observation,it can't be refuted. However, I have lots of respect for the philosopher Daniel Dennet. HE understands science. ANd that to me, is a major plus...
crazykb 3 years ago
also, as I said, check out the 'kluge' interview on quirks and quarks, and write back. Hey,you owe me,dude. Also, I believe that its ok to agree to disagree. In a world of 'american idol', perhaps the most important thing is to have the discussion...
crazykb 3 years ago
"Where I draw the distinction between a logical and an illogical person is the ability to use 'evidence' in making a decision and being educated in how the world works (science)."
What is "evidence" to you? For example, what kind of relative evidence suffices for God to exist?
Anyhow check out the audio, it's only "fair", that I give you one as well. I have school exams so i wont be back for a while. We can certainly do an audio dialogue if you are up for it. ???
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Evidence to me is something that is based on firm theoretical grounds (remember that in science a theory doesn't mean 'hypothetical' but is a body of knowledge about something that has been confirmed by observation, however theories can change as new evidence is brought to light), which is supported by observation, and that those observations have been replicated by others (whats known as the scientific method). As for evidence for GOd? Let me MEET him/her/it then I'll BELIEVE in him/her/it...
crazykb 3 years ago
Also, logic is susceptible to our emotions.This makes logic fallible because our emotions can effect it (and emotions arent' logical, just ask Mr. Spock). Also, and I'm not being rude here but, if you are going to use my dialogue, I hope you do your homework and understand what we have been talking about,because I don't think you understand anything about what I have discussed with you.You said I sounded illogical,however this is because you don't understand what I'm talking about.
crazykb 3 years ago
one more thing.I told you to go to quirks and quarks and check out 'kluge'. Make sure you do that and write and comment on it. Hey, I have wrote a ton of shit here. So do your duty...
crazykb 3 years ago
one more thing about logic (I think this is the last comment). You claim that logic must be used to understand something. However, everthing I have discussed with you, you obviously don't understand. Again, thats good evidence that first you must learn something before you can logically use it. THink of it this way, the more you learn the 'sharper' you logical reasoning becomes. Now go and sharpen those logic skills by going to quirks and quarks....
crazykb 3 years ago
I also have an audio I want you to check out. It's a debate between a materialist athiest VS christian presuppositionalist.
Type in "paul manata derek sansone" and the first link should serve you to the debate.
I may be dropping a few questions, but our discussion would be more intelligible if you have taken a logics course. If you have not it's still fine. As long as you agree that 1+1=2 still applies here, we can still have a logical discussion.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Speaking of absolute truth, I am not speaking of aesthetics, those are mere opinion as you have stated. I am speaking of the nature of something to be either true or false. So again, is there such a thing as absolute truth?
Give me examples of objective laws of the universe. Are they immaterial universal laws or just neuronic activities in our heads? For example, if i die, do the universal laws still exist relative to the universe, not to myself. Remember, you said "universe".
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
As far as universal laws goes here are a few, and sorry I'm not going to explain them to you,educate yourself on them if they interest you: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the gravitional curvature of space time (do to mass), the speed of light, time dialation, nuclear fusion, law of conservation of mass and energy (by the way a 'law' in science does not change with time, thats why its called a law), law of thermodynamics, those should get you started...
crazykb 3 years ago
**(edit last post) 1+1= 2
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Now concerning the electron slit theory, we are going off on a tangent because even our logic (yours and mines) still aplly to say that at the moment of the electron slit experiment, we still believe 1+1=2 more than we do 1+1= NOT 2. Science is inductive, and hence, it's laws and studies can overide themselves within time, so using what is mutable (and still a mystery) to objectively discredit a simple A = NOT A, or 1+1 = NOT 2, is not a very logical thing to do.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Also, about taking a logic course. I'm finishing a B.A. in Psychology and have taken a few logic courses and was top of the class,so... As far as the electron slit discussion, I don't think you know anything about quantum mechanics do you? The 1+1=2 statement, as I already said, was a metaphore (you understand what a metaphore is right?) to try and get you to understand that our logic or even our common sense notions of reality break down at the subatomic level. AND THIS IS A FACT!
crazykb 3 years ago
".Logic requires more than mental abillity,it requires knowledge."
Actually, I would contend to say that knowlege requires logic first and foremost. It takes a logical mind to exert any amount of knowledge, and from our discussion, you are making logic to be something learned. But that's the problem, people use logic to gain knowledge. If it was the contrary as you had stated, then is that "knowledge" in anyway a "logical" knowledge before it learns what it logical/illogical?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Again, logic,As I define it, is the use of knowledge and other mental tools (that must be learned) such as critical/skeptical thinking. Also, how do people use logic to gain knowledge? I just learned how to use my new coffee maker, but I didn't use logic in the learning,I learned how to use it by instruction.For example one defintion of Logic is the searching for validity in something. However, I wasn't searching for the validity in coffee making when I was learning how to use the coffee maker.
crazykb 3 years ago
Just two unanswered questions already posted. (Question (1) requires a YES or a NO.) Thanks.
(1) Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
(3) Where do you draw the distinction between a logical and illogical person.
More questions later.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
(1)Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Well,if your talking about the objective laws of the universe: YES. If your talking about religion, art, ect: NO. A law of the universe affects us all equally. However, ones taste in art, for example, is more subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder).(2)Where I draw the distinction between a logical and an illogical person is the ability to use 'evidence' in making a decision and being educated in how the world works (science).
crazykb 3 years ago
Let me expand on question(3).What we would call logical many years ago would be labeled illogical today.Logic not only depends on the use of our pre frontal cortex it also depends on the information we have about the world stored in our memory. Many years ago,before the birth of science, it was logical to assume that a plague was the scourge of GOd. However, today that wouldn't be logical based on what we know about science(viruses).Logic requires more than mental abillity,it requires knowledge.
crazykb 3 years ago
before I answer anymore of you questions I have something to as of you: I want you to go to a site called 'quirks and quarks'. Its a radio science show out of Toronto Canada. ANyway, go to the site and click on 'past shows', the page it takes you to will be the 2007/2008 archive. Find a program with the title 'Kluge' (april 19/2008). They talk about logic and the brian. You have to watch it and retort to it before I answer anymore questions (its only fair). I await your response...
crazykb 3 years ago
"Why do you think that religions,cults,ect want to get people when the are children?"
Did I make that claim or is that rhetorical question?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
I was making a point about children not being logical (using the religion,cult example). Anyway, not being rude, but if you want me to answer these quesions you have to stop asking others, dude. Or I'll be up all night writing...
crazykb 3 years ago
Since we're both on, I will let you answer my questions and come back tomorrow morning. I will need to have the questions answered.
I read the quantum theory of the electron and it sounds interesting, but I would like to add that two slits are not a compound of two electrons, and thus are different categories of substance. What I'm simply stating is this, does "1 electron + 1 electron= 2 electrons", NOT "1 electron + 1 electron= 2 barriers with slits".
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Now to put the electron example into more earthly terms (which I will use to explain the quantum example),think of it like this: I am behind a large wall (the electron barrier),I throw a ball(electron) at 'one' of the 'two holes' (slits).Now you are behind the wall to 'catch' the ball (electron detector).Using your logic (the same logic behind 1+1=-2)you expect the ball to go through 'one' of the 'two holes',since logic tells you that the one ball cant pass through two holes at the same time.
crazykb 3 years ago
Now as I said before the studies of quatum mechanics show that the electron went through both slits at the same time. That would be like one ball going through two holes at the same time. If this makes no sense thats because our brains just can't process that data in a way that make intuitive sense to us. Many physicist have said that even though they may understand quatum mechanics a little(they all say they don't understand it that much yet) they will never intuitively understand it.
crazykb 3 years ago
I am sorry to say, the analogy of the electron and the barrier with two slits is an extremely weak analogy which can also be applied in the real world as such;
With one stone, I cannot hit two birds standing NOT in front, nor behind, BUT side by side together relative to where I am standing. Even your 'logic' would tell you that the stone would hit only one or the other bird (but not both at the same time because there is only 'one' stone and 'two' birds)
Real world VS quantum world, eh?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
You don't understand the concept. I will try to be more clear: you have one electron, you 'throw' it in 'one' direction at a barrier with 'two' slits, behind the barrier is a detector that lets you know if the electron passed through the barrier. When the experiments were done they illustrated that the electron passed through 'both' slits 'at the same time'. That's impossible. Your
'bird analogy doesn't apply'. Now let me apply this to the real world to show how crazy this is.
crazykb 3 years ago
Now since I stated that believe 1+1 always equal 2, you replied "If this is what you believe then I think your wrong". But in your world view, if 1+1 does not equal 2, then you can also say "If this is what you believe then I think you're right", Why?, because wrong=false and right=true, but if 1+1 does not always equal 2, then in the your world view, wrong/false can be right/true, and thus, I can also be right in a "quantum mechanic sense".
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
"Many mentally challenged people aren't logical because their brains is functioning at a child's level"
This is your problem. You are equating the laws of logic to the active neurons of a persons brain and with this you assume that children are illogical. Yet one genius child refutes your argument that children are "illogical". Be specific.
(3) Now I asked you earlier where you draw the distinction between the logical and the illogical person. I still need you to answer this question.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
"...'learned' your not born with knowing how to do math"
In my world view, logic itself is NOT something you learn, it is a precondition of the human mind, though still conceptually existent if my brain "shuts down". Now concerning above, It would be a contradiction to say "logic never existed until I thought of it", when in fact, I used logic to prove logic. It is self refuting to say what you said above because math exclusively starts with logic itself, The Law of Identity.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
I will agree that logic may be innate, in that it is a 'tool' that people learn how to use, by learing how to use certain parts of the brain (again the pre frontal cortex). Think of it like this: there have been cases where people have grown up alone, with no outside contact with people, they loose their ability to think clearly (logic,as well as other facilities like speach) these people can't be rehabilitated or be taught to think like you and me, they have the intelligence of a chimp.
crazykb 3 years ago
Also, your example of a 'child genius' isn't fair, since he is a 'genius' thus is not typical of average child. Also, you have to understand that my statements are not my opinions but based on science. And the science is conclusive that children are not in the same logical level as adults, which is why parents have to watch them, and why they (as well as you and I when we were children) made foolish descisions. Why do you think that religions,cults,ect want to get people when the are children?
crazykb 3 years ago
Also, what do you mean by "false" and "true", these terms can be used for intellectual as well as moral debates. And everything I have talked about is in the intellectual realm. However, morality is also created by you brain in an area called the 'limbic system' (an area important for emotions).
crazykb 3 years ago
You could argue that 1+1=2 is a part of the universe, but that would be appealing to a universal truth (which has been my view); that logic in itself is an immaterial, invarient, immutable, and universally transendent (meaning logic works regardless of time and space).
In your worldview, the minute you die, your brain no longer functions, and in that respect, you are ultimately illogical. Since you don't believe in a soul, what happens to you upon your passing?
In your view,
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
As far as Mentally challenged people are concerned they are the way they are because the brain didn't form, or doesn't operate corectly. Many mentally challenged people aren't logical because their brains is functioing at a child's level (logic is produced by the adult brain-pre frontal cortex). When you die your brain shuts down (just like you home computer) when that happens the essence of who you are is gone.
crazykb 3 years ago
ALso, what do you mean by a universal truth? Do you mean that ono plus one 'always' equals two? If this is what you believe then I think your wrong. The universe has some pretty strange properties, and the mathmatical logic of 1+1=2 does not always apply, like in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics. Also, I just happened to come to this video and saw your statement. You have to hit the 'reply' button so I get the message that you have a comment for me.
crazykb 3 years ago
About the reply comment, I want to, but can we leave it be for now due to flipping back and fourth on replies? Also, I hope you don't mind but, I'm also using our dialogues as a commentary for an upcoming video where one person will argue your what you argued here.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
What do I mean by universal truths? We'll. I'll ask you a question first, and maybe we can move on from there. (1) Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
"..the mathmatical logic of 1+1=2 does not always apply..."
You're the first person who ever told me that 1+1 does not always equal two. (2) Explain to me how the subatomic world of quantum mechanics first goes from 1+1=2 to 1+1= NOT 2? This burden of proof is on you.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
The 1+1=2 example was a metaphore for how things don't always happen the way we would expect them to happen in the quatum world. For example:if you'throw' a partical(an electron)at a barrier with two slits(your aiming it at the slits)and behind the slits is a detector (to show you that the electron past through the barrier).your 'logic' would tell you that the electron would go through only one or the other slits(but not both at the same time because there is only 'one' electron and 'two' slits)
crazykb 3 years ago
However, the electon DOES go through TWO slits! Thats based on evidence NOT abstract theory. SO if the universe is bound by our logic 1+1=2(math in this case), then 'one' electron should only go through 'one' of the two slits, since it makes no sense for it to go through both at the same time (that defies logic and our commonsense notion of reality). However, it does go through both slits at the same time (the electron also stays intact, it doesn't break into two or anything).
crazykb 3 years ago
"The concept of '1+1=2' is part and parcel of the brain."
All I asked earlier was that if the concepts of 1+1=2 are just mere biological entities of neutronic activity, do they then ultimately die relative to the universe? You asserted that mentally challenged people cannot do math, I agree with that statement, but guess what? In your worldview, they still possess neuronic activity in the brain hence, they're still logical. So where did you draw the line between the logical and illogical?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
as far as 1+1=2 is concerned, again it is a product of your brain. The brain is like a computer, when you give it data (such as one plus one) it process it and gives you the answer (2). However, these skills have to be 'learned' your not born with knowing how to do math. You learn it through instruction (lanuage). However, certain people are better at math than others because their brains are better at processing problems that have to do with calculations.
crazykb 3 years ago
"SO, it seems that logic (as well as other skills) are relegated to the brain".
When you utilized this statement, why did you used the verb "seem"? Are you in fact not really sure of this material hypothetical truth claim by process of lightened up protons? In other words, if the process of truth is found by way of measuring the neuronic activity of two persons, does the person with more neuonic activities truth claim outweigh the other persons truth claim by having more neuronic activity?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
YOu arguments sound like philosophy. Also, MRI scanners don't "light up protons" they work on hemoglobin molecules in the blood. Also, What is you definition of "truth". What I meant was that when people are put into an MRI machine and asked to do a task (logical task) certain areas of the brain become more active. And no matter who is in the MRI those same brain areas come active. Logic, like other higer order skills is done by the brain and is a product of evolution.
crazykb 3 years ago
Unless you are equating logic with neurons (in which you are), just how many [neurons] did you count in your own brian to justify a relative truth claim before to replying to this post?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
The human brain has about 100 billion neurons each making millions (if not trillions) of connections. ALso, when you put somebody in a MRI scanner the same parts of the brain 'light up' when doing calculations or logic exercises (pre frontal cortex). Also, performance enhancing drugs can increase math skills (as well as other skills). SO, it seems that logic (as well as other skills) are relegated to the brain. ALso, I got your vids, but I screwed up and deleted the link. Please send again.
crazykb 3 years ago
I asked you specific question crazyb, that is, will the laws of logic still exist when you die? Answering with "logic dies out with the system" is merely saying that the brain which utilizes "logic" will cease to use logic, which has no relevance to the nature logic itself.
If your mind tells you that 1+1=2, is that concept still true in itself when your system goes "off line"?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
logic is the way that the brain processes data. The concept of '1+1=2' is part and parcel of the brain. Think of it this way: Some people who are mentally challenged can't do math. Why? Because their brains don't preform correctly. HOwever, I will challenge my own claim by stating that you could argue that 1+1=2 IS a part of the universe, since many information scientists look at the universe as a 'quantum computer' (don't ask me to explain this, I cant).
crazykb 3 years ago
Can you explain to me how it is that you do not believe in immaterial entities, yet you appeal to immaterial entities such as the laws of logic, for argumentation?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
logic is not 'immaterial' it is manifestation of the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. WE know this, and I'm sorry to say it is quite material (neurons, synapses,neuro transmitters,ect)...
crazykb 3 years ago
So will the laws of logic still exist when you die, crazyb?
Can we actually touch the Law of Non-Contradiction? How about Newton's Law?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
If you have to ask a question like this one then I take it that you don't understand the brain. The logic dies out with the system when it goes 'off line' (the person dies). As far as Newton's laws is concerned we understand more fully what causes those laws, with Einstein's relativity. We know what gravity is (at least on a macro scale) and we have proof to illustrate it.
crazykb 3 years ago
Uh hitlers whole idiology on aryan supremacy was based on evolution. And yes there are actually extreme social darwinists that believe that one race is genetically superior over another going so far as to even try and prove it with scientific evidence. So if people can makes claims that they are superior over another scientifically you can imagine the direction humanity would be going if we all just accpeted darwinist survival of the fitest philosophy.
MuslimApostate 3 years ago
Being an Agnostic, I usually have an open mind about most things but after researching this movie... I can see it is just a load of propaganda. Now denying deities or science as 100% myth or fact is a bit on the ignorant side. As of right now I am sticking on the side of science because it has proven itself to be much more reliable and actually has some backing evidence. Unless I see a god with my own eyes preforming miracles, I will not change my opinion.
UltimateEnd0 3 years ago
> No.
> I'm not sure. It would be something that comes about through scientific methods, is peer reviewed, and then, through rigorous testing, is not falsified.
> I don't, but biological aliens are the only ones I'm lending probability to for the reasons I've already stated.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Do you believe immaterial entities exists?
And what kind of evidence would suffice for you to believe there is a God?
Lastly, How is it that you KNOW that aliens have a biological structure?
Again, I'm looking for logical answers.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
There's just selection, distinguishing between natural and artificial is superficial and for the layman. You could argue for primary selection and secondary selection (selection by the selected through primary selection). Humans are still very much part of the whole thing.
Nerusai 3 years ago
I have lost all respect for Ben Stein after researching expelled.
For example: If you paid two scientists a thousand dollars each to explain gravity. Scientist "A" comes back and says god makes gravity. Scientist "B" comes back and says the posative attraction between particles could account for gravity. Who would you choose? You see saying god does it explains nothing so scientist "B" is choosen because he furthers science understanding. Its not predjudism.
Adamtrr 3 years ago
"Biological entities exist."
This is true. Do you believe immaterial entities exists too?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
"A God is a supernatural being that exists outside the bounds of physical reality."
With respect to the Christian God, you are correct.
Now concerning "An alien civilization would consist of biological entities.", how do you know that? Remember, we are speaking of the the entity/entities which planted the first self-replication molecule. As an atheist, you are presupposing the possibility of aliens more than you do a god. How is it that you KNOW that aliens have a biological structure?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
You find it probable to believe in an "alien civilization", but the when I brought up "Alien God", you automatically discredited it as if "alien civilizations" were more probable or "not too far of a stretch" to believe than an "Alien God". Why is this? Why not be consistent a equally reject both just as you do the christian god.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
A God is a supernatural being that exists outside the bounds of physical reality. There is absolutely no evidence that supports such beings. An alien civilization would consist of biological entities. Biological entities exist. Since there currently isn't any evidence of biological entities existing somewhere besides Earth, the probability is low. Because the two conditions (life and other planets) each exist, the probability is slightly better than that of gods which have no evidence.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Oh and Darwin even encouraged white supremacy through his manifest destiny writings so there is plenty of proof that Hitlers idiologies were inspired by darwin.
MuslimApostate 3 years ago
Manifest destiny was the idea that America was destined to, by divine right, expand across North America. Yes, it supported Anglo-Saxon superiority, and was later expanded to justify a global spread of Democracy and Christianity.
What does any of that have to do with Darwin? I've never heard of these writings. I'd love to read them some time. What's the name of them? I want to go to the library and check them out.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
"The Big Bang, the formation of the solar system/Earth, evolution, everything in the science books is what happened."
I see that you appeal to a theory (Big Bang) as to "what happened". Whether you truly believe in this or not, why in your worldview can there not be an "Alien God" who planted the the first self-replication molecule?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
"It's not the actions or the words, it's the intent."
It is now interesting that "intent" is now the basis of one's ideology and overrides one's actions and claim (or word). At 1:08 seconds you appeal to one's "actions" for your argument and now you seem to speak contrary to your video. I just have to add that for one to truly know another persons intent requires for one to actually BE that person yourself.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
I'm sorry, that's only half a thought I got distracted when I was typing that one. While a person's intent does override what they say or do, you're right that you can't know exactly what they intend. You were asking which speaks louder, actions or words. It really depends on the situation. Sometimes I'm going to believe what they say, and other times what they do. Those words and actions are a window to intent, and it's something that you have to judge for yourself.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
The movie was BRILLIANT. I now understand all the frantic DAMAGE CONTROL in process.
mzklover 3 years ago
In the second post below, I am adding the fact that if you compared Earth to the few planets around it (inductively), then stated, "it's not too much of a stretch to believe there is a God", why is that suggestion in itself less probable than the suggestion that "Aliens created earth"? Is this just mere subjective opinion?
Lastly I am asking if I can take your video out and critique it on my channel. I will give direct reference to your channel.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
The senario isn't that "aliens created Earth." The Big Bang, the formation of the solar system/Earth, evolution, everything in the science books is what happened. The only difference in the alien senario is that instead of life coming into existence on Earth through a natural process an alien civilization, purposfully or not, put the chemical building blocks of life on Earth. They don't create anything, they merely place biological materials on Earth.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
Also, you can put this video on you channel if you like. Don't be surprised though if I stop by and say a few words every now and then.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
So again why does the "Alien" answer outweigh the "Alien God" answer in that respect? Is it just mere opinion as I was suggesting?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Concerning number 2., I find it interesting that inserting the word "God" with "Alien" into an answer automatically causes you to discredit the answer more than if it were "God" alone.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
I can easily use your same argument as a man standing on the moon, and state that
I "lend it more possibility" that there are no moving entities like myself on the other planets (incl. earth), and so, it's not "too much of a stretch to imagine" that are no
entities like myself on other stars/planets. Thus, if someone were to say (after this conclusion) it's not too much of a stretch to believe there is a God, why discredit his statement anymore than you do your Alien statement?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Now concerning question number 1. are you a materialist?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
Not exactly. I don't really have any neat little groups I fit into, but I do have another video that deals with that. I'll send you a PM with an attachment for it.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
I would also caution you that you are now finding proof text in the bible to justify Hitler's actions, with no regard to Hitler's real subjective purpose of how he used the bible to support his actions. Remember, your definition of "devout" equates with what one claims more than what they practice. I can tell you that I'm an athiest, but if I attend mass and take sacraments, am I really and atheist? In the case of one who can do both (action and words), which speaks louder, actions or words?
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
If you're only going through the motions by attending mass and taking sacraments, and you honestly don't believe in God, yes you're an Atheist. Same senario, but you're not going through the motions and do believe, then no you're not. It's not the actions or the words, it's the intent.
dinguswad452 3 years ago
For the Sermon on the Mount proof text you gave as a means of an excuse for Hilter to eliminate the Jewish race, the verse is speaking of Jesus fulfilling the punishment of the Law as an innocent man. The Law's were summed up and fulfilled in the death of Jesus as a propitiation of the sins of man. As stated, I do not expect you to understand, but I would encourage you to study the opponents view before speaking against it. This is what straw mans are made of.
ReformedTheology 3 years ago
I find it also interesting that you keep insisting that Hitler was devout in this religious views. You seem to believe in one's claim more than you do their practice. Then you attribute his actions to the whole- Christians. This goes back to the materialist question I asked you earlier.
In retrospect, can I use your