Creationism = Holocaust Denial

[American Idol]

The irony is that social Darwinism heavily influenced the Nazis and was a contributing cause of the Holocaust. Since Darwinism is based on the ideal of "survival of the fittest," it heavily influenced the eugenics movement that still persists today. Nazis were big on weeding out the sick, handicapped, etc. Behind nearly every eugencist and population control adovocate lies a firm belief in social Darwinism, even if they will not always outwardly admit it.

 

[American Idol]

Should we teach that the holocaust didn't happen?

Oh, it happened...with lots of help from the Darwin-influenced "survival of the fittest" philosophy, no less. "Only the fittest survive" might as well have been the Nazi national motto...the eugenicist credo, if you will.

 

[Reason]

Oh, it happened...with lots of help from the Darwin-influenced "survival of the fittest" philosophy, no less. "Only the fittest survive" might as well have been the Nazi national motto...the eugenicist credo, if you will.

Your sad attempts at misdirection do not conceal the fact that you still aren't answering the question

Should we teach that the holocaust didn't happen?

 

[Theocrat]

What Dawkins Fails to Admit

The irony is that social Darwinism heavily influenced the Nazis and was a contributing cause of the Holocaust. Since Darwinism is based on the ideal of "survival of the fittest," it heavily influenced the eugenics movement that still persists today. Nazis were big on weeding out the sick, handicapped, etc. Behind nearly every eugencist and population control adovocate lies a firm belief in social Darwinism, even if they will not always outwardly admit it.

I wonder if Dawkins has read this book:

 

[jmdrake]

Why on earth would any Christians want creationism taught in CLASSROOMS for Christ's sake!! You think they're actually going to get it right, the way you want it taught? No, they won't. That's what church is for. You go to the church of your choosing because they preach about God and Creationism the way that you prefer.

If people are interested in creationism, they can go to a private school or a library or ask people who are Christian. There are plenty of resources for learning about creationism outside of public school.

Abolish public schools. (Yeah I said it!) They do more harm than good anyway. Why should state funds go to promote either view? (Creation or evolution). At the very least get the federal government out of them and let states have full control of the curriculum including the science curriculum! If a state wants to ban teaching of evolution in its classroom it should have the right. And don't give me that "the children need to know it" crap! Homeschoolers taught from religious based curriculum do better on standardized tests than public schooled children including in the areas of math an SCIENCE!

As for the idea that views that aren't "mainstream" shouldn't be given equal time, that goes for the views like:

1) The fed caused the great depression and should now be audited and maybe abolished

2) The federal government didn't actually do all it could to prevent 9/11. (Let alone the view that 9/11 might have been an inside job).

3) Abortion isn't some fundamental sacred right

4) Since global warming on Mars isn't caused by SUVs it's likely that global warming on earth isn't either.

At the very least make all education expenses 100% tax deductible so that thinking parents can get their children out of these indoctrination centers.

 

[jmdrake]

Your sad attempts at misdirection do not conceal the fact that you still aren't answering the question

Should we teach that the holocaust didn't happen?

"We" shouldn't be teaching children anything. School decisions should be made local. The federal government should not be involved at all! If a state wants to teach alternative theories about the holocaust then that's their business.

 

[revolutionisnow]

I think we should be teaching them an accurate view of history and science, not one sided propaganda and/or beliefs.

 

[dannno]

Abolish public schools. (Yeah I said it!) They do more harm than good anyway. Why should state funds go to promote either view? (Creation or evolution). At the very least get the federal government out of them and let states have full control of the curriculum including the science curriculum! If a state wants to ban teaching of evolution in its classroom it should have the right. And don't give me that "the children need to know it" crap! Homeschoolers taught from religious based curriculum do better on standardized tests than public schooled children including in the areas of math an SCIENCE!

As for the idea that views that aren't "mainstream" shouldn't be given equal time, that goes for the views like:

1) The fed caused the great depression and should now be audited and maybe abolished

2) The federal government didn't actually do all it could to prevent 9/11. (Let alone the view that 9/11 might have been an inside job).

3) Abortion isn't some fundamental sacred right

4) Since global warming on Mars isn't caused by SUVs it's likely that global warming on earth isn't either.

At the very least make all education expenses 100% tax deductible so that thinking parents can get their children out of these indoctrination centers.

I'm not against abolishing public education, but I don't mind having it done on a very local scale either.

 

[Reason]

I'll say it again...

>>>>This thread is specific to his analogy in reference to how illogical it is to say that the alternative theory must be given equal time regardless of the evidence.<<<<

 

[American Idol]

I'll say it again...

>>>>This thread is specific to his analogy in reference to how illogical it is to say that the alternative theory must be given equal time regardless of the evidence.<<<<

Should we teach that survival of the fittest did not heavily influence the Nazis?

 

[revolutionisnow]

I'll say it again...

>>>>This thread is specific to his analogy in reference to how illogical it is to say that the alternative theory must be given equal time regardless of the evidence.<<<<

Using holocaust denial is a very poor analogy as it is a legitimate argument, even if it is non-pc, that can be backed up with facts. But then, so is the intelligent design theory, even if you don't believe everything was created in a few days.

 

[TER]

I'll say it again...

>>>>This thread is specific to his analogy in reference to how illogical it is to say that the alternative theory must be given equal time regardless of the evidence.<<<<

Well, initially the only thing you posted was a title thread of Creationism = Holocaust Denial and then linked the youtube. So forgive us if it took some time to understand what exactly your thread was about. Thanks for the edit.

Since you have now given some meaning to this thread, then let us commence.

Your analogy fails in its most simplest part. The Holocaust in WWII happened. The Holocaust under Stalin in Russia happened. Can I prove it? Well, I don't know...

Do you accept testimony by survivors? Due to the fact that few survivors live today, how about the testimony of the families?

Also, do you accept photographic evidence? Do aged documents and grainy video convince you?

If yes, why?

Did you film the video? Did you shoot the pictures? Or develop the film at least?

No, you didn't, but you know in your mind and in your heart that it did happen because of material proof and hearsay you trust in. That you have your faith in.

Likewise, the believers knows in their heart and mind that there is a Source of Life, a Creator, and the material proof they point to is in the lives of the saints. In those godly men and women who lived holy lives full of the Holy Spirit, who renounced the vanity of the world for the glory of God and have been beacons for the faithful since the beginning of time. Saints who have tamed lions, been fed by ravens, cured illnesses and raised the dead. We count these as proof. Do you accept this as proof?

 

[Reason]

nay, because there is no proof of a supernatural existence.

I am agnostic because I am intelligent enough to realize that we just don't know.

Someone choosing to have faith is not the same as someone choosing to claim that they "know".

Faith and knowing are polar opposites.

I have faith that plane is not going to land on my head in the next 5 minutes...

But I do not KNOW.

 

[TER]

nay, because there is no proof of a supernatural existence.

I am agnostic because I am intelligent enough to realize that we just don't know.

Someone choosing to have faith is not the same as someone choosing to claim that they "know".

Faith and knowing are polar opposites.

I have faith that plane is not going to land on my head in the next 5 minutes...

But I do not KNOW.

But you will always point to the evidence, won't you? I mean, do you know the Taj Mahal exists or do you have faith that it exists?

 

[Reason]

But you will always point to the evidence, won't you? I mean, do you know the Taj Mahal exists or do you have faith that it exists?

https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm

 

[TER]

https://www.msu.edu/~marianaj/Evidence.htm

So, do you accept only one of these as evidence?

 

[Reason]

nay, because there is no proof of a supernatural existence.

I said proof. You said evidence.

 

[BootStompingAFaceForever]

Do these same God-deniers believe in morality of any kind? Then let them use the scientific method to PROVE it. Prove that if someone kills someone for no good reason that it is "wrong". After all, they believe we are all just random, soulless clumps of dust from the big bang right? Then anything is acceptable. If someone is going to take the anti-God stance then at least go all the way with it and admit you have no morality whatsoever.

 

[Reason]

Do these same God-deniers believe in morality of any kind? Then let them use the scientific method to PROVE it. Prove that if someone kills someone for no good reason that it is "wrong". After all, they believe we are all just random, soulless clumps of dust from the big bang right? Then anything is acceptable. If someone is going to take the anti-God stance then at least go all the way with it and admit you have no morality whatsoever.

morality is subjective and chosen

welcome to the forums

 

[BootStompingAFaceForever]

morality is subjective and chosen

If so then it is completely bogus. I should legally be able to kick grandmas down flights of stairs then.

And since morality forms the basis of our law ... why should be allowed to have liberty at all? After all, we're just soulless clumps of dust with no afterlife and no Creator to judge us.