Referring to:
http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/the-trail-of-blood-a-short-history-of-atheist-democide/Olivianus wrote: "When Darwin introduced his theories to the world as his interpretation of the Origin of Species (1859), these men supported him and found this theory quite convenient to their philosophical and political agenda."
While it's true that Marx and Engels supported Darwin's work, they did so because of the idea that it provided a natural explanation for their class struggle ideology. Darwin received no more than an honorable mention in Das Kapital, for example. In other words, Darwin's theory was a convenient prop for them; it was in no way an integral part of Marx's ideology.
Olivianus wrote: "Darwin‘s theories were the biological basis for a theory of society called Social Darwinism, developed in the 1870s. This view stressed competition between individuals but it was also connected to the ideas of Eugenics, Racial Supremacy, Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism, the struggle between national or racial groups and formed the basis of Engels’ and Lenin’s Dialectical Materialism."
Darwin himself in no way espoused the ideas of Social Darwinism, which took his name for itself. For example, in his book
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex[1], Darwin wrote:
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
In other words, Darwin himself said that neglecting the weak and helpless would ultimately degrade what he called our nobility, and what I call our humanity. While it is true that he said not marrying as freely would tend to act as a check on the weak propagating themselves, it is worth noting that he in no way espoused the conclusions of natural selection applied to social phenomena. Also, it is worth noting that Social Darwinism was used to justify more than just the ideologies you mentioned. For example, it was primarily used to justify lassez-faire capitalism, which was and is a mainstream American ideology; those other things are offshoots, despite their notoriety today.
Olivianus wrote: "Operating on Marx‘s and Darwin’s ideas, Lenin and his successor, Joseph Stalin massacred tens of millions though Vladamir Lenin killed only around 30, 000 people most of which were Orthodox Christians."
This is incorrect, as I showed above. Darwin's theory was tangential to Marx's ideology and the murderous application of communism in Russia. Darwin himself, based on his own words as quoted above, would have been horrified at the thought of his theory of natural selection being used to justify the systematic murders committed due to Stalin's actions. If ignoring the weak and helpless would be a certain and great present evil, how much more so would be systematically killing them off in the name of an ideology? And how much more would such actions erode one's basic humanity than simply neglecting them?
Olivianus wrote: "In the 1946–1949 phase of the Chinese Civil War, the Chinese Communists defeated the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) on the mainland and established the People’s Republic of China in Beijing on 1 October 1949 and was proclaimed such by the Atheist Mao Zedong who was highly influenced by Vladamir Lenin."
It is certainly true that Mao was influenced by Lenin, yet as I showed above, communism as practiced in Russia (and now, China) was no more an application of Darwin's theory of natural selection than a notorious poisoner would be practicing medicine. What they were, at best, was a perversion of science for ideological ends.
Olivianus wrote: "Atheist Fidel Castro 1926-? A.D. is a Cuban revolutionary and politician. He was Prime Minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976, and then President from 1976 to 2008. Along with Mao Zedong, he was highly influenced by the Marx-Leninist tradition."
As before, once again, the fact that Fidel Castro was influenced by Marx and Lenin has at most a tangential bearing on Darwin and his theory of natural selection.
Olivianus wrote: "What is clear is that Il-sung’s Communistic Juche philosophy led to the starvation of over 3 million people. Kim Jon Ill ruled in North Korea from 1994 to his recent death in December of 2011. His regime held up to 200,000 political prisoners and his starvation politics has killed at least 2 million people in the 90s and we do not even know how many more in the 21st century."
As before, once again, the fact that Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung were Communist leaders has at most a tangential bearing on Darwin and his theory of natural selection.
Olivianus wrote: "D’Souza says, “Consider Pol Pot. Who was the leader of the Khmer Rouge, the Communist Party faction that ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Within this four year period Pol Pot and his Revolutionary ideologues engaged in systematic mass relocations and killings that eliminated approximately one-fifth of the Cambodian population, an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million people..atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people.”"
As before, once again, the fact that Pol Pot was a Communist leader has at most a tangential bearing on Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Furthermore, I would argue that Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot were not representative of atheists. They may not have espoused a belief in gods, but this was specifically to remove countervailing influences that would otherwise have eroded their power. In other words, their goal was to replace worship of gods with the same kind of unthinking reverence for the state. You might call it atheism and them atheists, but I call it tyranny and them tyrants. The fact that they used atheism as an excuse for their tyranny is no more convincing than the fact that religion was used as an excuse for other tyrants.
Olivianus wrote: "The most devastating outgrowth of the application of Darwin’s theory to Society, Eugenics, is Abortion."
The fact that people inappropriately applied Darwin's theory to social philosophy in no way saddles him or his theory with the blame for the results. The ones who are to blame are those who felt they could use natural selection as an excuse to justify their own ideologies.
Olivianus wrote: "Francis Galton was an Englishman who applied his half-cousin’s (Charles Darwin) biology to society. He believed that Western Civilization protected inferior species from extinction. This needed to change and a systematic elimination of inferior humans was necessary for our evolution."
Yet, as I showed above, Darwin himself in no way espoused such an action. He stated specifically that protecting the weak and helpless, contrary to natural selection though it may be, was necessary in order to preserve the highest parts of our own human natures, and that ignoring the weak and helpless would be a certain and great present evil. As for Galton, it is true that his ideas about eugenics had tremendous consequences, yet this serves as a good example of why using scientific theories to back ideologies is so dangerous.
Olivianus wrote: "Atheist Margaret Sanger was an associate of Davenport and was highly influenced by his eugenics philosophy. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood where Americans kill their unborn children today."
While it is true that Sanger was involved in the eugenics movement (which, as I have pointed out, is the misuse of a scientific theory to back an ideology), you must remember that her involvement started before WWII and Hitler's murderous attempt to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe; eugenics had not yet acquired the horrible connotations that make it largely taboo today. Furthermore, Sanger specifically opposed the execution of "unfit progeny" and denounced the Nazi eugenics movement. And Sanger's advocacy of family planning did not incorporate abortion at all; Sanger was opposed to abortion. It was not until after her death that the reproductive rights movement incorporated abortion as well as contraception. I do not deny that certain of Sanger's ideas, such as restriction of immigration, and sterilization/segregation of those with hereditary diseases and the like, were eugenics, nor do I suggest that these ideas are reasonably justified; as I stated before, eugenics itself comes from the misuse of the theory of natural selection to back an ideology. But you are painting with far too broad a brush here.
Olivianus wrote: "In Nazi Germany, Social Darwinism naturally evolved into racial hygiene theories by men like Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer and Otmar von Verschuer. Hitler believed that the racially pure were to be encouraged to reproduce while the racially un-pure were to be sterilized or killed. Abortion, birth control and forced sterilizations were suggested; thus the Holocaust."
The fact that people like Lenz, Fischer, von Verschuer, Hitler, Mengele, Nietzche, and others in Germany took "Social Darwinism" to such an extreme in no way brands the theory of natural selection with responsibility. They were responsible for their ideologies and where they took them, not the scientific theory made by Darwin, who warned against using it to justify social ideologies.
Olivianus wrote: "The perfection of Nazism came with the eugenic interpretation of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Superman and his book The Will to Power."
Nietzsche was not an atheist, but a self-described immoralist and a nihilist, among other things. His argument about morality was based largely on his ideas regarding master-morality and slave-morality, which you note shortly afterward. Yet, atheism is in no way based on either of these moralities. Atheism is simply the non-belief in gods, and it naturally rejects morality as coming from gods, yet that in no way implies that it must then take up Nietzsche's master-morality and nihilism, as that is a false dichotomy. At best, Nietzsche's philosophy is an extreme tangent to atheism, with the only causal link being Nietzsche's statement that God was dead.
Olivianus wrote: "Atheists have disputed that Nietzsche’s philosophy was foundational to Hitler’s Nazism. William Shirer in his famous The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states,"
You say that atheists have disputed Nietzsche's philosophy and its links to Nazism, yet you give no examples of atheists actually doing so, suggesting that this may be a strawman of your creation. And your quote of William Shirer's work, in addition to being excessively lengthy (was it really necessary to quote four or five paragraphs when you only emphasized two sentences?), exhibits your tendency to utilize the words of others to try to make your argument for you.
Olivianus wrote: "Richard Wagner was the idol and close associate of Nietzsche. Wagner was a life-long atheist yet Nietzsche accused him of converting to Christianity later in life in the year 1876."
The most this proves is that Nietzsche idolized Wagner, not that Wagner espoused any part of Nietzsche's ideology. The fact that Nietzsche completely fell out with Wagner strongly suggests that Wagner never did espouse Nietzsche's ideology, and when Nietzsche became aware of this, his idolization of Wagner collapsed.
Olivianus wrote: "Therefore, we can see a clear line of atheist philosophy that Hitler inherited and lived out. The attempts by atheists to make Hitler a Christian are a complete howler. Hitler surrounded himself by fervent atheists (Goebbles, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann) and based the foundation of his Philosophy on Darwinian and Nihilistic principles. Germany had been an established Christian nation for centuries and he wanted to get them on his side."
Unsurprisingly, you seek to disavow Hitler as a Christian and "prove" him to be an atheist, because it supports your thesis that "atheists" are responsible for many of the atrocities of this century. This despite the fact that you said "As a side note: I am not saying that the Nazi party was an utter atheism; it was the kind of atheism that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy (Which was the real undergirding force of the Nazi movement) relishes in and profits greatly from." Since the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy were and are in no way atheistic, that means that the Nazi movement was also in no way atheistic. In short, this is an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where you attempt to dismiss Christians that you disapprove of as not being true Christians.
As for Hitler himself, some sources claim he was devout, while others claim he was not religious at all. My personal view is that he had religious beliefs, but subsumed them into his ambition, using them just as he used everything else he could. But that does not make him an atheist, anymore than it makes the Republican party of today atheists. And your argument that Hitler followed a clear line of atheist philosophy is incoherent. It implies that anyone who espoused Social Darwinism and any of its offshoots had to be an atheist, therefore, Hitler himself was an atheist. Yet it ignores everything to do with Hitler himself, as if the philosophy is the man.
I will grant that Hitler, like Stalin, wanted no competing source of authority, which is certainly why he persecuted some Christian churches. Yet this does not make him an atheist. Christians have long persecuted other Christians who did not believe the same as them. That Hitler did it as a matter of state policy is not particularly surprising, given his other actions.
Olivianus wrote: "Atheists also like to point out that Hitler admired Martin Luther for his hatred of Jews. This is misinformed. The so called book by Martin Luther – On the Jews and Their Lies, was a fraud."
You claim this, yet your only source is a quote by Eric John Phelps. Who is he? Furthermore, Phelps claims that Luther's essay,
On the Jews and Their Lies was a fraud published after his death, yet he gives no proof of this. Even if it were actually published after his death, that means nothing in and of itself. Many authors have had works published after their deaths. There must be actual proof to demonstrate that this is the case, or else it is an invalid claim.
Olivianus wrote: "Did not Jesuit Generals Ledochowski (1915-1942) and Janssens (1946-1964), using their Society of Jesus Society in control of Roman Catholic Hitler’s Nazis and the Jewish Labor Zionists, do all these things to the pitiful Jews of Europe only sixty five years ago?"
Although this is part of your lengthy quote from Phelps's work, Vatican Assassins, it is clear that you included it because it supports your contentions of a link between the Roman Catholic "atheists" and Hitler's "atheists". Yet, the lack of actual proof causes this claim to backfire. Furthermore, Phelps claims here that the Jesuits are involved in some lengthy conspiracy, again without real proof to back it up. No. Hitler did all of the things written in Luther's essay to the Jews of Europe, less those who were lucky enough to flee or to be hidden in countries like Denmark, not some shadow Jesuit conspiracy.
Olivianus wrote: "According to the National Right to Life Website, over 50 million unborn children have been murdered in the United States since abortion was legalized in 1973. There are over 40 million recorded abortions worldwide every year!"
Murdered? Murder is a legal term. But what does this have to do with the so-called blood on the hands of atheists? Well, aside from your assertion that Planned Parenthood is about eugenics and "Social Darwinism".
Olivianus wrote: "Now ask yourself, who really has the atrocious blood on their hands: religious people or atheists?"
First, you must prove that the atheistic non-belief in gods is responsible for these things. You did not do so in this incoherent excuse for an essay. Your argument is only compelling to those who take your words as a given without checking them; even a cursory review of your sources demonstrates how flimsy your argument really is. When you have to argue that the Roman Catholic church's hierarchy is atheistic, it only proves how far you are stretching the definition of "atheistic". And let's not forget your statement that Hitler was really being controlled by Jesuits, who are also somehow atheists.
If this is the best you can do when writing in your own words, I can see why you post walls of text formed from other people's words. Not that this is any kind of a legitimate excuse.
