Mr Mannn #fundie

Mr Mannn #fundie mrmannn.blogspot.com

Atheist Extremist [Richard] Dawkins Avocates Nazi Eugenics as, "Not so bad."

Shocking to hear this?
YET, this is where modern day atheism is leading. If you believe in nothing than any atrocity is without consequence. Please understand, the greatest genocides in the 20th century were under atheist communism. Yes, Hitler used genocide as a tool of the state, but so did Stalin. The purges, political executions, and planned genocides of the communist states dwarf the Hitler Death Camps. Once again we see an atheist lifting up the icon of evil Hitler, as an example to be followed. Without a moral code of good and evil, the crimes of Hitler can be repeated again and again.

Sentiments like these are a great arguments why Christians need to be involved in govt-apparently there is no sanctity of life without our input. And we certainly cannot depend on an atheist to value life if no other atheist will condemn comments like this.

75 comments

old comment by fievos

I was going to ask someone to look it up, but realised I could be not lazy and do it myself, so this is what Dawkins actually said:

"IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

From http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

Apparently it's an extract from one of his books.

old comment by Ajax

It was the murder and force that was evil about Hitler's eugenics and the eugenics at the time.

Giving people the freedom to alter their and their unborn children's DNA to improve it is completely different from killing people or from forced sterilization. They are only improving themselves and their children, not hurting people or forcing people to do things because they don't like their traits. This libertarian eugenics are already practiced. A person with a disease might voluntarily choose not to reproduce with someone else with the same disease. Nobody condemns that person's choice as "evil eugenics". I don't see how allowing the person to remove the gene from the DNA would be worse. It would be better. Then they don't have to avoid reproduction.

It is disturbing the kind of inequality this could lead to though. I think if we're going to make improvements they should be universally available to those who want them either for free or based on the ability to pay.

old comment by solomongrundy

This is a shameless bit of cherry picking. In context Dawkins all but concluded the exact opposite.

IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Original article here:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155

old comment by Mister Spak

". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

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

- Adolf Hitler, 1933 speech in Berlin

"... I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity."
Adolf Hitler, February 15, 1933, speech in Stuttgart

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."
Adolf Hitler, August 26, 1934, speech in Koblenz

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence."
Adolf Hitler, 1944

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

-Hitler, April 12, 1922 from a speech at Munich.

old comment by Zoo

"this is where modern day atheism is leading"

Like hell it is. Wake the fuck up and actually talk to some atheists!

"believe in nothing"

To steal someone else's response. . . do you believe in everything? No? Then why do you think the majority of atheists don't believe in anything at all? One thing I believe in is that it is wrong to cause needless suffering.

"Atheist communists" also ate food. That makes you bad too. Come on! Get a real (and accurate) argument for once.

"no sanctity of life without our input"

I beg to differ. Do you think denying or attempting to deny rights to and openly hating various groups of people is valuing the sanctity of life? Shouldn't people who are already alive have the right to choose to live as they want and the freedom to choose to follow your religion or not?

"no other atheist will condemn comments like this"

There are lots and lots of atheists who will condemn comments like that, if they're not being taken out of context. I certainly don't trust your link, and of course you picked a very old story to respond to. . . and the archive at the original source's site is impossible to navigate.

old comment by David B.

Strange that (Booogey) Mannn has such a downer on eugenics really. Fundies have traditionally been more in favour of it:

"The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying."
The Way of God in Marriage by Mary E. Teats
http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm

"During the last century in the United States, many mainline Protestant leaders, committed to the eugenics movement, deemed it their business to determine which births were with the grain of God’s plan for the evolving progress of human history and which births were a drag on the movement forward."
For Shame? by Amy Laura Hall
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/35.40.html

Or is "Holy Eugenics" somehow different to "Nazi Eugenics"?

Mr Mannn #fundie mrmannn.blogspot.com

75 comments

Confused?