how can atheists denounce christians for extremism if two majo idioligies caused so muchsorrow? Both Stalin and Hitler were atheists and both are the worst people in human history. Both communism and nazism are based on atheism believe. Hitler believed that humans were like animals and only the strongest would survive. He saw darwins theory about that the weaker race needed to be destroyed by the stronger one also as a method on humans, thats why he viped out the jews and other folks in europe. Communism wasnt that much better either, as long as the state works they dont cared about invidual life like ants. The udssr was all about power and science regardlless if their own people suffered.
HFkami
You're talking political ideologies (it's spelt like that, by the way), not theological positions or philosophical stances (like atheism/theism). Anyway, consider the following:
Nazism was not that coherent to have one central ideological pillar (atheism, as you identify it as) from which the rest flowed from, mainly, it was a hodge-podge of different ideas floating around in a resentful and embittered Weimar Germany in the '20s and '30s. The one appealing to most people perhaps being anti-democratic sentiments (mainly due to the war WW1 had ended), but the NSDAP under Hitler managed to scapegoat certain groups of society for the torrid times Germany had endured past that. Hence, the obvious anti-Semitism and biological racism you correctly outline.
However, you have it wrong. Hitler believed that there were superior (the Aryan people, and some others) and inferior (Jews, Slavs,Mischlinger (as he put it))races of humans, and that the German populace housed a yet bastardised majority of Aryan people. In order to secure the prosperity of Germany, it was essential to keep the inferior races and superior races from even interacting. 'Twas also essential that Germany take lebensraum in the East, where the Slavic people lived. Anyway, the Jews being the main target of the inferior races, then being blamed for the financial turbulence, the failure of Germany in WW1 and the creation of the Weimar Republic. Now that I've amateurishly outlined that, we can perhaps move onto how this is linked with Darwin's theory of evolution.
Oh, this is surprising, for it says no such thing. His theory wasn't that the strongest of the species survive, it's the ones that are the most responsive to changes in their environment that survive. Natural selection isn't to do with strength, it's to do with adaptability. Natural selection, especially, is misunderstood in this context (which is why social darwinism tends to be ineptly titled): it's a process where certain characteristics in become less or more prevalent in a population due to how it effects the chances of survival or reproduction. It is nothing to do with "destroying the weaker races", as you put it.
(Amateurish recollection of grade 10 biology finished, inb4 raped for being incorrect somewhere.)
They don't really share a lot in common now, do they? I do also wonder how all of that is atheistic, but I don't really have the time.
Log in to comment