I can't take Germ Theory seriously!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

That's awesome Barcs, you can believe that, more power to you
I have no issues, your opinion is valid to you

It's ok by me, don't sweat the little stuff

I have no intention proving or disproving anything

What you believe doesn't cause me any harm

Yet here you are, being offended and failing to appreciate the irony of this little exercise.

What Zar, you don't think the whole thread was a troll, a narcissistic attack on people who don't believe what you want them to believe, to be just like all the other sheep and accept what all the other plebs believe
Surely you are not that ignorant

It's not for me to tell others what to believe, you can happily accept the flat earth theory if it floats your boat

I am just sick of you preachy atheists, all your door knocking evangelising crap, you are just as bad as the religious nutters

Take a look in the mirror
You are them, different church

i thought we were talking about germs and how unscientific they are? it's not like you are actually refuting, disproving, or doing anything except whining right now. and that is all people ever do when it comes to stuff like germ theory. deflections all the way down.

No Zar, it's clear you weren't thinking
I couldn't care less about germ theory and what you choose to believe

Nothing worse than religiousy preachy atheists and their sermonising
You guys are all as bad as the worst religious fundamentalists and their rantings, it is beyond your capacity to see it in your own lives
Atheists zealots, there can be no denying atheism is a religion and its preached

Nevermind.

Peace.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

but washing of the hands makes you Hitler.

Vegetarians are neo-nazis who shouldn't prepare food in restaurants?

This is only tangentially relevant, but seeing that we're in the "Joke" section, I think it's fitting (need to watch to the end):

a reply to: Raggedyman

You really still are confused over what is religion, what is philosophy, and what is science

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nothing worse than religiousy preachy atheists and their sermonising
You guys are all as bad as the worst religious fundamentalists and their rantings, it is beyond your capacity to see it in your own lives
Atheists zealots, there can be no denying atheism is a religion and its preached

sir this is about germ theory and why science does or does not support it. atheism is another matter and has nothing to do with this.

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Barcs

I see what you did there,some have not lol.

That they're the same counter-arguments against evolution? (minus #7 of course.) Yeah it's cute.

Just an FYI, argument #7 has been indeed made by creationists. Many have argued that Hitler was a "Darwinist" and adhered strongly to the theory of evolution and used it as a scientific basis discriminate against Jewish people. So they do say that evolution leads to mass murder. Obviously the argument is a load of crap because Hitler hated Darwin and banned and burned all of his books and cited numerous times in his writings that the Aryan race were god's chosen people and the closest to the image of god. In his book he states that macro evolution is essentially a sin against the eternal creator.

Anyways, I'm considering starting my own youtube channel and I thought this topic might be the best way to start it with a bang. Please let me know if the great minds of ATS can think of any other good correlations between arguing against Germ theory and evolution. We need to teach the controversy! Educate students on the alternatives germ theory like Intelligent Illness and karma. It's only fair right?

a reply to: Barcs

Hi guys! So I have this amazing argument against absurd substiution of concepts as a type of argumentum ad ridiculum (or appeal to ridicule). I was never a firm believer and it was reinforced as I went through the indoctrination of the education system, which is run by crazy liberal Philosophical Rationalists from academia and was taught to question everything, but I found that what they said seemed reasonable. I am going to demonstrate why this argumentum ad ridiculum is not based on science and is just an foolish and weak attempt to denigrate. In reality the whole argumentum ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy and very weak argument, but I will go over the basics.

1. First and foremost, it's JUST A LOGICAL FALLACY! If it were proven it would be considered VALID ARGUMENT.

2. Although we don't know everything about the intellect of the originator of the argument, I doubt that the person who posed such an argument is aware of what doing so says about their intellectual prowess. How can we possibly believe they are have any particular smarts?

3. The Absurdist poster probably claims that their argumentum ad ridiculum is clever. Sure, you can see things through their mental microscope, but that just proves MICRO intelligence, not MACRO reasoning. Nobody has ever observed a simple argumentum ad ridiculum being able to substitute for actual reasoning. Argumentum ad ridiculum is a lie at all scales and in all applications!

4. There are no transitional forms. You really think that argumentum ad ridiculum can just morph into a reasoning??? Where is the transitional form between logical fallacy and rationality, that's impossible! Don't fall for the lies!

5. Just because it LOOKS LIKE argumentum ad ridiculum can proxy for real rational argument, doesn't mean it actually can. That is a HUGE assumption to think someone who posed such nonsense could seriously expect us to believe they were witty!

6. Plato himself is probably spinning in his grave over the OP's post. A little known fact, I didn't hear from anyone that they admitted they found that the argumentum ad ridiculum in the OP was sort of funny, if not also a little sad, too.

7. Abandoning reason and uncritically accepting opinion is actually very harmful. It leads to war, famine, torture and mass murder. Are you aware that Adolf Hitler was highly opinionated? Wake up! You've been had!

8. If the uncritical acceptance of opinions leads to such horrors, then surely we must oppose such opinions with reasoning and rationality at every opportunity? It is our human and ethical duty!

9. Argumentum ad ridiculum is rationally inconsistent and supportive of unchallenged opinion. It is wearying to counter it with rationality but we must strive on against it, wherever it exists on the earth, there are so many instances of the opinionated spouting rubbish like this, and one way they do so is by posting argumentum ad ridiculum!

10. Irrationality will always be irrational. It will always give birth to opinion, therefore it could reasonably be described as memetic disease - the action of mispurposed intelligence, and it is sad that purported intelligence can be so abused!

By the way don't crucify me, this is just my interpretation of the evidence! Argumentum ad ridiculum just doesn't make sense! You really think you can 'gold plate such memetic feces'? That's ridiculous!!! If you really want to follow the faith and blind opinion of Absurdists, then be my guest, but don't be surprised when you find that you have been deceived by the poster of the argumentum ad ridiculum.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: BarcsI see what you did there,some have not lol.

That they're the same counter-arguments against evolution? (minus #7 of course.) Yeah it's cute.

Just an FYI, argument #7 has been indeed made by creationists. Many have argued that Hitler was a "Darwinist" and adhered strongly to the theory of evolution and used it as a scientific basis discriminate against Jewish people. So they do say that evolution leads to mass murder. Obviously the argument is a load of crap because Hitler hated Darwin

Do you have any evidential support for the statement that Hitler hated Darwin?

Nazi Book Burnings - Wikipedia. I can find no details of Hitler himself actually endorsing or participating in the burning of books, nor was Darwin on the list of authors whose books were to be burned.

Hitler spoke of the evolution of animals (in Mein Kampf) and seemed, from the text, to presume that it had occurred in their case. From Mein Kampf, "The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution/development of all organic life would be unthinkable."

Hitler also said, during a 1933 Nuremberg speech that, "The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape". Which to me sounds like he was saying that he was saying that other "lower" races were further removed from humans than the ape ancestors.

In 1927 Hitler said to pacifists, "You are the product of this struggle. If your ancestors had not fought, today you would be an animal. They did not gain their rights through peaceful debates with wild animals, and later perhaps also with humans, through the comparative adjustment of relations by a pacifist court of arbitration, but rather the earth has been acquired on the basis of the right of the stronger." Again, this sounds like he was embracing evolution through natural selection.

On October 24,1941 Hitler also said, "There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer."

On February 27, 1942, Hitler said, "nothing but the continuation of an evolution that has been proceeding for millions of years: Gradually humans lost their hair."

None the less, Hitler did endorse eugenic ideas based upon Haeckel's recapitulation theory, of which he was aware. Haeckel was an outspoken Darwinist.

While Hitler did make these statements suggesting evolution, I really don't give Hitler's scientific knowledge any credibility. I believe that he said whatever he did for political reasons alone.

and banned and burned all of his books

Nope. See the previous Wikipedia link.

and cited numerous times in his writings that the Aryan race were god's chosen people and the closest to the image of god.

Nope. Religious views of Adolf Hitler

In his book he states that macro evolution is essentially a sin against the eternal creator.

Nope. Hitler and evolution - On human evolution - Rational Wiki

Anyways, I'm considering starting my own youtube channel and I thought this topic might be the best way to start it with a bang. Please let me know if the great minds of ATS can think of any other good correlations between arguing against Germ theory and evolution. We need to teach the controversy! Educate students on the alternatives germ theory like Intelligent Illness and karma. It's only fair right?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Nazi Book Burnings - Wikipedia. I can find no details of Hitler himself actually endorsing or participating in the burning of books, nor was Darwin on the list of authors whose books were to be burned.

Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler had nothing to do with the NAZI book burnings?

Did you miss this in your link?

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).

Hitler spoke of the evolution of animals (in Mein Kampf) and seemed, from the text, to presume that it had occurred in their case. From Mein Kampf, "The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution/development of all organic life would be unthinkable."

He was talking about hybrids there, not evolutionary changes and he even said that it was a "sin against the will of the Eternal creator" on page 162.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.

Sorry, this is the typical creationist argument that claims micro evolution is real but macro evolution is false. The baboon level comparison was disparaging the "brown" races, it wasn't an endorsement of evolution!

None the less, Hitler did endorse eugenic ideas based upon Haeckel's recapitulation theory, of which he was aware. Haeckel was an outspoken Darwinist.

Then why was Haeckel's material included in the Nazi book burnings?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Nazi Book Burnings - Wikipedia. I can find no details of Hitler himself actually endorsing or participating in the burning of books, nor was Darwin on the list of authors whose books were to be burned.

Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler had nothing to do with the NAZI book burnings?

Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler was present and participated in the many atrocities that occurred under the Nazi regime?

I am suggesting that the book burning wasn't Hitler's idea and I can find no record that he participated.

Did you miss this in your link?

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).

Darwin was not on the list of authors to be burned, but Ernst Haeckel was. This was probably because Haeckel wasn't a strict Darwinian. Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in Lamarckism. Haeckel believed that the characteristics of an organism were acquired through interactions with the environment and that "ontogeny reflected phylogeny". These were some of the tenets of his Monist League mentioned in the linked Wikipedia article.

Also, the fact that Ernst Haeckel was on the 'burn list' but was also quoted by the The Nazi party propogandists (who used not only Haeckel's quotes, but also Haeckel's justifications for racism, nationalism and social Darwinism), might indicate that the organizers of the book burnings were other than the Nazi party or its leadership.

Hitler spoke of the evolution of animals (in Mein Kampf) and seemed, from the text, to presume that it had occurred in their case. From Mein Kampf, "The pre-requisite for improvement of the species lies not in the union of the superior and the inferior, but in the complete victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not mix with the weaker, and thereby sacrifice its own greatness. Only the born weakling can feel this to be cruel. He is indeed but a weak and limited creature. If this law did not prevail, any higher evolution/development of all organic life would be unthinkable."

He was talking about hybrids there, not evolutionary changes and he even said that it was a "sin against the will of the Eternal creator" on page 162.

Granted, he did write that but I suspect it was only as a nod towards social acceptability.

In private conversations he described himself as an atheist, scientist and pragmatist.

During the Nuremberg Trials, it was revealed that Hitler had planned to "subvert and destroy German Christianity" after the war. In line with that policy, by 1939 all denominational schools had been disbanded or converted to public facilities and similar steps were taken against religion in other areas.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.

Sorry, this is the typical creationist argument that claims micro evolution is real but macro evolution is false. The baboon level comparison was disparaging the "brown" races, it wasn't an endorsement of evolution!

Possibly. Also, just as possibly, this was no more than a ploy to curry favor with the people for political gain. Hitler was contradictory in his public and private personas.

Then why was Haeckel's material included in the Nazi book burnings?

Because he was German (Darwin wasn't), he wasn't a true Darwinist and had racist views that suited the Nazi propagandists but not the book burners.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler was present and participated in the many atrocities that occurred under the Nazi regime?

Last I checked, Hitler was a ruthless dictator and ruled via extreme authoritarianism, killing pretty much anybody that disobeyed his commands. Nazis weren't some rogue force within Germany, they were Hitler's army and followed his commands. That's like saying George Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq war, that was just the military. Bush was not present in Iraq, so he had nothing to do with it. LMFAO dude! Do you EVER make rational arguments?

Darwin was not on the list of authors to be burned, but Ernst Haeckel was. This was probably because Haeckel wasn't a strict Darwinian. Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in Lamarckism. Haeckel believed that the characteristics of an organism were acquired through interactions with the environment and that "ontogeny reflected phylogeny". These were some of the tenets of his Monist League mentioned in the linked Wikipedia article.

It doesn't matter exactly what authors were on the list. It clearly said in the law that any books that promoted Darwinism were banned. End of story. God was a much bigger influence in Hitler's ideology, than Haeckel or Darwin. Once again, your argument fails on its most basic level. You are just nitpicking semantics. The law was pretty clear about what was banned.

In private conversations he described himself as an atheist, scientist and pragmatist.

And you have personally verified Hitler's private conversations?? Yeah go ahead and prove that. Hitler was definitely a theist LMAO!

Because he was German (Darwin wasn't), he wasn't a true Darwinist and had racist views that suited the Nazi propagandists but not the book burners.

Completely bogus. Plus you literally just said above that he was an outspoken "Darwinist," so you are directly contradicting yourself now.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler was present and participated in the many atrocities that occurred under the Nazi regime?

Last I checked, Hitler was a ruthless dictator and ruled via extreme authoritarianism, killing pretty much anybody that disobeyed his commands. Nazis weren't some rogue force within Germany, they were Hitler's army and followed his commands.

Yes, very emotional... do you think it has anything to do with the notion that Hitler or the Nazi armed forces, burned books by Darwin?

I mean, think of the children... the children... and kittens!

(see, I win)

That's like saying George Bush had nothing to do with the Iraq war, that was just the military. Bush was not present in Iraq, so he had nothing to do with it. LMFAO dude! Do you EVER make rational arguments?

The book burnings were a student union initiative (as explained in Wikipedia).

Darwin was not on the list of authors to be burned, but Ernst Haeckel was. This was probably because Haeckel wasn't a strict Darwinian. Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in Lamarckism. Haeckel believed that the characteristics of an organism were acquired through interactions with the environment and that "ontogeny reflected phylogeny". These were some of the tenets of his Monist League mentioned in the linked Wikipedia article.

It doesn't matter exactly what authors were on the list. It clearly said in the law

Wut?

that any books that promoted Darwinism were banned.

No, Wikipedia clearly said "primitive Darwinism and Monism (Ernst Haeckel)". They were specifically talking about the works of Haeckel. Darwin's works were not on the list and nor were they burned (as far as has been recorded).

Was "On the Origin of Species" one of the books the Nazis wanted to burn? - Quora.com

End of story. God was a much bigger influence in Hitler's ideology, than Haeckel or Darwin. Once again, your argument fails on its most basic level. You are just nitpicking semantics. The law was pretty clear about what was banned.

It was not law.

In fact, the confiscation and willful damage to another's personal property was as much against the law then as it is now.

(you accuse me of "nitpicking semantics", but here you are calling some student protests, a "law")

In private conversations he described himself as an atheist, scientist and pragmatist.

And you have personally verified Hitler's private conversations?? Yeah go ahead and prove that.

Gladly,

Hitler's Table Talk - Wikipedia.

Hitler was definitely a theist LMAO!

Definitely? Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia.

It would be more accurate to say Hitler was possibly a theist.

Because he was German (Darwin wasn't), he wasn't a true Darwinist and had racist views that suited the Nazi propagandists but not the book burners.

Completely bogus. Plus you literally just said above that he was an outspoken "Darwinist," so you are directly contradicting yourself now.

No, I am not contradicting myself.

Haeckel initially proclaimed himself a Darwinist and promoted Darwin's work but he later proposed his own (now mostly discredited) "Recapitulation theory" which disagreed with the importance of natural selection, instead preferring Lamarkian ideas and extending it to race and social issues.

Oh, and there was the issue that Darwin himself apparently called Haeckel's connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural Selection a "foolish idea prevailing in Germany", which no doubt got Haeckel a bit peed off.

Ernst Haeckel - Wikipedia

So, nearly everything in your post is just falsehood and bluster.

a reply to: chr0naut

Our conversations have run their course. I have no desire to debate you any more. I'm tired of the extreme nitpicking and cherry picking, completely misrepresenting my points. Saying that "primitive" Darwinism didn't come from Darwin is ridiculous. Lamarckism is from Lamarck, it's not a form of Darwinism.

I'm done with this. You clearly just searched my post history looking for something to nitpick to get revenge for your pwnage in the other thread. Our conversations always go nowhere because you are unable to see the forest for the trees. Please stop stalking me.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Our conversations have run their course. I have no desire to debate you any more. I'm tired of the extreme nitpicking and cherry picking, completely misrepresenting my points. Saying that "primitive" Darwinism didn't come from Darwin is ridiculous. Lamarckism is from Lamarck, it's not a form of Darwinism.

I'm done with this. You clearly just searched my post history looking for something to nitpick to get revenge for your pwnage in the other thread.

Other thread? Sorry, I seem to have gotten lost.

Did you mean,

This thread?

or this thread?

Our conversations always go nowhere because you are unable to see the forest for the trees. Please stop stalking me.

Stalking you! Get real. A handful of threads where you suggest you "demolished" my arguments? Paranoid wot?

Perhaps you were stalking me?



But anyway, now I have corrected someone on the Internet who was wrong, I must fly and deal with all the others.

(sets jaw and narrows eyes)

Up,up and awaaaaaayyyyyyy......

(whoosh)

a reply to: Barcs

Looks like you have a disciple:

Pasteurs Germ Theory Is Wrong