Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: the old wise man


Polls Created


Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in Religion on 2008-06-08 10:30:05

I just thought I would briefly return to pass on some very relevant information that I have come across in regards to the assertion that Hitler was a Christian;

I have been reading Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell and published by Penguin Books. On page 105 you will find the following passage.
Hitler, in fact, had two views on the churches-public and private…. Privately, the following month, he vowed to completely “eradicate” Christianity from Germany. “You are either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You can’t be both.” In the mean time he was bent on careful manipulation of the power of the churches to his own ends.

Cornwell clearly demonstrates that Hitler’s whole approach to Christianity was merely tactical and used religious groups as mere pawns; “Hitler characterized the Catholic Church as “an immense technical apparatus” which “dwarfs” the National Socialist Party.”
It is plain to the reader that the reason that the Vatican was so quiet in regards to the persecution of all religious groups, Jew Protestant and Catholic, is because of the political position that Hitler had forced the Vatican into. Hitler literally had the Vatican by the balls. The title of the book is quite self explanatory; the Pope was indeed Hitler’s puppet.

Any comment that Hitler was a devout Catholic (as has been asserted in this discussion) is based on ignorant atheist propaganda. Hitler not only persecuted Jews, but was also hostile to Christians of every denomination, not even the clergy were spared. There are numerous instances of Christians and clergymen being severely beaten and many killed.

As I stated at the start of this discussion, any comment by Hitler that suggested that he was a Christian was mere tactical bluff, he just wanted to keep the population behind him, and at one stage Catholics made up 60% of the German population, one can easily imagine that the majority of the other 40% were Protestant. With these figures in mind one can see why Hitler indeed had public and private views on Christianity, had the German population known Hitler’s real views he would have lost power real damn quick!

I have only hit the tip of the iceberg here, once you have read “Hitler’s Pope” you will get a much fuller picture of Hitler, Christianity and the vast schism between the two.
Btw, I don't intend starting a discussion here I just thought I would pass on what I have read.

Posted in Evolution and Vestigial Organs on 2008-05-09 07:20:00


I have shown on the first post of this thread that the cite examples of vestigial organs are not vestigial at all, they were designed for specific and critical functions, they are not useless and there is no evidence that they once had a prior function, thus by all definitions they are not vestigial, simple.

Though I would like to continue the discussion, as you will know by now, this is my last work on the subject.

Posted in Witchcraft on 2008-05-09 07:10:08


I doubt that many of the Mister Poll discussions will ever become more respectful, even with the Asskicking Ghandi m.i.a.! I myself try to omit disrespectful language from my posts, though it is quite hard sometimes, but eventually I fall into the trap.
Though I won’t have that trouble any more as I am resigning from Mister Poll duties as of now. I have lost the oomph that have driven me to debate almost every day over the last year-and-a-half. I will spend my newly acquired time catching up on the pile of literature that has built up over this time. Maybe in a year or so I will come back, but I am sure the inevitable curiosity will draw me back much sooner!

Posted in Witchcraft on 2008-05-09 06:51:46


In regards to occultism and magic; didn’t you admit that you have read anything about this topic at all? Need I say anything more?
I’m not trying to be malicious, but the simple fact is that nobody should pay any attention to your comments about occultism and magic when you admit to not having studied the subject, simple.

“To date, there has been no absolute scientific confimation of anyone’s ability to levitate.”
Didn’t you admit to not having ever studied the subject? Need I say more?

And in regards to abiogenesis I will simply quote from my last post;

“Abiogenesis is still the fanciful myth it was 150 years ago, actually most people would say that it is even more fanciful. We now have a deep understanding of the microscopic world, and this enhanced understanding has demonstrated how fanciful abiogenesis actually is, hence the million dollar prize for a plausible model for abiogenesis. As I said in my previous post; “Abiogenesis isn’t science unless it has a working model behind it, it is fantasy.” Surely you don’t want to introduce baseless stories like abiogenesis into the category of ‘science’ do you? The very definition of science excludes stories that have no factual foundation, and abiogenesis has no evidence behind it.”

Posted in Creationism and Evolution - True or False on 2008-05-09 06:36:23

Dan, as you have probably seen in my post to Tralhob, I am ceasing indefinitely all Mister Poll ‘duties’. Thus this will almost certainly be my last post on this thread.

“The operative word here is scientific. None of these organizations are scientific.”
Why? You can’t even give a reason as to why they are unscientific, this is because you have just made this statement up, it has not an ounce of truth to it. Haven’t you noticed that whenever I present you with irrefutable evidence for creationism you resort to such baseless slurs? This is typical of all evolutionists that I have encountered. Every time I have backed you lot into an intellectual corner you all resort to throwing unfounded allegations and infantile name calling at me (other than Tralhob I suppose), sad but true.

“Baumgardner's C14 paper is thoroughly refuted here”
Like all your links, they are a load of rubbish. Every single link that you have ever provided I have systematically refuted, and based on that I’m not even going to bother to waste my time looking at your latest link when you are just going to ignore my refutations anyway! Btw, what happened with your last link to that discussion thread on the theology forum? You touted it as the evidence against the C14 topic, but when I totally refuted it, you went absolutely silent, why?

“Likewise, I am under no obligation to provide any refutation of cre[a]ti[o]nist papers.”
What about the huge number of secular papers that prove the phenomenon? Time and time again I have stated that even if Baumgardner’s paper didn’t exist, the secular literature provides ample evidence for the phenomenon!
So if you want to refute the C14 phenomenon you have to refute the huge array of secular papers first.

So to conclude the C14 discussion in the same way as I have for the last few posts:

The case has been conclusively closed, the C14 is the original carbon and there is no known contamination method, thus all biogenic materials are less than 50 thousand years old. You yourself have conclusively shown that there is NO such [contamination] method, if there was we would know about it after 33 (it’s actually 34 now) pages of this thread!!!