I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it.
I have read it but, being an atheist, it merely re-enforced my current views.
| danhayes wrote: |
I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists.The God Delusion is not really intended to sway anyone's beliefs, it is intended to outline supporting arguments for atheist beliefs, and argue in favour of atheist activism (speaking out against the evils of religion). As Bikerman put it, it is reinforcement. It is targeted at atheists facing overwhelming hostility (they are the most hated minority in America, for example) and who are seeking ways to defend their position, and at people who are uncomfortable with their religions already but need a solid intellectual backing before renouncing it completely. i can't see an even moderately devout religious person being swayed by it - an already-doubter-almost-apostate-anyway, sure, but not someone who is comfortable with their religion.
| deanhills wrote: |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
This is ridiculous. ^_^; If the amount of hype surrounding Dawkins makes him the centre of a religion then every big to medium name Hollywood and TV actor, Billboard charting pop artist, widely published author, etc. etc. all have their own religions. You're just mudslinging. You know the guy is opposed to religion, and you don't like the guy, ergo the best way to insult him is to attempt to show that he is what is opposed to. But of course, that's all tripe. And even worse, it's anti-intellectual tripe - the worst kind of tripe - where backwards-thinking numbskulls make fun of intellectuals instead of trying to understand them, because that would be too hard and end up challenging their beliefs so badly they couldn't rationally hold on to them.
Dawkins is simply a (somewhat) aggressive intellectual who has made some sharp and cutting points against religion (in the course of a distinguished academic career, much of which has nothing to do with his criticism of religion) that often get repeated because they are so insightful.
Of course, Dawkins is a puppy dog compared to really aggressive atheist intellectuals like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Part of the reason that Dawkins is so popular is that he is so mild-mannered, preferring dry British wit to Dennett's and Harris's out and out American plain-spoken brashness. Dawkins' amusing, sarcastic comments make better bumper stickers than - for example - Dennett's opening to Breaking the Spell where he compares religions to colon parasites.
So what if the man sells t-shirts? Everyone sells t-shirts, including the hypocritical religious institutions whose very founder decried doing business in holy places and advocated giving away all worldly possessions. Personally, i think an atheist who wants to publicly display their beliefs in the face of gross intolerance can do far better with a Dawkins t-shirt than with a "****** God" t-shirt. And if we're going make a celebrity out of someone, how is a first-class intellectual who has made enormous contributions to his field a bad choice? How is he a worse choice than any actor or musician? | deanhills wrote: |
| danhayes wrote: | I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
He, along with dozens of big name writers, have indirectly become the spokespeople for atheism...because they're not afraid to talk about it openly and have honest discussions (something the other side rarely does). I fail to see what his popularity has to do with this. If that's the case, every big name author, musician, actor/actress, etc. is the head of a religion. Bad logic. | deanhills wrote: |
| danhayes wrote: | I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
I have heard about this guy and personally feel that there is so much hype around him that he has become a Guru/God and religion of sorts.
This is a link to His Website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
Note all the apparels in the Website, T-Shirts with his name on it, DVDs talk shows. He also is a popular topic of conversation with intellectuals who wish to impress one another at dinner parties. "Come out" atheists. |
Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. | deanhills wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. |
Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. |
In simpler words. I cannot believe any one person in the world can have all the answers, enough to say that someone has been deluded. That would have to mean that he knows more than any of us do and is less limited than any of us are.
As I am typing this posting I can only see the screen in front of me. I cannot see to the back of my head as my vision is limited to having only eyes that can look in front of me with some peripheral vision. The only part that is a little better than my limited physical capacity is my capacity to think about yesterday, today and tomorrow. And somewhere in the time of tomorrow I have this knowledge that I will pass on. I cannot predict the day. I do not have the control over time. I can only take guesses. And yes some things I can prove, but when it gets to big ticket items like the delusion of God when I cannot even know when I am going to die, what is going to happen when I die, how can I claim anything is a delusion? As long as we have this thing called death and dying and are limited in what we can see, hear or interpret, how can we not but be deluded about most of the things around us?
I think it is only when we have the ability to transcend our daily physical existence, time, space, the universe, that we can say that we are no longer deluded. Until that time it is like with Plato, we can only see shadows against the wall of a cave. | deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Please explain. It seems you're trying to make an argument and you're putting zero logic behind it. |
In simpler words. I cannot believe any one person in the world can have all the answers, enough to say that someone has been deluded. That would have to mean that he knows more than any of us do and is less limited than any of us are.
As I am typing this posting I can only see the screen in front of me. I cannot see to the back of my head as my vision is limited to having only eyes that can look in front of me with some peripheral vision. The only part that is a little better than my limited physical capacity is my capacity to think about yesterday, today and tomorrow. And somewhere in the time of tomorrow I have this knowledge that I will pass on. I cannot predict the day. I do not have the control over time. I can only take guesses. And yes some things I can prove, but when it gets to big ticket items like the delusion of God when I cannot even know when I am going to die, what is going to happen when I die, how can I claim anything is a delusion? As long as we have this thing called death and dying and are limited in what we can see, hear or interpret, how can we not but be deluded about most of the things around us?
I think it is only when we have the ability to transcend our daily physical existence, time, space, the universe, that we can say that we are no longer deluded. Until that time it is like with Plato, we can only see shadows against the wall of a cave. |
You're not seriously judging a book by its cover are you? ^_^; Please tell me you're not casting judgement on Dawkins' entire book-length argument on the basis of the title.
FYI, if you care, Dawkins never asserts that God does not exist. Not once. Ever. In fact, he explicitly advocates "temporary agnosticism" (which he gives a special meaning that would take too long to explain here, but is fairly close to "weak agnosticism"). He says straight up - and this is a direct quote - "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
The "delusion" in the title is not what you seem to think it is. Dawkins is not some pulpit pounding loud-mouth pop-show pundit, the man is a serious, first rate intellectual, an academic with a stellar string of credentials and a career worthy of those credentials. He's not just name-calling - he's not just calling theists "deluded" for believing in "the God delusion", as you seem to think he is. But, to find that out, you are going to have to read the book, of course. | deanhills wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Dude if he is a god, what does that make metallica? Über gods? You completely missed what the book was about and what he is doing. |
I believe whatever lights your candle is OK. If people feel relieved and vindicated as atheists by something Richard Dawkins has written. Well hope that makes them happy. I still think they are deluded however in thinking that they are no longer deluded. Life is a delusion. I would rather read a book by Terry Pratchett. He puts an extra dimension to my delusions. |
You really don't know what the book is about: okay its like this:
Bill is an atheist, but he doesn't know answers to questions some other people ask him, so he thinks about converting to a religion. But then... "ooh whats that", he reads the book and knows that being an atheist suits him best. That's what I understood about the book is (also?) meant for.Well, let's let RD speak for himself. I'm sure that a small quote is both useful and within the bounds of 'fair use'.
| Richard Dawkins wrote: |
| I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are being done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realise that leaving is an option. If you are one of them then this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled. |
to the TS,
how long have you been hiding under a rock? 
enjoy the book, but don't take it too seriously like its some kind of a bible for atheists 
| redhakaw wrote: |
| enjoy the book, but don't take it too seriously like its some kind of a bible for atheists |
So you have read it have you?yes, i think it was last 2006....
might as well read it again if i have the time.
why did you ask? Bikerman?
Because I am always suspicious of people who give a one line review of a book - it makes me think they might not have read it. You don't mention Chapter 5 or Chapter 7 for example...or comment on his hypothesese about the origins of religion...I thought you might have some thoughts on this - rather than a simple one-line dismissal.
i see, well let me go with it again to give a better exchange with you if that is what you want.
to give a small thought, the entire book merely enforces the outdatedness of religion together with its doctrines and rituals when it is used as basis for morality or simply the way we live our lives, and i find it rather faulty when he suggests that atheism is an alternative option.
in the meantime, why dont you give your fair share on those particular chapters you mentioned
| redhakaw wrote: |
i see, well let me go with it again to give a better exchange with you if that is what you want.
to give a small thought, the entire book merely enforces the outdatedness of religion together with its doctrines and rituals when it is used as basis for morality or simply the way we live our lives, and i find it rather faulty when he suggests that atheism is an alternative option. |
Chapter 7 is the only part of the book that would fit this description - a consideration of the bible in historical context and a consideration of the 'changing moral zeitgeist'. The rest of the book is a rational consideration of the issues, not a rant against the 'outdatedness of religion'.
| Quote: |
| in the meantime, why dont you give your fair share on those particular chapters you mentioned |
Chapter 5 covers the origin of religion. It looks at the evolutionary benefits of religion and considers the psychological factors involved.Besides I wonder how you can be deluded if you don't believe in god, being deluded is being mislead,
so how are people deluded by NOT believing in god.
And not knowing everything is not being deluded, ignorant would fit better.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Chapter 7 is the only part of the book that would fit this description - a consideration of the bible in historical context and a consideration of the 'changing moral zeitgeist'. The rest of the book is a rational consideration of the issues, not a rant against the 'outdatedness of religion'. |
there's no question why the said issues are good reasons to treat religion a historical mistake, and the author gave detailed rationalization about it.
what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism.
Having disbelief in gods has nothing to do with how great a life you can have. to make it short
| Quote: |
| Besides I wonder how you can be deluded if you don't believe in god, being deluded is being mislead |
and you suppose that belief in a bearded man in the sky is the only cause for delusion? | redhakaw wrote: |
| what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism. |
Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative. ^_^; If you have no religion, you are, by default, atheist. (The reverse is not true. If you have religion, that doesn't make you theist. There are atheist religions. But there are no theist non-religions.)
But i have to disagree, partially. Yes, he was pushing atheism, but he was not glorifying it or putting it on a pedestal. It might look that way, but that is only because of how bad he makes the alternative. In other words, he's not putting atheism on a pedestal, he's putting religion in the gutter. He spends no time whatsoever talking about how great atheism is, or how great atheists are. He spends all of his time pointing out the lunacy and evil in religion. | Quote: |
| Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion, since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario.
what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism?
sorry for the short reply, i'm kinda busy with my work 
| Indi wrote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | what i am concerned about is how he placed atheism on the pedestal as if its some kind of alternative to religion. It somehow gave an impression that he is advertising atheism. |
Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative. ^_^; If you have no religion, you are, by default, atheist. (The reverse is not true. If you have religion, that doesn't make you theist. There are atheist religions. But there are no theist non-religions.)
But i have to disagree, partially. Yes, he was pushing atheism, but he was not glorifying it or putting it on a pedestal. It might look that way, but that is only because of how bad he makes the alternative. In other words, he's not putting atheism on a pedestal, he's putting religion in the gutter. He spends no time whatsoever talking about how great atheism is, or how great atheists are. He spends all of his time pointing out the lunacy and evil in religion. |
How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ?, I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in totalTumbleweed, in case you are interested with RD's book, you might want to flip its pages to one of its chapter that contains some insights regarding Hitler and National Socialism Specifically pages 308-316.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism (I am sure there are some) does that make all of it bad? |
for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
Well most of dawins attacks were against creationist teachings not at religion. He doesn't want it to be taught as science because it had no proof and is maybe irrational at some points. | redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion... |
No, i don't.
| redhakaw wrote: |
... since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario. |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism? |
i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ... f we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ? |
Well dur, of course not. ^_^; But then again, that's not what Dawkins did. He presented a complete, coherent, book-length argument against religion. He didn't just highlight a list of "bad points", the man is an Oxford scholar for Christ's sake. ^_^; Don't you think he can do a little better than just "religion suck 'cause o' the Crusades!"?
From start to finish he undermined religion's claims, its history, its reasoning, its necessity and more. He took every "good point" that religious proponents put forward and showed what's wrong with it. But mostly his concern was with showing readers that an alternative to religion is not only possible, and not only plausible, it is even honourable. Or, in plain English, if you are in a religion and you feel something is wrong but think there's no choice but to just accept the teachings without question, you're wrong - there is another choice.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here.
And yes, i'd say it's pretty damned obvious he wants to kill religion, but then that's the point here - to sully religion, not to aggrandize atheism. He spends the entire book dissing religion in one way or another, going over its history, its claims and so on, but he never once talks about the history of atheism, its claims, and he only gives cursory descriptions of what atheism is, and how the universe is explained by atheist beliefs (and those only come up because he's bashing the religious claims about them).
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion. |
So Indi if we then take religion as being different from philosophy as having faith as its basis, then does this necessarily mean that everything that is left once all religions have been considered, has no faith as its basis? So atheism has no faith as a basis, only reason? There is no faith in atheism, just reason?
I thought (possibly mistakenly so from your previous discussions) that atheism included everything, religion, agnostic, the whole works but from a perspective of reason only? I.e. it is not a religion, or a dogma, or a philsophy it is completely holistic. It is reason in a holistic way. Atheists do not say God does not exist? They say it has not been proven that God does exist. Atheists do not say religion is bogus. They say that it is based on faith and not fact, given that it is not factual and cannot be worked through with reason, none of the content can be proven. Atheists will only embrace that which can be reasoned and proven? Fact vs fiction? Only that which you can see with the naked eye, or can prove scientifically in a laboratory? Or work out with mathematics? | deanhills wrote: |
| So Indi if we then take religion as being different from philosophy as having faith as its basis, then does this necessarily mean that everything that is left once all religions have been considered, has no faith as its basis? So atheism has no faith as a basis, only reason? |
What? O_o Of course not. How do you figure that?
Didn't i already explain to you that there are many beliefs that rely on faith that aren't religions?
Haven't also explained, over and over, that atheism is not a belief, it is a category of beliefs that have only one thing in common - no gods? Some atheist beliefs have reason as a basis, some have faith. Some are even religions!!! (Didn't i just say that, too?)
---------
As for the rest:
| deanhills wrote: |
| I thought (possibly mistakenly so from your previous discussions) that atheism included everything, religion, agnostic, the whole works but from a perspective of reason only? |
No. Atheism has nothing to do with reason. Some atheist beliefs are based on reason, some are not.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I.e. it is not a religion, or a dogma, or a philsophy. |
Atheism is a category of beliefs, some of them religions, some of them dogmas, some of them philosophies, and some of them none of the above.
| deanhills wrote: |
| It is reason in a holistic way? |
No. It has no relationship with reason (unless you use reason to find atheism... which you don't have to).
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists do not say God does not exist? |
Some. Others do say God does not exist.
| deanhills wrote: |
| They say it has not been proven that God does exist. |
Some. Others believe it has been proven.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists do not say religion is bogus. |
Some. Others, myself included (and Dawkins, by the way), do.
| deanhills wrote: |
| They say that it is based on faith and not fact, given that it is not factual and cannot be worked through with reason, none of the content can be proven. |
Some of them. Others wouldn't because they are Jain and are, in fact, in a religion. Still others wouldn't because they can't handle such deep concepts, and would much rather just have a beer.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists will only embrace that which can be reasoned and proven? Fact vs fiction? |
Some of them. Others are new age crazies. And so on....
---------
You see, you're stuck on this notion that atheists are "something", that there's some team banner or something that atheists have in common. There's not. The only thing that makes an atheist and atheist is that they don't believe in any gods. That. Is. It. Nothing else. They can be intellectual or dumb as bricks. They can be honourable or the worst kind of murdering, raping, child-molesting bastard. They can be rational or they can be space cases. They can have come to atheism by thinking deeply about it or they can simply never have heard of gods.
Atheists are not defined by "something", they are defined by "not having something". Theists are defined by something. If you took the entire human race and said, "OK, the question is 'Does God exist?' If you think yes, go over there. Everyone else stay put." Everyone who doesn't move is atheist, including those that simply didn't understand the question.
Atheist beliefs work the same way - every belief is an atheist belief... until it involves a god. We wouldn't even talk about atheists and atheist beliefs if it weren't for the fact that theists have been numerically, politically and intellectually dominant for thousands of years - it would just be taken as obvious. When you talk about beliefs you don't normally talk about the things those beliefs exclude - when you talk about polytheism you don't mention, "Oh, by the way, this only concerns multiple gods, it doesn't have anything to do with which side of the bread you butter, which end of the egg you eat first, briefs or boxers, etc...." Hell, preferring briefs or boxers is an atheist belief! ^_^; Unless you're talking about God's underwear i guess. | Quote: |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
|
how about Spinoza's god?
http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm
specifically 1st paragraph
| Quote: |
| i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? | redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
It's very simple. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.
Spinoza's "god" is not a god at all. Spinoza's "god" is just nature... that he has tagged a name on to. Basically he says, "Well, i think God (the Abrahamic god in his case) is a stupid idea. But nature has many of the properties we give this god: for example, it created us and it nurtures us. And i feel the same way about nature that many people feel about this god: i think it is amazing, and the more i study it the more it enthrals me with how beautiful and complex it is. So... to hell with the Abrahamic god, i'm going to call nature God."
Which is all fine and good, but simply calling something "God" doesn't automatically make it a god. If i named my hat "God" would you call me theist? i wouldn't. i know an atheist that has named his pet rat (it's some kind of rodent, not necessarily a rat, but i don't know what) "God". And he really loves his rat. Does that make him a theist? Hardly.
So no, Spinoza's "god", such as it is, does not count as theism. All it is is just anthropomorphizing nature, and making it explicit at that.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
Yes, because if they do not adhere to any forms of religion they must be atheist agnostics.
Belief in any gods is a religious belief. It cannot be arrived at by reason or observation, it must be arrived at via faith. If you had never heard of the concept of a god, and you wondered where the universe came from (for example), what would you conclude? You would conclude "we don't know", because we don't. You would not conclude out of the blue that some super-entity we had absolutely no evidence for had done it. Seriously, think about it, if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you take me seriously? Of course not, and with good reason - it's ridiculous by itself. Now if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an amazing super-entity that no one has ever seen and that has the power to create universes but that is intensely interested in who i sleep with and how... would you take me seriously? Hardly. You need the framework of a religion to even make that plausible to consider, let alone accept. How could you even even come up with the notion without a religion to begin with? ^_^;
But even less ridiculous notions of "gods" that don't require quite as much supporting framework are still religious beliefs. You don't need a church, a bible and a congregation to be a religion, you know - organized religion is not the only kind of religion; "any forms of religion" includes organized religions, folk religions, and individual/personal religions. Any belief about the nature of the universe that is held to primarily by faith is a religious belief. Gods count as a religious belief, big time.
If you can figure out some way to come up with a god without using religious beliefs, then sure, you could theoretically be a non-religious theist. But... that's not likely. ^_^; Gods require religions to even be considered as possibilities, let alone settled on as truth. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated? |
Well I'd like to add something, of course most information about what hitler believed is not entirely true, many christians pushed him away cause... well they think it will christianity look bad.
However, I don't see how. Because there are people doing bad things all the time who belong to certain groups (other than (for example) political).
But there is only one book that states that hitler wanted some neo-pagan religion. Every speech recorded (if mentioned) said something good about the christian god, jesus what ever.
And he never stated something about a neopagen religion (at least as tough he wanted to start one).
He did spoke agaisnt organized christianity however not against how his "own" christianity.Yes - there is truth in what you say. When I say he 'encouraged' neo-paganism I was referring specifically to his support and encouragement for Himmler - whose occultist neo-paganism was, and is, a matter of record.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
|
I thought it originated with the Greeks 
I would consider most if not all of Hitlers "religious" related quotes as racially motivated, and nothing more than racial propaganda ,a tool for a cause, you hear him say hes a christian so he must be a christian regardless of his actions is fallacious to me,as you point out he later attacks christianity,(I assume it had become of no use to him ? he had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ?
| redhakaw wrote: |
| ...in case you are interested with RD's book, you might want to flip its pages to one of its chapter that contains some insights regarding Hitler and National Socialism |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Specifically pages 308-316. |
Thank you both I will try to bear that in mind
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ?
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.) |
Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here. |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least 
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda.
| Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, |
Arghh...when will people stop making these fallacious comparisons.
Look - let's get this straight. Hilter's Germany was NOT atheistic - it was National Socialist. Hitler was baptised a Catholic and was never excommunicated.* He did attack Christianity later, for sure, but he encouraged a sort of Neo-Paganism based on Germanic folklore. Germany, at the time, was overwhelmingly Christian - mostly Protestant.
Talking about Anti-semitic racism as an 'atheist' trait is a bit rich, given the history of the Catholic Church. Where do you think anti-semitism originated?
*- "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46]
- "What we have to fight for. . . is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]
- "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]
|
I thought it originated with the Greeks
I would consider most if not all of Hitlers "religious" related quotes as racially motivated, and nothing more than racial propaganda ,a tool for a cause, you hear him say hes a christian so he must be a christian regardless of his actions is fallacious to me, as you point out he later attacks christianity,(I assume it had become of no use to him? |
As I said he was a Christian and never attacked it. And if yiu say that he used it as a toolm well there's no arguing that, but I could say the same about the pope.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.) |
Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not. |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here. |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
So what you are saying when atheist come to power the world will go into caos because they are immoral? Thats just stupid.
Atheist are immoral?
In US you have 10% atheist.
In US you have 90% religious people.
And in Prison only 0.2 % is filled up by atheists.
Atheist are immoral?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. |
...... *dumbstruck* | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| As I said he was a Christian and never attacked it. And if yiu say that he used it as a toolm well there's no arguing that, but I could say the same about the pope. |
And I would probably agree with you
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... 
proof of what ?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't) |
The point is with no religion theres still racism
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad. |
No I didnt the same as you are not saying all religious people are bad
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
So what you are saying when atheist come to power the world will go into caos because they are immoral? Thats just stupid.
Atheist are immoral?
In US you have 10% atheist.
In US you have 90% religious people.
And in Prison only 0.2 % is filled up by atheists.
Atheist are immoral? |
Again No, Given that modern people seem to have allways had some form of religion or other, wheres the proof a totally atheist society/world would be any better ..... it may stay with the exact same problems under a different guise,it may indeed be better....but I dont think I have said anywhere atheist are more or less immoral than anyone else
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
Thats because your a fanboy ^_^, To answer another way , it would depend on my needs or wants, if the recipes were usable and my interest was cooking then to me it would be a cookbook albeit a long boring and mostly tedious read. |
...... *dumbstruck* |
If I bought *making this up now* Darwins memoirs , with the intent of following his voyages, why would the book be any more than a map to me . | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion...
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | for the sake of argument;
are the crushades, inquisitions etc. bad? Wasn't 9/11 bad? Doesn't that make Religion bad?
And fascism is not a part of atheism, actually a lot of prominent fascists where religious.
And racism? Really are you joking? (NON)Religion has nothing to do with racism. That's just stupid. |
Planes were used in the 9/11 attacks, they were built by scientists and engineers, does that make them bad ?
as you say a lot.....but not all
oh sorry....your saying all racism is on religious grounds ? |
If those planes where build fir that purpose then yes, if they where meant for transport of humans around the world no? Why you ask because it was never their intention, and i think that no-one thought about that. And I said (NON)Religion with two () in other words that sentence meaned:
Religion or nonreligion have nothing to do with racism. (unless it is encouraged by some religion, but I think there aren't) |
The point is with no religion theres still racism |
But with religion there will be still racism around. You said this:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism (I am sure there are some) does that make all of it bad? |
You said that, so...
I responded to that.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
But you said these are bad atheist (while some weren't even atheists) and say that atheism is bad. |
No I didnt the same as you are not saying all religious people are bad. |
Eeh you said something like:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad? |
take this onë:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Again No, Given that modern people seem to have allways had some form of religion or other, wheres the proof a totally atheist society/world would be any better ..... it may stay with the exact same problems under a different guise,it may indeed be better....but I dont think I have said anywhere atheist are more or less immoral than anyone else. |
And this one:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
Does not compute? | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God ?
As an answer to the rest of your post ........... who on the what now ?
You seem to want to pick a fight over something .... You seem to keep implying I have something against atheists , let me say I dont , what I am saying is you dont need religion to have megalomania. | Indi wrote: |
Spinoza's "god" is not a god at all. Spinoza's "god" is just nature... that he has tagged a name on to. Basically he says, "Well, i think God (the Abrahamic god in his case) is a stupid idea. But nature has many of the properties we give this god: for example, it created us and it nurtures us. And i feel the same way about nature that many people feel about this god: i think it is amazing, and the more i study it the more it enthrals me with how beautiful and complex it is. So... to hell with the Abrahamic god, i'm going to call nature God."
Which is all fine and good, but simply calling something "God" doesn't automatically make it a god. If i named my hat "God" would you call me theist? i wouldn't. i know an atheist that has named his pet rat (it's some kind of rodent, not necessarily a rat, but i don't know what) "God". And he really loves his rat. Does that make him a theist? Hardly.
So no, Spinoza's "god", such as it is, does not count as theism. All it is is just anthropomorphizing nature, and making it explicit at that.
|
Thank you for explaining your thoughts regarding Spinoza
The reason why I brought up Spinoza is to explain that theists do not necessarily belong or practice a certain religion
Natural Pantheism is a form of Pantheism: a Theistic approach, of which Spinoza is well-known for if not heavily criticized of.
Theism is defined: the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Religion on the other hand is simply a set of beliefs and practices centered on such deities.
if you will look closely, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute, that is why we have atheistic religions. Religions are simply the practices or the code one follows to make effect one's belief or that dictates one's thoughts and actions.
Pantheists are considered theist simply because they propose that everything is god, naturalistic pantheists in the same manner proposes that all of nature is god. True that in most of the established religions teaches pantheistic views, but that does not explain that when you are a pantheist, you necessarily adhere to a religion.
another theistic approach that do not require religion is Deism, simply because it rejects revealed religion.
so to conclude, to be a theist does not necessarily to belong or to practice a religion because to be a theist is simply to propose that gods or deities exists.
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: | | i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter. |
are you saying that agnostics who do not adhere to any forms of religion are atheist? |
Yes, because if they do not adhere to any forms of religion they must be atheist agnostics.
Belief in any gods is a religious belief. It cannot be arrived at by reason or observation, it must be arrived at via faith. If you had never heard of the concept of a god, and you wondered where the universe came from (for example), what would you conclude? You would conclude "we don't know", because we don't. You would not conclude out of the blue that some super-entity we had absolutely no evidence for had done it. Seriously, think about it, if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, would you take me seriously? Of course not, and with good reason - it's ridiculous by itself. Now if i told you out of the blue that the universe was created by an amazing super-entity that no one has ever seen and that has the power to create universes but that is intensely interested in who i sleep with and how... would you take me seriously? Hardly. You need the framework of a religion to even make that plausible to consider, let alone accept. How could you even even come up with the notion without a religion to begin with? ^_^;
But even less ridiculous notions of "gods" that don't require quite as much supporting framework are still religious beliefs. You don't need a church, a bible and a congregation to be a religion, you know - organized religion is not the only kind of religion; "any forms of religion" includes organized religions, folk religions, and individual/personal religions. Any belief about the nature of the universe that is held to primarily by faith is a religious belief. Gods count as a religious belief, big time.
If you can figure out some way to come up with a god without using religious beliefs, then sure, you could theoretically be a non-religious theist. But... that's not likely. ^_^; Gods require religions to even be considered as possibilities, let alone settled on as truth. |
i think i can see now why i am confused about your point/s, please answer this question:
do you find religion and faith different in some ways or are they totally the same?
Last edited by redhakaw on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:28 am; edited 2 times in total | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God? |
So you are saying he wasn't Christian because he did that, surely the Church in germany didn't support him?
O
Wait,
They did,
the church supported him.
(ooops)
even worse certain people from outside germany supported certain roman catholic groups throughout Europe supported him. Number of bishops supported him. Luckily the pope didn't support him i give you that.
and wheter you think he wasn't a true christian doesn't matter.
in that way you can reject any christian that did something bad and then say hey look all christians never did anything really bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
As an answer to the rest of your post ........... who on the what now ?
You seem to want to pick a fight over something .... You seem to keep implying I have something against atheists , let me say I dont , what I am saying is you dont need religion to have megalomania. |
You are saying one thing earlier, and then later on denying it.
You pointed to nazi's and said those were bad examples of atheism and then said that atheism possibly could be bad too.
Some goes with racism, while it has nothing to do with (non)religion.
You said in an atheist world ethics would be twisted to fit someones agenda.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
But there is only one book that states that hitler wanted some neo-pagan religion. Every speech recorded (if mentioned) said something good about the christian god, jesus what ever.
And he never stated something about a neopagen religion (at least as tough he wanted to start one).
He did spoke agaisnt organized christianity however not against how his "own" christianity. |
That's a pretty good summary of where he sat. Despite what Christian apologists try to claim, criticizing Christianity does not mean you're not a Christian. i criticize Canada all the time, am i no longer Canadian? Or let's go with ideologies - i criticize liberalism all the time, whenever i think it is being interpreted or applied in misguided ways - does that mean i'm not liberal?
It would be embarrassing to those apologists if i were to list some of the Christians that have criticized Christianity, yet they still want to keep them "on their team". But let's just go with one, for fun. ^_^ As anyone that has studied the history of Christianity knows, Martin Luther strongly criticized the prevailing Christian church for being misguided and corrupt - he thought it was so bad he went off and made his own church. Sound familiar? ^_^ So, basically, if Hitler is not a Christian because he had a problem with how Christianity was being run in Germany, then neither is Martin Luther... which means that... uh oh... all Protestants are not Christian. Nyuk, nyuk.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Thats more of the point I was trying to make, getting shot of religion wont necessarily make the world a better place, some people are simply bad religious or not. |
Well, now, careful. Just because evil will still exist in a world without religion does not mean that the world won't be better. No one, nowhere, no when, has ever claimed that religion is responsible for all evil, just some. When religion is gone, the evil that it causes will be gone - not all evil, but all the evil religion is responsible for.
But would that make the world better - or in other words, if religion goes, will we lose more good, or more evil (because religion has both good and evil aspects, but which does it have more of)?
To me, the answer is obvious. The list of things that religion takes away from humanity is incredibly long. The list of things it gives back is pretty short, and most of those can be trivially replaced.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
I am not a fanboy of his at all so you must be a bigger fanboy that I at least
You must know what his daytime job is though ? you must see he generally says atheism good religion bad, |
Yes, his day job is evolutionary biology, not atheism. ^_^
And sure he says that "atheism good, religion bad". So do i. But i don't want to "kill" religion. i just want it behave itself and stop trying to control my life. i want nothing to do with it, but i don't want it "killed" - if someone wants to be religious, let them, but i won't tolerate them trying to set stupid laws for me or preventing me from getting a cure for cancer because their two thousand year-old book may have an issue with how we go about finding it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| for me that is giving (unproven) atheism , a world where no-one believes in any Gods, greater standing over a world that has religion, well that sounds a little like gambling to me, whats to say any ethics wont be twisted or changed to fit a given agenda. |
In a world without religion, people still have brains, and they don't just go along whatever someone tells them without some reason - especially if what they're being told is not in their best interests. If someone wants to make up silly ethical rules, people aren't just going to shrug and say "OK" unless the rules benefit them (or at least, don't hurt them). They won't, for example, sit back and allow people to say "the strong rule the weak" without a fight - because only a few will be strong, so the vast majority of people will be disenfranchised, and they ain't gonna take that peaceably.
By contrast, think about how easy it is to get people to follow whatever twisted agenda you want when you have religion. Once you can get people to believe you speak for God's will, you can tell them to do whatever the hell you want, from wearing silly hats to blowing themselves up (both real examples, of course). Try convincing thousands of people to wear the same hat without religion - and try convincing them to blow themselves up for no real benefit (only imaginary "heavenly" benefits).
| redhakaw wrote: |
Thank you for explaining your thoughts regarding Spinoza
The reason why I brought up Spinoza is to explain that theists do not necessarily belong or practice a certain religion |
Well of course - i explicitly said that they didn't. i said that just because theists don't belong to an organized religion does not mean they are not religious - they simply have a religion with a congregation of one. You are using the definition of organized religion for "religion". i am using the definition: "a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, held to primarily by faith".
Spinoza's natural pantheism is called "pantheism" only because he uses the word "god" to describe nature. If you use the word "nature" to describe nature, it's not really theistic at all, now is it? (It's just "natural", not "natural pantheism".) And... it doesn't really change anything about Spinoza's beliefs, now does it? (Whereas, replacing "god" with "nature" in Abrahamic or Vedic beliefs does change everything.) That's why i say Spinoza's theism is theism in name only - it's not real theism. It was his way of being an atheist without "being an atheist" (which would have got him torched at the stake at the time - atheism was a capital offence back then).
We don't need to fear burning at the stake these days, so let's call a rose a rose. Spinoza's "god" is nature. Which means Spinozist beliefs are not theist beliefs. Which means that "natural pantheism" is a misnomer.
| redhakaw wrote: |
Theism is defined: the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
Religion on the other hand is simply a set of beliefs and practices centered on such deities.
if you will look closely, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute, that is why we have atheistic religions. Religions are simply the practices or the code one follows to make effect one's belief or that dictates one's thoughts and actions. |
Ah, actually. ^_^; Just to correct you - first you say religion is a set of beliefs and practices centred on deities... then you say there are atheist religions. Well, which is it? ^_^
You see, if you want the real definitions of these words, you're going to have to dig a bit deeper than Wikipedia. The definition of religion is actually very, very complex, and involves traits and a fuzzy-logic comparison. That's a bit of a pain. So the definition i commonly use is a definition that i find works by never having false negatives, at the risk of a few false positives. In other words it will sometimes say X is a religion when it isn't... but it never say X is not a religion when it is. It is, in brief: "a set of beliefs held to primarily by faith about the nature of the universe".
| redhakaw wrote: |
| another theistic approach that do not require religion is Deism, simply because it rejects revealed religion. |
Deism rejects revelation, but not religious ideas. It still accepts religious claims like that a god exists, it created the universe, it is benevolent, etc. etc. Just as with regular theism, not a one of those can be arrived at without a religious framework to build around them (in fact, i usually talk about deism implicitly when i talk about theism, because most "revealed" theists pretend to be deists when you challenge their beliefs).
So once again, if you define "religion" as "organized religion", then no deism doesn't (usually) fit. If you actually look at the real definition of religion (such as it is) - or even my short form - it fits.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| so to conclude, to be a theist does not necessarily to belong or to practice a religion because to be a theist is simply to propose that gods or deities exists. |
Yes, i know. ^_^ But:
Religion ≠ Organized religion.
Religion is a set of faith-based beliefs about the nature of the universe - therefore, as long as your belief in god is based on faith (which it must be, because there is currently no other way to come to that belief), it is a religious belief. Maybe one day someone will figure out how to come to a belief in god by means of a (legitimate) logical argument - and when that happens then it will be possible to be a theist without having religion. But today, that is not possible.
| redhakaw wrote: |
i think i can see now why i am confused about your point/s, please answer this question:
do you find religion and faith different in some ways or are they totally the same? |
Totally different! About as similar as an orange and a can of orange-strawberry-banana juice.
Faith is belief that is not based on reason or observation. Faith has nothing to do with religion, by itself. Just because you have a faith-based belief doesn't mean you have anything to do with religion at all.
Religion is a set of beliefs - primarily faith-based beliefs - about a specific thing: the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it. Religion requires faith (otherwise, it is not religion, it is science, math, philosophy, or something like that), but that doesn't mean it is faith (otherwise, a car that requires wheels is a wheel, which is obviously nonsense).
If you have religion, you have faith-based beliefs. If you have faith-based beliefs, you don't necessarily have religion.
(Or, to use my first metaphor: if faith is an orange, religion is a can of orange-strawberry-banana juice - you need oranges to make the juice, but you need a whole lot more, too... and you certainly don't need the can of juice to make an orange). | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | He had changed his mind ?, he was allways undicided ?, they finally grew some balls and rejected him again ? ),I would say he allways simply used christianity for his own means ,that of course is based on how I see a true christian to be, and anyway where did I say anything was an atheist trait ? |
Wheres the proof? |
Proof that he attacked the church ?...... proof of what ? |
Proof of what you are claiming. Proof that Hitler had some racially motives to use Religion... |
You want proof of how I see a true christian ?
Hitler used propaganda to create both internal and external enemies , there are many examples of him talking of propaganda as a tool, he lies to get power over peoples minds and even advocates it, why should I assume hes telling the truth when he speaks of providence or God? |
So you are saying he wasn't Christian because he did that, surely the Church in germany didn't support him?
O
Wait,
They did,
the church supported him.
(ooops)
even worse certain people from outside germany supported certain roman catholic groups throughout Europe supported him. Number of bishops supported him. Luckily the pope didn't support him i give you that.
and wheter you think he wasn't a true christian doesn't matter.
in that way you can reject any christian that did something bad and then say hey look all christians never did anything really bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | As an answer to the rest of your post ........... who on the what now ?
You seem to want to pick a fight over something .... You seem to keep implying I have something against atheists , let me say I dont , what I am saying is you dont need religion to have megalomania. |
You are saying one thing earlier, and then later on denying it.
You pointed to nazi's and said those were bad examples of atheism and then said that atheism possibly could be bad too.
Some goes with racism, while it has nothing to do with (non)religion.
You said in an atheist world ethics would be twisted to fit someones agenda. |
And yet you still didnt answer my question ! why should I believe him ?
No I said could be not would beIsn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
He was still Christian =/
From Mein Kampf
| Hitler wrote: |
| Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. |
Not to mention the "Gott mit uns" (God With Us) on every Nazi belt buckle.
Just a couple off the long list of evidence.
There is absolutely no reason to say Hitler wasn't Christian. He may not have been the Christian you'd like to see, but who gets to say who is and isn't a Christian if not yourself? | liljp617 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
He was still Christian =/
From Mein Kampf
| Hitler wrote: | | Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. |
Not to mention the "Gott mit uns" (God With Us) on every Nazi belt buckle.
Just a couple off the long list of evidence.
There is absolutely no reason to say Hitler wasn't Christian. He may not have been the Christian you'd like to see, but who gets to say who is and isn't a Christian if not yourself? |
You miss the point.....I can say I am a footballer all day, that does not make me a footballer, if people want to show me proof Hitler was a Christian ,first I would like them to prove Hitler was not Liar and a manipulator, the fact that Hitler attacked the church once it was no further use to him is proof enough to me of his motives, Hitler did indeed have a stock in trade seen through all his political life | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
He was still Christian =/
From Mein Kampf
| Hitler wrote: | | Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. |
Not to mention the "Gott mit uns" (God With Us) on every Nazi belt buckle.
Just a couple off the long list of evidence.
There is absolutely no reason to say Hitler wasn't Christian. He may not have been the Christian you'd like to see, but who gets to say who is and isn't a Christian if not yourself? |
You miss the point.....I can say I am a footballer all day, that does not make me a footballer, if people want to show me proof Hitler was a Christian ,first I would like them to prove Hitler was not Liar and a manipulator, the fact that Hitler attacked the church once it was no further use to him is proof enough to me of his motives, Hitler did indeed have a stock in trade seen through all his political life |
I just gave you proof. It doesn't matter if you think he was a Christian. Who are you to decide who is a Christian and who isn't? He clearly stated and implied many times his belief in the Christian god. Examples are fairly easy to find. I gave you two simple ones, which you stubbornly turned down. I can't make myself waste the time finding more.
He was a liar and manipulator. The whole Third Reich was. I fail to see how that has any relevance. Liar or not, he self-proclaimed himself a Christian. The only person who can choose whether or not you're a Christian is yourself. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
And that has NOTHING to do wheter he is Christian or not.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You miss the point.....I can say I am a footballer all day, that does not make me a footballer, if people want to show me proof Hitler was a Christian ,first I would like them to prove Hitler was not Liar and a manipulator, the fact that Hitler attacked the church once it was no further use to him is proof enough to me of his motives, Hitler did indeed have a stock in trade seen through all his political life |
He said he was a christian an behaved like one so he was a christian.
And wheter he was a manipulator or not doesn't matter he NEVER attacked his church if he did please give me some proof. I stated already something on the matter a while ago.
Your repeating stuff that already has been said...@ Tumbleweed
Fascism has its birthplace in Italy which has been a heavily Catholic country for 1900 years. Hitler wasn't very religious, but I think it's safe to label him as Christian even if he was something of a lapsed Catholic.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| The only person who can choose whether or not you're a Christian is yourself. |
No I disagree..........its like a creationist saying there a scientist, or saying you have five fingers on each hand, just because you say it dont make it so
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Isn't that obvious? He claimed it whole his life so you can assume safely that HITLER WAS a christian. There is no evidence pointing the other way. |
All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
And that has NOTHING to do wheter he is Christian or not.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | You miss the point.....I can say I am a footballer all day, that does not make me a footballer, if people want to show me proof Hitler was a Christian ,first I would like them to prove Hitler was not Liar and a manipulator, the fact that Hitler attacked the church once it was no further use to him is proof enough to me of his motives, Hitler did indeed have a stock in trade seen through all his political life |
He said he was a christian an behaved like one so he was a christian.
And wheter he was a manipulator or not doesn't matter he NEVER attacked his church if he did please give me some proof. I stated already something on the matter a while ago.
Your repeating stuff that already has been said... |
How did he behave like an orthodox christian ?
Is the Reich Church not evidence enough of his true intentions ? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | The only person who can choose whether or not you're a Christian is yourself. |
No I disagree..........its like a creationist saying there a scientist, or saying you have five fingers on each hand, just because you say it dont make it so |
That's not the same at all. One of the key differences being I can prove to you someone is not a scientist with relative ease (or I can show you their lack of ability to prove they're an official scientist which, by using logical deduction, shows they're not a scientist). Same with the five fingers. I can clearly see if someone has five fingers or not and I can easily prove someone with four fingers doesn't have five.
On the other hand, how exactly have you proven Hitler wasn't a Christian? Multiple people have given you evidence supporting our stance, what have you shown to disprove us? So far you've asked questions in response to our questions/statements and said "no he wasn't."
Furthermore, are Islamic extremists Islamic or not? Just because they may not follow the views that a peaceful Islamic person does, does that make them any less of a Islam-practicing person? No. They simply follow their interpretation of Islam. Hitler felt he was doing the work of the Christian god. He self-proclaimed this on multiple occasions. He followed his interpretation of Christianity, thus he was a Christian. Maybe not your ideal Christian or the Christian you would prefer, but Christian nonetheless. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | The only person who can choose whether or not you're a Christian is yourself. |
No I disagree..........its like a creationist saying there a scientist, or saying you have five fingers on each hand, just because you say it dont make it so |
That's not the same at all. One of the key differences being I can prove to you someone is not a scientist with relative ease (or I can show you their lack of ability to prove they're an official scientist which, by using logical deduction, shows they're not a scientist). Same with the five fingers. I can clearly see if someone has five fingers or not and I can easily prove someone with four fingers doesn't have five.
On the other hand, how exactly have you proven Hitler wasn't a Christian? Multiple people have given you evidence supporting our stance, what have you shown to disprove us? So far you've asked questions in response to our questions/statements and said "no he wasn't."
Furthermore, are Islamic extremists Islamic or not? Just because they may not follow the views that a peaceful Islamic person does, does that make them any less of a Islam-practicing person? No. They simply follow their interpretation of Islam. Hitler felt he was doing the work of the Christian god. He self-proclaimed this on multiple occasions. He followed his interpretation of Christianity, thus he was a Christian. Maybe not your ideal Christian or the Christian you would prefer, but Christian nonetheless. |
I do see your point........ but you seem unable to grasp his intentions ( just look what he and the nazi party actually did ) and how for him the ends justify the means, How many times does Hitler mention Jesus (you know that most famous of Christians), How many times does he mention God or jesus alone without it being a bastardization of the Bible aimed at nothing but giving credence to his own ideology, I see no evidence that Hitler ever spoke about the God of Abraham but spoke more like a Deist than a Christian . Yes yes ,yourself and others will jump up and down saying "My logic is infallable" then go on to say the proof is in what the proven liar says.
I have said more than "No he wasnt"......you dont want to listen..........all you have said is " He is because he says he is " which I see as most laughable.
Thumbs up | Tumbleweed wrote: |
How did he behave like an orthodox christian ?
Is the Reich Church not evidence enough of his true intentions ? |
No, if you even took the bother to look a bit back.
Ure use some braincells that have something to do with memory.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Well I'd like to add something, of course most information about what hitler believed is not entirely true, many christians pushed him away cause... well they think it will christianity look bad.
However, I don't see how. Because there are people doing bad things all the time who belong to certain groups (other than (for example) political).
But there is only one book that states that hitler wanted some neo-pagan religion. Every speech recorded (if mentioned) said something good about the christian god, jesus what ever.
And he never stated something about a neopagen religion (at least as tough he wanted to start one).
He did spoke agaisnt organized christianity however not against how his "own" christianity. |
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
I do see your point........ but you seem unable to grasp his intentions |
They don't matter.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
(just look what he and the nazi party actually did ) and how for him the ends justify the means, How many times does Hitler mention Jesus |
Often
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| (you know that most famous of Christians), How many times does he mention God or jesus alone without it being a bastardization of the Bible aimed at nothing but giving credence to his own ideology. |
It's most likely the other way around, he was a believer since his early life even in the 1920's.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| , I see no evidence that Hitler ever spoke about the God of Abraham but spoke more like a Deist than a Christian. |
You either lie, read the wrong thing, completely misread it or only read one sentence.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Yes yes ,yourself and others will jump up and down saying "My logic is infallable" then go on to say the proof is in what the proven liar says. |
Hitler a proven liar? Most things he said and promised happened. Besides it is no proof that he lied this time.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have said more than "No he wasnt"......you dont want to listen..........all you have said is " He is because he says he is " which I see as most laughable. |
No it's not but you want proof?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
He could have pretended it but there is no ground for this. And saying he wasn't IS most laughable because you are basically saying that the earth is 6000 years old both need the same amount of unwillingness of just not accepting the truth.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Thumbs up |
Thumbs down you mean | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | The only person who can choose whether or not you're a Christian is yourself. |
No I disagree..........its like a creationist saying there a scientist, or saying you have five fingers on each hand, just because you say it dont make it so |
That's not the same at all. One of the key differences being I can prove to you someone is not a scientist with relative ease (or I can show you their lack of ability to prove they're an official scientist which, by using logical deduction, shows they're not a scientist). Same with the five fingers. I can clearly see if someone has five fingers or not and I can easily prove someone with four fingers doesn't have five.
On the other hand, how exactly have you proven Hitler wasn't a Christian? Multiple people have given you evidence supporting our stance, what have you shown to disprove us? So far you've asked questions in response to our questions/statements and said "no he wasn't."
Furthermore, are Islamic extremists Islamic or not? Just because they may not follow the views that a peaceful Islamic person does, does that make them any less of a Islam-practicing person? No. They simply follow their interpretation of Islam. Hitler felt he was doing the work of the Christian god. He self-proclaimed this on multiple occasions. He followed his interpretation of Christianity, thus he was a Christian. Maybe not your ideal Christian or the Christian you would prefer, but Christian nonetheless. |
I do see your point........ but you seem unable to grasp his intentions ( just look what he and the nazi party actually did ) and how for him the ends justify the means, How many times does Hitler mention Jesus (you know that most famous of Christians), How many times does he mention God or jesus alone without it being a bastardization of the Bible aimed at nothing but giving credence to his own ideology, I see no evidence that Hitler ever spoke about the God of Abraham but spoke more like a Deist than a Christian . Yes yes ,yourself and others will jump up and down saying "My logic is infallable" then go on to say the proof is in what the proven liar says.
I have said more than "No he wasnt"......you dont want to listen..........all you have said is " He is because he says he is " which I see as most laughable.
Thumbs up |
Has absolutely nothing to do with his intentions. Again, are Islamic extremists not Islamic because their intentions are to use violence and create terror? No. They're still Islamic.
If you bothered to look for even a couple minutes:
On God:
| Quote: |
| I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. |
| Quote: |
| Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. |
| Quote: |
| What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. |
| Quote: |
| Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. |
| Quote: |
| In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills. |
| Quote: |
| It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God. |
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
On Christianity:
| Quote: |
| I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. |
(1941)
| Quote: |
| My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded 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. ...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. |
| Quote: |
| We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest. |
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm
Must I go on? What more could you possibly want? Once again, those are just a few of the hundreds from Mein Kampf, speeches, and other writings from Hitler. And once again, it has absolutely nothing with your view of a Christian or what you think a Christian should be like. This man OBVIOUSLY believed he was working for the Christian god, doing his will. His actions were heinous, we know. But it's completely, 100% apparent he believed in Christ, he believed in the Christian god, he believed he was working for the "Heavens," he believed this was his will. He was a Christian. You've done nothing to prove your case that he wasn't.Well, i'm currently involved in trying to find a definition of what a Christian is in another thread, so this discussion is of interest to me. For the record, Dawkins's definition of Christian is simple, and very strict: unless you're a Biblical literalist, you're not Christian. By that standard, i'm not sure if Hitler was a Christian, because i don't know how big a literalist he was. But then, by that standard, almost no one today is really Christian.
Now, without a clear definition of what is and what is not a Christian, we can't really pin Hitler down qualitatively. But what we can do is use comparisons. All we have to do to show Hitler is a Christian is show him doing things that other Christians do or have done. And all we have to do to show he's not Christian is show him doing things that no Christian should do or has done. Let's see how that works out.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
Well, first, i have to point out that you have clearly not read enough of what Hitler said or wrote - that much has been made clear throughout this thread. Hitler did claim he was divinely called... but then, so did hundreds and hundreds of other rulers, including this guy.
And he was a megalomaniac. However, he always put God first, always. He never, ever said God wasn't great or that he could have (or did) accomplish everything he did without God - in public or in any of the private letters/quotes we have. He may have called himself the greatest German (but that sounds like speculation on your part based on your opinion of Hitler... not reality), but that doesn't disqualify him from being Christian, does it?
So nothing i see you accusing him of here hasn't been done by other Christians.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I see no evidence that Hitler ever spoke about the God of Abraham but spoke more like a Deist than a Christian . |
This has to be the dumbest thing i have seen said in this whole discussion. ^_^; Either you have no clue what Hitler spoke about, or you have no clue what a Deist is, or both. The proof for how stupid this claim is is in the fact that you, yourself, shot it down. You said he said he was divinely chosen. Deists would not say that, because a Deist god does not interfere with the world - which would include choosing rulers.
In fact, i see a lot of double-talk on your part. One minute you claim that whenever he claimed to be Christian he lied, then next you claim he never spoke about being Christian.
The facts are that Hitler did wax quite eloquently about the Christian god, and about Jesus. In fact, like someone else i could name, he never shut the hell up about them. Secularists at the time put up a hell of a fight over his introducing of religion into government as much as he did (sound familiar?), and, famously, the first thing Hitler did on achieving power was to shut down Germany's biggest secularist organization.
Now, you can claim that this was all a front he put up to use religion to obtain power... but once he had dissolved the senate and had absolute power, he only got more bombastic with the religious rhetoric... so that claim doesn't hold up.
You can claim that he used Christianity to manipulate the people before and during his reign... but all of his private records indicate that he was just as religious when talking with close friends... so that claim doesn't have any evidence to support it. Besides, even if that's true, it wasn't Hitler who tortured Jews, it was people he was "manipulating with Christianity". So even if Hitler was atheist, Christians are still guilty of the crimes of the Holocaust. And if they had no problem executing Jews and being Christian at the same time... why should Hitler?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Quote: | | We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest. |
|
Just to add something to this "positive Christianity" of Hitler's - as i mentioned, if we can show Hitler did something that Christians never do, we'd have a case that he wasn't Christian. So what about this "positive Christianity" thing? Would attempting to rewrite Christianity to suit what you believe it should be make you a non-Christian?
Let's consider:
Here we have a German Catholic who believed that Christianity was corrupt. He worked with the existing church leaders when it suited him, and brushed them aside when it did not. He had a list of grievances about how the religion was being corrupted, and how he wanted it fixed. Eventually, he finally brushed the church aside completely, and started his own version of Christianity. And of course, his version of Christianity had no place for Jews - whom he believed were all liars.
Is he still Christian, after all of this? Does anything there: calling the religion corrupt, forming his own sect, spewing hate-speech (about Jews) - does any of that rule out his Christianity?
(And i warn you! ^_^; You'd better be veeeeeery careful with your answer. ^_-) @above (don't feel like fighting all the quotes lol)
In my opinion, yes, he is still Christian. Islamic extremists, who were once likely average Muslims, have twisted Islam around to fit their ideologies, views, motives, etc., and they've somewhat created a "new religion." They're still Muslims (if we accept Muslim = Islam practicing individual), however. Maybe I'm missing something (not out of the ordinary!), but how is this situation much different?
| Indi wrote: |
| Here we have a German Catholic who believed that Christianity was corrupt. He worked with the existing church leaders when it suited him, and brushed them aside when it did not. He had a list of grievances about how the religion was being corrupted, and how he wanted it fixed. Eventually, he finally brushed the church aside completely, and started his own version of Christianity. And of course, his version of Christianity had no place for Jews - whom he believed were all liars. |
I love the whooshing sound such comparisons make as they fly over people's heads.
Martin Hitler indeed | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | How did he behave like an orthodox christian ?
Is the Reich Church not evidence enough of his true intentions ? |
No, if you even took the bother to look a bit back.
Ure use some braincells that have something to do with memory. |
Sorry is that an answer ???????? , can not or will not answer, tell you what just have a rant.......lol | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | How did he behave like an orthodox christian ?
Is the Reich Church not evidence enough of his true intentions ? |
No, if you even took the bother to look a bit back.
Ure use some braincells that have something to do with memory. |
Sorry is that an answer ???????? , can not or will not answer, tell you what just have a rant.......lol |
and just look at the quote below...
there is the answer,
now say something about i and others said... | Indi wrote: |
Now, without a clear definition of what is and what is not a Christian, we can't really pin Hitler down qualitatively. But what we can do is use comparisons. All we have to do to show Hitler is a Christian is show him doing things that other Christians do or have done. And all we have to do to show he's not Christian is show him doing things that no Christian should do or has done. Let's see how that works out. |
To make comparisons like that means you have not read his thoughts on how church organisations have used propaganda to good effect, if Hitler thought the lie was good then it stands to reason he would have used a simular train of lies , do's it not ?
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | All I see him is he himself implying hes somehow divinely chosen, a moody and implusive meglomaniac who became detatched from reality, if asked who was the greatest German to have ever lived , Hitler would have said Hitler. |
Well, first, i have to point out that you have clearly not read enough of what Hitler said or wrote - that much has been made clear throughout this thread. Hitler did claim he was divinely called... but then, so did hundreds and hundreds of other rulers, including this guy. |
WoW you may be on to something
| Indi wrote: |
And he was a megalomaniac. However, he always put God first, always. He never, ever said God wasn't great or that he could have (or did) accomplish everything he did without God - in public or in any of the private letters/quotes we have. He may have called himself the greatest German (but that sounds like speculation on your part based on your opinion of Hitler... not reality), but that doesn't disqualify him from being Christian, does it? |
Do his private letters to none Christians mention religion ?, everytime he mentions religion is it only to affirm his Godly position ?
| Indi wrote: |
So nothing i see you accusing him of here hasn't been done by other Christians. |
Or other none Christians....... people from all walks of life lie, cheat, murder, steal , copying actions to gain the ends does not constitute the same ideology 
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I see no evidence that Hitler ever spoke about the God of Abraham but spoke more like a Deist than a Christian . |
This has to be the dumbest thing i have seen said in this whole discussion. ^_^; Either you have no clue what Hitler spoke about, or you have no clue what a Deist is, or both. The proof for how stupid this claim is is in the fact that you, yourself, shot it down. You said he said he was divinely chosen. Deists would not say that, because a Deist god does not interfere with the world - which would include choosing rulers.
In fact, i see a lot of double-talk on your part. One minute you claim that whenever he claimed to be Christian he lied, then next you claim he never spoke about being Christian.
The facts are that Hitler did wax quite eloquently about the Christian god, and about Jesus. In fact, like someone else i could name, he never shut the hell up about them. Secularists at the time put up a hell of a fight over his introducing of religion into government as much as he did (sound familiar?), and, famously, the first thing Hitler did on achieving power was to shut down Germany's biggest secularist organization. |
First im a dumb ass who has not read enough on Hitler to make any judgements of the mans attitude toward his fellow human beings.........ok ,anyone who can completly understand the ramblings of My Struggle (its almost like there was more than one author to me), or can take a quote from a paragraph, then from that quote give such strength to a few words while totally ignoring the underlying message in the rest of the book, well, they deserve an Iron Cross........ in a nutshell I see Hitler attempting to set up a theocracy with himself as the "deity", something that has happend through out history , not even anything new, granted Hitler used Christianity, but in my opinion out of context and for obvious control benefits, yes Christianity has bad uses, and Christians do seem to be like sheep at times who if they hear key words will accept almost any bastadisation of the Bible
| Indi wrote: |
Now, you can claim that this was all a front he put up to use religion to obtain power... but once he had dissolved the senate and had absolute power, he only got more bombastic with the religious rhetoric... so that claim doesn't hold up. |
Had the game finished ?..........if he was trying to set himself up as a king-God or the go between man and God would it have ever ended ?.... somehow I doubt it would , what would be next a Nazi Bible ? 
| Indi wrote: |
You can claim that he used Christianity to manipulate the people before and during his reign... but all of his private records indicate that he was just as religious when talking with close friends... so that claim doesn't have any evidence to support it. Besides, even if that's true, it wasn't Hitler who tortured Jews, it was people he was "manipulating with Christianity". So even if Hitler was atheist, Christians are still guilty of the crimes of the Holocaust. And if they had no problem executing Jews and being Christian at the same time... why should Hitler? |
I totally agree the Christians that followed him were guilty, in a way more so, I would like to see these private records if possible.
Hitler was definately anti-athiest , was it because they did not believe in Gods, providence , or anything divine or because he could not control them with it ? | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | How did he behave like an orthodox christian ?
Is the Reich Church not evidence enough of his true intentions ? |
No, if you even took the bother to look a bit back.
Ure use some braincells that have something to do with memory. |
Sorry is that an answer ???????? , can not or will not answer, tell you what just have a rant.......lol |
and just look at the quote below...
there is the answer,
now say something about i and others said... |
make mine a double please The 'whoosh' is turning into a roar...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The 'whoosh' is turning into a roar... |
I'm fairly certain most of it went over my head lol...Thought we were talking about Hitler, but I'm not really sure anymore (assuming Martin Luther though!).Bzzztt. Correct. (the roar reduces back to a gentle whoosh).*
* Nicked from the late great Douglas Adams - | D.Adams wrote: |
| I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. |
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Had the game finished ?..........if he was trying to set himself up as a king-God or the go between man and God would it have ever ended ?.... somehow I doubt it would , what would be next a Nazi Bible ? |
Well why wouldn't he stop faking at some point.
He never said anything against "his" christianity and really if he faked it how do you know? Any sources.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I totally agree the Christians that followed him were guilty, in a way more so, I would like to see these private records if possible. |
I gave you a link and there is a section on private notes;
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
I reccomend you to look page at every that is linked to on that site (even a quick look would do)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Hitler was definately anti-athiest |
No he was not
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| was it because they did not believe in Gods, providence , or anything divine or because he could not control them with it ? |
No he tolerated atheists, even some prominent nazi's were atheist.
Besides why did you haven't you responded to liljp617's post or the post made by me they have a bunch of quotes. Isn't that proof enough?
Even so provide some proof that he was faking.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Hitler was definately anti-athiest |
No he was not |
Actually, that's not true. He was very anti-atheist. His first act on taking power was to destroy Germany's largest atheist organization, to which he said: "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." He completely eliminated the separation of church and state, and made all schools religious schools rather than secular schools. In the concentration camps, atheists wore purple triangles, the symbol of religious deviance/corruption.
He only very rarely mentions atheists or secularism explicitly. Most of the time he lumps them under the title of "Bolshevik" (the same thing was done by Americans in the fifties, who lumped atheism and communism together... you've surely heard of "godless communists"?). But there are plenty of occasions where he rails on atheists and secularists explicitly.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | was it because they did not believe in Gods, providence , or anything divine or because he could not control them with it ? |
No he tolerated atheists, even some prominent nazi's were atheist. |
Again, that's not true. All of the Nazi elite were Christian - mostly Catholic - with one or two exceptions who where neo-Paganists (which was basically a mix of Nordic tradition and Christianity)... and while they were public with their neo-Paganism, they had no official support for it (the party officially supported only Christianity).
The only Nazi official who came close to being atheist was Martin Boormann. But he was quite definitely Christian - it's just that he was a more middle-of-the-road, liberal Christian than the rest of the party. He didn't believe the church should have so much control over the government - mind you, he didn't believe in separation of church and state... he wanted a Christian government, but he wanted one that was not controlled by the church, merely guided. Now, today, that's a rather right-wing position. But compared to Hitler and the rest of the cabinet, the man was a far-left liberal. ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| To make comparisons like that means you have not read his thoughts on how church organisations have used propaganda to good effect, if Hitler thought the lie was good then it stands to reason he would have used a simular train of lies , do's it not ? |
But here's the problem. There is a sum total of zero evidence that Hitler faked his Christianity for the sake of controlling the people. None. Zip. Zilch. There was not one word written or spoken by Hitler in public or in private to the effect of: "I'm not really Christian - I'm just faking it to control the people." Not a blessed one - and we have no shortage of quotes from Hitler recorded publicly and privately that show a string of mental lapses and character flaws... practically everything the man to anyone who survived the war said has been recalled at one point or another.
You are quite literally making shit up without a smidgeon of evidence to justify it - the only reason i can see for even possibly making that suggestion is that you simply don't want to admit the man was Christian. There is literally not a single reason besides that. Not one. You say the man was a liar, i say, "well, duh, but don't Christians lie, too?" You say the man used Christianity to manipulate other Christians to get what he wanted, i say, "And this makes him special... how?"
To show you how silly what you're trying to pull is, i'll do the same thing. ^_^; i am going to claim that... Hitler was not really anti-Semitic. i am going to claim that he just used the Jews as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate people, but he really didn't hate them personally. What's that you say? "That's an idiotic claim?" Well, we know the man was a liar, right? We know he believed in using lies to manipulate the masses, right? So it stands to reason that he might have used a similar tactic with respect to his anti-Semitism, does it not? ^_^;
(And don't - just don't - try to play along with that in order to protect your own shaky premise. That would be the ultimate in disrespect to the six million or so Jews that died and millions more that suffered. Just don't go there.)
Just as with your claim, there is not a snifter of evidence that Hitler faked his anti-Semitism, and boatloads of evidence that he took it seriously. So why would anyone make that claim? Well, dum-de-dum! People have! People have indeed try to say that Hitler did not really intend for the Holocaust. Why would they do this? Is it the evidence? No, of course not - they do it because they want to believe something, so they grasp on to every single bit of circumstantial evidence they can find, and warp it to suit their case. Same with you. There is not one iota of evidence that Hitler faked his Christianity, and boatloads that he took it seriously. But rather than pay attention to the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that Hitler was not only Christian - he was devout - you grasp onto little bits of circumstantial evidence as if they were the loose thread that unravels the whole thing.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Do his private letters to none Christians mention religion ?, everytime he mentions religion is it only to affirm his Godly position ? |
Well now, that's an excellent question - because if he was just faking his Christianity, why would he have to fake it to non-Christians, right? That would actually undermine his control, if he carried on with his rabid Christianity in private, wouldn't it? Non-Christians would be turned off if they realized it wasn't just a front to control Christians... so if Hitler was faking his Christianity for support, logic dictates he should have toned it down in private, hm?
So what... did Hitler... do? ^_^
Well, as it turns out, your closet atheist was just as rambunctiously Christian in private as he was in public. ^_^; Some of the quotes that have already been shared here are between Hitler and neo-Paganist members of his cabinet... but the catch is that pretty much all of Hitler's friends, even the most rabid neo-Paganists like Rosenberg, were all Christian to a degree (in that they believed in God and Jesus, but wanted to assert that Jesus was not a Jew, among other things). Hitler had no atheist friends that i know of (hmmm...) - and the only atheist he admired, that i know of, was Darwin, whose theories he learned in corrupted form via Eugene Fischer and Fritz Lenz.
But... i can tell you about two almost atheists that worked closely with Hitler. ^_^
Jospeph Goebbels - one of the most famous of all the Nazis. Atheist? No, not really. He was raised a Catholic, like Hitler... however he had a lapse of faith. (What actually happened was Goebbels was a hard-core socialist, and blamed all of Germany's problems on capitalism, whereas Hitler blamed Germany's problems on the Jews with his fanatic religious and racial rhetoric. That turned Goebbels off Hitler and his extremism.) So, what did Hitler do? Hitler calls the man in for a sit-down... and converts him back into a rabid Christian. ^_^; For the rest of his life, Goebbels spewed stuff like: "I converse with Christ." Even after Hitler died, Goebbels carried on... for a little while.
So... your atheist Hitler, upon discovering that one of his men was having doubts about his beliefs, does what? He preaches the dude back into the Christian flock! ^_^; Note, he doesn't - as you believe he should - tell the man to just suck it up and fake it to win votes! No, sir! He turns the man into a hard-core Christian. Hm.
Oh, but there's more. ^_^;
Martin Boormann. Who's he, you ask? He was "the man behind the man" - the guy who made things work while Hitler acted as figurehead. Was he atheist? No, deist or Christian who opposed organized Christianity. What's not debatable is that pretty much ever "atheist" quote attributed to Hitler actually came from Boormann - mostly from his letters to Rosenberg. Boormann opposed Hitler's attempts to create a state church, but only in private. He was the one who said Christianty was bad for Nazism. So how did Hitler respond to this? Well, here's the funny part. ^_^; According to your theory - that Hitler was a closet atheist - he should have been happy to find someone that agreed with him, and he should have warned Boormann to keep his (lack of) faith, but keep his mouth shut because Christianity was their meal ticket, but otherwise done nothing. The reality: Boormann kept his (lack of) faith from Hitler. ^_^; He was afraid to tell Hitler that he opposed his religious agenda, and spent his time bitching to Rosenberg instead. Hm. ^_^; And the one time the man actually published his beliefs, he did so confidentially, and when Hitler found out, he blew his top. Note again: Hitler was not the least bit cagey about how he handled the situation - he should have allowed the publication to go on rather than trying to recall and supress it, and then he should have blamed it on Bolsheviks. That would have been the Machiavellian thing to do. Instead, he took it as a personal affront, and chastised Boormann for his lack of faith - and remember, all of this was in private!
Again... your atheist Hitler, upon discovering that one of his men had published an anonymous tract against organized religion, does what? He recalls and suppresses the tract, and privately lectures the offender about his lack of faith. ^_^; He does not - as you would think he should - turn it into a political advantage, he takes it as a personal insult and reacts in the manner of a religious person whose faith has just been challenged.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Or other none Christians....... people from all walks of life lie, cheat, murder, steal , copying actions to gain the ends does not constitute the same ideology |
Yes, but people from all walks of life don't join a Christian-values political party, make it more rabidly Christian, and attempt to institute a Christian state church. ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| First im a dumb ass who has not read enough on Hitler to make any judgements of the mans attitude toward his fellow human beings.........ok ,anyone who can completly understand the ramblings of My Struggle (its almost like there was more than one author to me), or can take a quote from a paragraph, then from that quote give such strength to a few words while totally ignoring the underlying message in the rest of the book, well, they deserve an Iron Cross........ in a nutshell I see Hitler attempting to set up a theocracy with himself as the "deity", something that has happend through out history , not even anything new, granted Hitler used Christianity, but in my opinion out of context and for obvious control benefits, yes Christianity has bad uses, and Christians do seem to be like sheep at times who if they hear key words will accept almost any bastadisation of the Bible |
And here's the core of the problem: "... in a nutshell I see Hitler attempting..."
"You see"? ^_^; Who cares what you see? This is not a matter that should be decided by your opinion, or mine for that matter, it should be decided upon by looking at the historical evidence objectively. You can see Hitler as whatever you want to - the facts remain unchanged. And, by the way, those facts do not include Hitler setting himself up as a deity. Once again, there's not a word supporting this claim, it's just something you're putting there.
In point of fact, Hitler saw himself as a devout Christian who was doing God's work in eradicating the Jews - and this is not my opinion, this is what Hitler said. Over and over and over again, in public and in private (and if you want to read his private letters, they're widely available online), and supported by everyone who knew him. Everything he said and did agrees with this - the only way you get it to support your theory is to selectively pick certain actions as legitimate and call the others lies put on for show. That is dishonest. You have the answer - it's right there, evidenced by everything Hitler ever said and did.
Why would you decide to pick and choose only some of those actions and quotes and disregard the rest? There's no reason to, unless you have an ulterior motive. And how do you decide which ones to disregard and which ones to trust? Why, that's easy if you have an ulterior motive - just pick the facts you need to suit your beliefs and disregard the rest. ^_^; Only, that's intellectual dishonesty.
----------------------------------
You know, i gotta say this now because it's making my head hurt... what is the point of revising history with respect to Hitler's religion? Why? It makes no god-damned sense, by any measure.
Hitler was a Christian... so the ****** what? ^_^; That doesn't make Christianity equivalent to Nazism. And it's not like Hitler is either the first or the last evil Christian. Come on, man! The history books are full of rancidly evil Christians! And we still have them today in the likes of the Phelps clan. What the hell harm does it really do to add Hitler to the list?
Look, watch - watch what I do here: Stalin was an atheist. See that? See what I did there? That's intellectual honestly, not historical revisionism. Stalin was an atheist. So was Mao Zedong. There, i said it. Does that make atheism responsible for their crimes? Of course not! It's childish to think so.
And this whole Hitler denial thing gets even stupider! Because even if Hitler was not a Christian... and even if every damn Nazi responsible for the Holocaust were also not Christians (see how silly this is getting?)... Christianity is still responsible for the Holocaust, because the hatred of Jews is based on long-standing Christian tradition. Wiemar Republic Germany got it by way of centuries-old Catholic tradition (making Jews wear yellow stars was invented by a Pope, and Hitler drew a lot of influence from Martin Luther), in which Hitler simply became the next page in a long history. Denying Hitler was a Christian does nothing to fix that little issue... so what. is. the. ******. point? ^_^;
As evil as it is, i can at least understand Holocaust deniers... because if they succeed in denying the Holocaust, their problem goes away - Germany is no longer responsible for the deaths of all those Jews. They have motivation for their denial. It has a point.
But denying Hitler's Christianity is not only evil, it's ****** stupid. ^_^; If you succeed in revising history to make Hitler an atheist (or a neo-Pagan, or whatever)... so what? ^_^; You gain nothing, because millions of Holocaust supporters and/or enactors will still be Christian... and the underlying cause of the Reich's anti-Semitism is still Catholic anti-Semitism, which has roots in the anti-Semitism in the Gospels. There is no rational motivation for denying Hitler's Christianity, because even if you succeed you gain nothing except a lie in your history books. If Hitler is atheist, then atheism is still not responsible for the Holocaust (because no part of atheism leads naturally to Holocaust logic, and tracing back the logic used by the people who did it shows it clearly does not have an atheistic basis), and Christianity still is (because Christianity has a long history of anti-Semitism, and the people who carried out the Holocaust call back on that tradition). There's no point! ^_^;
Hey, if you really want to get Christianity off the hook, there's your angle. ^_^; Forget Hitler, he's a red herring. What you have to do is try to deny Christian anti-Semitism. Good luck. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
Actually, that's not true. He was very anti-atheist. His first act on taking power was to destroy Germany's largest atheist organization, to which he said: "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." He completely eliminated the separation of church and state, and made all schools religious schools rather than secular schools. In the concentration camps, atheists wore purple triangles, the symbol of religious deviance/corruption.
He only very rarely mentions atheists or secularism explicitly. Most of the time he lumps them under the title of "Bolshevik" (the same thing was done by Americans in the fifties, who lumped atheism and communism together... you've surely heard of "godless communists"?). But there are plenty of occasions where he rails on atheists and secularists explicitly. |
Really? I'm pretty much shure that's not true I never heard that story. Do you have any sources.
I'm very shure that his secretary was an atheist. He did disbandon atheist organizations however I never ever heard a story of someone being prosecuted because he didn't believe in god.
But I may be wrong... | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Really? I'm pretty much shure that's not true I never heard that story. Do you have any sources. |
For which story? ^_^;
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| I'm very shure that his secretary was an atheist. |
You mean Martin Boormann. That's a widely spread myth, but it's not true. What happens is that people are so desperate to clear Christianity of the Reich's crimes that they jump on any criticism of Christianity as a sign of atheism. A moment's thought shows how silly that is. If you were standing on the street and someone said to you, "Boy, Christianity sure is in a mess these days," would you conclude that the person is an atheist? Would you even conclude that the person's not Christian? ^_^; Of course not. Criticising Christianity is a favourite pastime of many Christians. i don't see anyone trying to claim that Jim Phelps is an atheist for claiming that Christianity in America is too feeble and meek. ^_^; i don't see anyone claiming that Jack Chick is an atheist for publishing rant tracts about how the Catholic Church is a fraud.
Now, Boormann was very critical of the church, and thought it should have no part in the government... but you have to read carefully. He wanted the church out of government, not religion. He was definitely not down with Hitler's drive to make a state church, and he believed in separation of church and state... but how the hell does that make someone atheist? ^_^; The founding fathers of America believed in the separation of church and state, too, and they weren't atheist.
No, Boormann was Christian - Catholic, actually - it's just that in comparison to the rest of the Nazi party, he seemed atheist. He was like a moderate Christian of today: one who believes faith belongs in your heart, not your government.
Now, he was vicious in his criticism of organized Christianity, so i will grant people who want to say he wasn't Christian. i don't agree (Jim Phelps and Jack Chick are both vicious critics, too... and certainly they're Christian), but i can understand where that comes from, so i'll let it slide without comment. If you want to say Boormann was not Christian, fine, i won't argue - i disagree, but i won't argue it. But there's a long line from "not Christian" to "atheist". You're not automatically an atheist just because you're not a Christian. Boorman was just as viciously anti-atheist as Hitler, and he spoke about God (or the Creator) all the time.
One thing i should mention... you do realize how silly it is for an atheist to join the Nazi Party, don't you? ^_^; The Nazi Party ran on a platform of Christian values. In many ways, they were very similar to the Republican Party of America today (mostly in their social positions... in their economics, they were actually more in line with the Democrats), especially the more extremist right-wing parts of it. How many atheists are there up high in the Republican Party? ^_^; And keep in mind... this was back in the 1920s and before. Today, it is almost socially acceptible to be an atheist (they're still the most hated group in America). Back then... no way. Atheism was tightly linked to communisim (also Bolshevism), because of what was happening in Russia. The Nazi Party actually started out as socialist, but over the course of Hitler's leadership, it changed course to the point that it openly railed against socialism (as a Jewish invention - this was what almost drove Goebbels away) because it was almost communism. Much like what would happen 20 or 30 years later in America, communism was a bogeyman for the Nazis, and - just as in McCarthyism - atheism tightly linked to that. Basically, the general thought was that if you were atheist, you were communist (just like today: if you're atheist, you must be "evolutionist"), and hence, scum. The more things change, the more they stay the same, hm?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
He did disbandon atheist organizations however I never ever heard a story of someone being prosecuted because he didn't believe in god.
But I may be wrong... |
i'm not sure if anyone was actually prosecuted for being atheist. i know they had a concentration camp category for it, but i don't know if it was ever used. Think about it - unlike being a Jew or Roma, you can't pick out an atheist by their family tree... and unlike other "undesirable" religious groups, like Mormons and Quakers, atheists have - by nature - no inclination to die for their (lack of) religion. A Quaker believes that renouncing their religion will be witnessed by God, and they'll have to answer for it in the after life, and that it would be better for them if they die for the sake of their god rather than renounce him to save their own ass. An atheist... not so much. ^_^;
But you never know. If you can find statistics for people killed in the concentration camps, let me know if there are any atheists listed. And not just atheists who were taken for other reasons (like opposing the Reich), i mean people were taken just for being atheist. i doubt you'll find many, if any. As long as they kept their mouths shut, atheists were no threat to the Reich - and unlike those groups that were taken just for being members of that group, atheists have no identifying symbols (like Freemasons and their rings) or practices (like Quakers and their services), so there's no way to spot them. Those atheists that didn't keep their mouths shut would have been identifed as opponents of the Reich, not atheists.
Back in the 1920s, atheists were very, very rare. Today, they make up... what... 12-15% of the most religious country in the free world? Back then, i doubt it would have broken 2%. Think about atheism even today, and realize that in the past 10 years, more atheist activism has happened than in the whole 20th century. ^_^; It's only in the last 10 years that we've begun to see books like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great breaking into the mainstream. That seriously would never have happened even in the 1980s! Back in the 1920s, it simply wasn't respectible to be an atheist. The thing to be - if you thought religion was stupid - was an agnostic deist. To be an atheist back in those days pretty much meant you were also communist (and vice versa).
Laws against atheists - including death penalties - were on the books of most countries for hundreds of years. But in all those centuries, maybe only a handful of people were actually nailed for it - and most of those cases can be reasonably argued as being due to other things, like criticizing the church. It's easy and common to name atheists as criminal... it's harder to pin someone done for being guilty of a lack of believing. | Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Really? I'm pretty much shure that's not true I never heard that story. Do you have any sources. |
For which story? ^_^; |
Atheist prosecution...
Okay I don't know much about hitlers staff but guess they were pretty much religious I did a small search on the net and found out that all of those nazi's were pretty religious. And looks like church propaganda got to me...
True "find the atheist" is quite hard.
I did found out that atheist had purple triangles in the concentration camps together with religious dissenters (Jehovah's Witnesses, Bible Student movement members, Quakers , Neopagans , Baptists , Adventists. However finding any record of 1 atheist in the conce-camps's is hard and I am unable to find any. Also this may because there were virtually no atheist's at the time except for comminists but those were a "threat" for being commi's so were gotten rid of for being commi's. And maybe not many people had given a thought to "not believing in any god". Life was hard then especially with the economic breakdown wich started in wall street. And throufg out his speeches he has little to say about not commi atheist's.
Anyway this shows that Hitler WAS religious. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | | Really? I'm pretty much shure that's not true I never heard that story. Do you have any sources. |
For which story? ^_^; |
Atheist prosecution... |
Prosecution or persecution? i don't know of any atheist prosecutions in Nazi Germany - most prominent atheists fled in the early days. Persecution sources? i don't know of any on the Net, but Google should help, once you sift through the "Hitler was atheist" shit (and the numerous pages that exist to refute that). i did a little bit of Googling, and i found a few. What i can do is give you more info you can use to narrow down your search.
In 1933, an act was passed in Germany, similar to the Patriot Act in the US but more far-reaching (under the same sort of circumstances, too). That act gave Hitler the power to act without senate support to take care of serious threats to Germany. One of the first things he did with this power was outlaw atheist, secularist and "freethinker" (what we would probably call secular humanist today) organizations. You've undoubtedly heard about Freethinkers Hall - the home of the biggest such organization in Germany. Wanna know what happened there? The Nazis declared their organization illegal, ran them out of the hall... and then... converted the hall into an information centre for people who were atheist but were seeking religion!!! ^_^; (You gotta admire the chutzpah, if nothing else. ^_^; )
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Okay I don't know much about hitlers staff but guess they were pretty much religious I did a small search on the net and found out that all of those nazi's were pretty religious. And looks like church propaganda got to me... |
It's an old trick to undermine the truth. What you do is start broadcasting - as loudly and frequently as you can - a lie that's completely ridiculous (like Hitler and/or Nazism being atheist). Most normal people, when they hear two sides of a story - such as "Hitler was a fanatical Christian" vs. "Hitler was an atheist" - assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. So if you want to confuse the issue, and disguise the fact that Hitler was a hard-core Christian, you start tossing around the ridiculous "Hitler was an atheist" lie, and normal people assume the truth is that Hitler was neither atheist or Christian... but something in between.
Of course, you can see for yourself that that's just not true. Sometimes one side of the argument is simply plain right, and the other is just bullshit. That's the case here. Atheism played absolutely no part at all in Nazism, or anything associated with them. There were - from the start and all the way through - a hard-core Christian organization.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
True "find the atheist" is quite hard.
I did found out that atheist had purple triangles in the concentration camps together with religious dissenters (Jehovah's Witnesses, Bible Student movement members, Quakers , Neopagans , Baptists , Adventists. However finding any record of 1 atheist in the conce-camps's is hard and I am unable to find any. Also this may because there were virtually no atheist's at the time except for comminists but those were a "threat" for being commi's so were gotten rid of for being commi's. And maybe not many people had given a thought to "not believing in any god". Life was hard then especially with the economic breakdown wich started in wall street. And throufg out his speeches he has little to say about not commi atheist's.
Anyway this shows that Hitler WAS religious. |
Yup, purple triangles - upside down ones, if i recall. And times were tougher in Germany than in the US - the depression was bad all over, but Germany was also recovering from the trouncing during WW1.
Atheism is a valid option today, but not back then. Nowadays we have academic and moral justification for atheism, including prominent atheist spokespersons (like Dawkins). Back then, they had none of that, and on top of that they had open and outspoken anti-atheist rhetoric. It's easy to be an atheist today, not so much then. | Indi wrote: |
You are quite literally making shit up without a smidgeon of evidence to justify it - the only reason i can see for even possibly making that suggestion is that you simply don't want to admit the man was Christian. There is literally not a single reason besides that. Not one. You say the man was a liar, i say, "well, duh, but don't Christians lie, too?" You say the man used Christianity to manipulate other Christians to get what he wanted, i say, "And this makes him special... how?"
|
I care little about Christianity ...... what shit have I made up ? .... I like standing in the woods alone, its so noisy, if you care to listen, the only reason I can see yourself and others claiming that he was Christian is Christian bashing, you even go on to bash Christians anyway
Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book" .
| Indi wrote: |
To show you how silly what you're trying to pull is, i'll do the same thing. ^_^; i am going to claim that... Hitler was not really anti-Semitic. i am going to claim that he just used the Jews as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate people, but he really didn't hate them personally. What's that you say? "That's an idiotic claim?" Well, we know the man was a liar, right? We know he believed in using lies to manipulate the masses, right? So it stands to reason that he might have used a similar tactic with respect to his anti-Semitism, does it not? ^_^;
(And don't - just don't - try to play along with that in order to protect your own shaky premise. That would be the ultimate in disrespect to the six million or so Jews that died and millions more that suffered. Just don't go there.)
|
Lets not forget they were not all Jews
| Indi wrote: |
Just as with your claim, there is not a snifter of evidence that Hitler faked his anti-Semitism, and boatloads of evidence that he took it seriously. So why would anyone make that claim? Well, dum-de-dum! People have! People have indeed try to say that Hitler did not really intend for the Holocaust. Why would they do this? Is it the evidence? No, of course not - they do it because they want to believe something, so they grasp on to every single bit of circumstantial evidence they can find, and warp it to suit their case. Same with you. There is not one iota of evidence that Hitler faked his Christianity, and boatloads that he took it seriously. But rather than pay attention to the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that Hitler was not only Christian - he was devout - you grasp onto little bits of circumstantial evidence as if they were the loose thread that unravels the whole thing.
|
devout !!!!.. well he did show piety, but for me His talk of God/religion is sanctimonious claptrap plain and simple.
I have seen where people try to say the holocaust didnt even happen, we know it did, and was not limited to Jews alone, I assume he would have got to blacks and gays also and all the other little sub-humans in due time, I am trying to research how much money/business was taken from the Jewish community during this period , and how much real political power/influence the Jewish community had at the time, I am quite sure I have not said Hitler was not anti-semetic , you could argue he was anti-everyone who was not Arian , who were the closest none Arians to the Germans , and did they have there assets stolen ? did his views on the Jews stem from the bible or from his real need to change Christian attitudes toward Judo-Christian law to acomplish his military aims.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Do his private letters to none Christians mention religion ?, everytime he mentions religion is it only to affirm his Godly position ? |
Well now, that's an excellent question - because if he was just faking his Christianity, why would he have to fake it to non-Christians, right? That would actually undermine his control, if he carried on with his rabid Christianity in private, wouldn't it? Non-Christians would be turned off if they realized it wasn't just a front to control Christians... so if Hitler was faking his Christianity for support, logic dictates he should have toned it down in private, hm?
So what... did Hitler... do? ^_^
Well, as it turns out, your closet atheist.... |
Woah there Neddy.... I have not said he was an Athiest..
| Indi wrote: |
...was just as rambunctiously Christian in private as he was in public. ^_^; Some of the quotes that have already been shared here are between Hitler and neo-Paganist members of his cabinet... but the catch is that pretty much all of Hitler's friends, even the most rabid neo-Paganists like Rosenberg, were all Christian to a degree (in that they believed in God and Jesus, but wanted to assert that Jesus was not a Jew, among other things). Hitler had no atheist friends that i know of (hmmm...) - and the only atheist he admired, that i know of, was Darwin, whose theories he learned in corrupted form via Eugene Fischer and Fritz Lenz.
But... i can tell you about two almost atheists that worked closely with Hitler. ^_^
Jospeph Goebbels - one of the most famous of all the Nazis. Atheist? No, not really. He was raised a Catholic, like Hitler... however he had a lapse of faith. (What actually happened was Goebbels was a hard-core socialist, and blamed all of Germany's problems on capitalism, whereas Hitler blamed Germany's problems on the Jews with his fanatic religious and racial rhetoric. That turned Goebbels off Hitler and his extremism.) So, what did Hitler do? Hitler calls the man in for a sit-down... and converts him back into a rabid Christian. ^_^; For the rest of his life, Goebbels spewed stuff like: "I converse with Christ." Even after Hitler died, Goebbels carried on... for a little while.
So... your atheist Hitler, upon discovering that one of his men was having doubts about his beliefs, does what? He preaches the dude back into the Christian flock! ^_^; Note, he doesn't - as you believe he should - tell the man to just suck it up and fake it to win votes! No, sir! He turns the man into a hard-core Christian. Hm.
Oh, but there's more. ^_^;
Martin Boormann. Who's he, you ask? He was "the man behind the man" - the guy who made things work while Hitler acted as figurehead. Was he atheist? No, deist or Christian who opposed organized Christianity. What's not debatable is that pretty much ever "atheist" quote attributed to Hitler actually came from Boormann - mostly from his letters to Rosenberg. Boormann opposed Hitler's attempts to create a state church, but only in private. He was the one who said Christianty was bad for Nazism. So how did Hitler respond to this? Well, here's the funny part. ^_^; According to your theory - that Hitler was a closet atheist - he should have been happy to find someone that agreed with him, and he should have warned Boormann to keep his (lack of) faith, but keep his mouth shut because Christianity was their meal ticket, but otherwise done nothing. The reality: Boormann kept his (lack of) faith from Hitler. ^_^; He was afraid to tell Hitler that he opposed his religious agenda, and spent his time bitching to Rosenberg instead. Hm. ^_^; And the one time the man actually published his beliefs, he did so confidentially, and when Hitler found out, he blew his top. Note again: Hitler was not the least bit cagey about how he handled the situation - he should have allowed the publication to go on rather than trying to recall and supress it, and then he should have blamed it on Bolsheviks. That would have been the Machiavellian thing to do. Instead, he took it as a personal affront, and chastised Boormann for his lack of faith - and remember, all of this was in private!
Again... your atheist Hitler, upon discovering that one of his men had published an anonymous tract against organized religion, does what? He recalls and suppresses the tract, and privately lectures the offender about his lack of faith. ^_^; He does not - as you would think he should - turn it into a political advantage, he takes it as a personal insult and reacts in the manner of a religious person whose faith has just been challenged.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Or other none Christians....... people from all walks of life lie, cheat, murder, steal , copying actions to gain the ends does not constitute the same ideology |
Yes, but people from all walks of life don't join a Christian-values political party, make it more rabidly Christian, and attempt to institute a Christian state church. ^_^; |
lol.........with the book as the Bible that says no more of God than " I believe I am the chosen one "
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | First im a dumb ass who has not read enough on Hitler to make any judgements of the mans attitude toward his fellow human beings.........ok ,anyone who can completly understand the ramblings of My Struggle (its almost like there was more than one author to me), or can take a quote from a paragraph, then from that quote give such strength to a few words while totally ignoring the underlying message in the rest of the book, well, they deserve an Iron Cross........ in a nutshell I see Hitler attempting to set up a theocracy with himself as the "deity", something that has happend through out history , not even anything new, granted Hitler used Christianity, but in my opinion out of context and for obvious control benefits, yes Christianity has bad uses, and Christians do seem to be like sheep at times who if they hear key words will accept almost any bastadisation of the Bible |
And here's the core of the problem: "... in a nutshell I see Hitler attempting..."
"You see"? ^_^; Who cares what you see? This is not a matter that should be decided by your opinion, or mine for that matter, it should be decided upon by looking at the historical evidence objectively
You can see Hitler as whatever you want to - the facts remain unchanged. And, by the way, those facts do not include Hitler setting himself up as a deity. Once again, there's not a word supporting this claim, it's just something you're putting there.
In point of fact, Hitler saw himself as a devout Christian who was doing God's work in eradicating the Jews - and this is not my opinion, this is what Hitler said. Over and over and over again, in public and in private (and if you want to read his private letters, they're widely available online), and supported by everyone who knew him. Everything he said and did agrees with this - the only way you get it to support your theory is to selectively pick certain actions as legitimate and call the others lies put on for show. That is dishonest. You have the answer - it's right there, evidenced by everything Hitler ever said and did.
Why would you decide to pick and choose only some of those actions and quotes and disregard the rest? There's no reason to, unless you have an ulterior motive. And how do you decide which ones to disregard and which ones to trust? Why, that's easy if you have an ulterior motive - just pick the facts you need to suit your beliefs and disregard the rest. ^_^; Only, that's intellectual dishonesty. |
I'm stupid,dishonest,silly, I make shit up..........I must be a Christian then
I see it as I am the only person that has taken in to account more than just quotes, when in a book a person praises the church for its ability to control the masses, then assumes a religious stance aimed at the masses...........reading underneath I agree, I will close my comments on Hitler with, just because Hitler had testicles we should not cut ours off, its obvious that he made some religion and science more evil than ever intended
| Indi wrote: |
You know, i gotta say this now because it's making my head hurt... what is the point of revising history with respect to Hitler's religion? Why? It makes no god-damned sense, by any measure.
Hitler was a Christian... so the ****** what? ^_^; That doesn't make Christianity equivalent to Nazism. And it's not like Hitler is either the first or the last evil Christian. Come on, man! The history books are full of rancidly evil Christians! And we still have them today in the likes of the Phelps clan. What the hell harm does it really do to add Hitler to the list?
Look, watch - watch what I do here: Stalin was an atheist. See that? See what I did there? That's intellectual honestly, not historical revisionism. Stalin was an atheist. So was Mao Zedong. There, i said it. Does that make atheism responsible for their crimes? Of course not! It's childish to think so.
And this whole Hitler denial thing gets even stupider! Because even if Hitler was not a Christian... and even if every damn Nazi responsible for the Holocaust were also not Christians (see how silly this is getting?)... Christianity is still responsible for the Holocaust, because the hatred of Jews is based on long-standing Christian tradition. Wiemar Republic Germany got it by way of centuries-old Catholic tradition (making Jews wear yellow stars was invented by a Pope, and Hitler drew a lot of influence from Martin Luther), in which Hitler simply became the next page in a long history. Denying Hitler was a Christian does nothing to fix that little issue... so what. is. the. ******. point? ^_^;
As evil as it is, i can at least understand Holocaust deniers... because if they succeed in denying the Holocaust, their problem goes away - Germany is no longer responsible for the deaths of all those Jews. They have motivation for their denial. It has a point.
But denying Hitler's Christianity is not only evil, it's ****** stupid. ^_^; If you succeed in revising history to make Hitler an atheist (or a neo-Pagan, or whatever)... so what? ^_^; You gain nothing, because millions of Holocaust supporters and/or enactors will still be Christian... and the underlying cause of the Reich's anti-Semitism is still Catholic anti-Semitism, which has roots in the anti-Semitism in the Gospels. There is no rational motivation for denying Hitler's Christianity, because even if you succeed you gain nothing except a lie in your history books. If Hitler is atheist, then atheism is still not responsible for the Holocaust (because no part of atheism leads naturally to Holocaust logic, and tracing back the logic used by the people who did it shows it clearly does not have an atheistic basis), and Christianity still is (because Christianity has a long history of anti-Semitism, and the people who carried out the Holocaust call back on that tradition). There's no point! ^_^;
Hey, if you really want to get Christianity off the hook, there's your angle. ^_^; Forget Hitler, he's a red herring. What you have to do is try to deny Christian anti-Semitism. Good luck. ^_^; |
Discussing if someone was a Christian or not, is not quite the same as discussing if Christianity is a good moral base for any society, you would probably agree with me on the answer to that point, we probably could do better.So, now we are getting somewhere. Without a definition of what makes a Christian, the discussion is obviously going to go nowhere. You (Tumbleweed) now seem to have put some flesh on this with: | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book" . |
So, a Christian is defined as a 'practising Christian'? And a practising Christian is defined as someone who regularly attends Church throughout their life ?
Is that really what you wanted to say?
That would seem to be contrary to the theology of most of the Christian denominations I am aware of. Not attending mass is certainly considered to be a sin in some denominations (including the one I am most familiar with - Catholicism) but it is certainly not grounds for considering the non-attendee a 'non-Christian'. If we use this definition then I wonder how many people who profess themselves to be Christians are, in fact, not so? I can tell you for certain that here in the UK this would make the large majority of the population 'non Christian'. Personally speaking I would be quite happy if that were indeed the case, but I suspect that such a contention would meet with a lot of resistance. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
I care little about Christianity ...... what shit have I made up ? .... I like standing in the woods alone, its so noisy, if you care to listen, the only reason I can see yourself and others claiming that he was Christian is Christian bashing, |
No its something called the "truth" as I said before people who belong to all sorts of groups do bad things that doesn't mean the whole group is bad.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
you even go on to bash Christians anyway
Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book". |
That is near impossible just about all churches in Berlin bombed so if they kept ANY record they are gone and I doubt that they ever had kept record of it. At least "my experience*" is that if you go to church somewhere you don't have to give your name, go in pray etc. go out.
*Never heard anything about it and doubt it used to be like that.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| devout !!!!.. well he did show piety, but for me His talk of God/religion is sanctimonious claptrap plain and simple. |
For you? That doesn''t mean I was intended like that.
"For me" shows subjectivity and is not taken seriously.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
I have seen where people try to say the holocaust didnt even happen, we know it did, |
I have seen where people try to say that he wasn't christian however, we know he did,
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
and was not limited to Jews alone, I assume he would have got to blacks and gays also and all the other little sub-humans in due time, I am trying to research how much money/business was taken from the Jewish community during this period, and how much real political power/influence the Jewish community had at the time |
I do fail to say the connection between the holocaust and being a christian or not.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| , I am quite sure I have not said Hitler was not anti-semetic , you could argue he was anti-everyone who was not Arian , who were the closest none Arians to the Germans , and did they have there assets stolen ? did his views on the Jews stem from the bible or from his real need to change Christian attitudes toward Judo-Christian law to acomplish his military aims. |
Hitler didn't need to exterminate the jews to gain a lot of military power you are speculating things that are quite far fetched, when he was dictator he could do anything he wanted.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Do his private letters to none Christians mention religion ?, everytime he mentions religion is it only to affirm his Godly position ? |
Well now, that's an excellent question - because if he was just faking his Christianity, why would he have to fake it to non-Christians, right? That would actually undermine his control, if he carried on with his rabid Christianity in private, wouldn't it? Non-Christians would be turned off if they realized it wasn't just a front to control Christians... so if Hitler was faking his Christianity for support, logic dictates he should have toned it down in private, hm?
So what... did Hitler... do? ^_^
Well, as it turns out, your closet atheist.... |
Woah there Neddy.... I have not said he was an Athiest.. |
Respond to that in private notes/messages he also acted as a very dedicated. And your respond is about something completely else. And well maybe you never stated that he was atheist however, if he wasn't christian what would he be then? An atheist. Why? Cause there are no quotes that he believed in something else...
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
lol.........with the book as the Bible that says no more of God than " I believe I am the chosen one " |
What do you mean by that? Same as last no valid point.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
I'm stupid,dishonest,silly, I make shit up..........I must be a Christian then
I see it as I am the only person that has taken in to account more than just quotes, when in a book a person praises the church for its ability to control the masses, then assumes a religious stance aimed at the masses...........reading underneath I agree, I will close my comments on Hitler with, just because Hitler had testicles we should not cut ours off, its obvious that he made some religion and science more evil than ever intended |
Did he use Science? Where? Evil science?
As weapons yes but not as an motivation or excuse.
You simply ignore the things that you don't want to respond to and keep moving the goalposts.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in totalI'll have to admit that I find the works of Richard Dawkins a little too form-wise conceptualized, and the journalistic sensational ideas that permeates it all, gives it too much of a propaganda-theme to it... Though this is obviously something that can be seen all through self-representation in public spheres; it's all a scene on which we act, to make ourselves look as good as possible (basically this post is a product of the same thing I guess.)
With this said, I generally find the discussion Dawkins takes, interesting. I share in general his ideas on atheism, though just not his almost revolutionary-minded opinion on changing it, and neither his non-questioning hailing of western science.
What I find most problematic, are two related issues; first of all, Dawkins brings forward the notion that religion is non-rational in many ways, and that if we were to rid ourself of it, the world would change for the better etc.. The thing here, as I see it, is that religion - as a product of basic human instincts - is not really a question of whether or not to have it, but rather of which form it takes. We're in need of explanatory models for counter-intuitive occurences, and by that, concepts to lean on.
This leads me on to the second thing I'm a little opposed to; regardless of Dawkins mission in trying to show how religion and science are mutually exclusive ideas in almost every way, I cannot totally share this opinion. (Western) Science itself have many characteristica that can be termed 'religious' as well. It is as well out of need for explanatory models, that this has come to be, and just as religion it is part of a tradition that changes and reflects the contemporary historical period. Just accepting scientifically validated ideas to be true, is as hollow as logic in any religion.
If seeing religion and science as two completely separate branches, and thinking that a world without religion would simply benefit science, is merely fallacious. Being emotionally involved in non-rational concepts, makes us overall more dedicated, and maybe this in fact itself benefits science.
| Melacos wrote: |
| What I find most problematic, are two related issues; first of all, Dawkins brings forward the notion that religion is non-rational in many ways, and that if we were to rid ourself of it, the world would change for the better etc.. The thing here, as I see it, is that religion - as a product of basic human instincts - is not really a question of whether or not to have it, but rather of which form it takes. We're in need of explanatory models for counter-intuitive occurences, and by that, concepts to lean on. |
Who is this 'we' that you are describing? Clearly it does not include Dawkins himself. Neither does it include me and many other secular humanists/atheists. Obviously, then, this cannot be a basic human requirement (unless you are proposing that I am in some way inhuman). We have many instincts - such as the instinct to hurt someone who threatens us, the instinct to have sex with people we don't know, and so on. Being human means that we do not have to act on those urges/instincts. You are arguing that this 'instinct' (if we accept that it is such, and you have by no means established that) is somehow insurmountable. I think that is nonsense.
Science, by the way, provides many models for counter-intuitive phenomena. Are you familiar with the two pillars of modern physics - Quantum theory and Relativity? Neither of these can be said to be 'intuitive'. If what you actually mean is that we need 'explanations' for miracles, then I say why on earth would we want that? If we could explain them in a model then they wouldn't be miracles would they? Inventing models for things which don't occur/exist is a perfectly valid theological exercise, but I doubt you could make a serious case for it as a fundamental human requirement.
I also question the notion that religion is a natural product of human instincts. I think it probably arose that way, but we have moved on since the days when intentionality was assigned to thunder and lightening, bad crops and earthquakes. Mankind has thousands of years of culture to call upon, including science, which provides much more satisfactory answers for everyday phenomena. The challenges of survival are much different today and there is little call for the original 'intentionality stance' from which, I believe, religion arose.
The questions of 'why are we here?' and 'what happens afterwards?', of course still remain for many people, and, to the extent that religion addresses these, it will continue to survive for some time. It is only very recently that we have been able to seriously contemplate non-religious answers to these questions (indeed to consider whether the very questions themselves have any validity). In the last couple of centuries many people (including the religious) have come to the realisation that the answers provided by religion to these 'fundamental questions' are often trite, illogical and rather silly and that the questions themselves may be based on a false premiss.
| Quote: |
| This leads me on to the second thing I'm a little opposed to; regardless of Dawkins mission in trying to show how religion and science are mutually exclusive ideas in almost every way, I cannot totally share this opinion. (Western) Science itself have many characteristica that can be termed 'religious' as well. It is as well out of need for explanatory models, that this has come to be, and just as religion it is part of a tradition that changes and reflects the contemporary historical period. Just accepting scientifically validated ideas to be true, is as hollow as logic in any religion. |
Scientifically validated ideas says it all. There is no such thing as religiously validated ideas (unless you use the word in a tautological sense).
There is no faith required in science, yet there is no religion without faith. Religion does not offer explanatory models - a model is something you can use to make predictions about a phenomenon or group of phenomena. Religion offers no such thing. It offers un-testable 'truths' about the meaning of existence. Science does not change to reflect contemporary values/mores. The usages of, and focuses on, science might change in such a way but basic science certainly does not. Change is built-into science, since any new observation requires confirmation by existing models, adjustment of such models or even a new model.
Religion changes reluctantly - often when forced to do so by scientific progress. Religion is not designed to change, since most religions are based on some 'inerrant' scriptural reference material.
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total | Tumbleweed wrote: |
I care little about Christianity ...... what shit have I made up ? .... I like standing in the woods alone, its so noisy, if you care to listen, the only reason I can see yourself and others claiming that he was Christian is Christian bashing, you even go on to bash Christians anyway
Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book" . |
"The only reason?" ^_^; Are you serious?!?! Haven't you been here for the last half dozen posts or so?!?!
Ok, you want an example of shit you've made up? ^_^; Right there, there's a good example: this idea that Hitler had to be a "practicing Christian" to be a Christian. As Bikerman has already pointed out, that's an incredibly silly requirement because so many Christians don't regularly go to church (and we've already pointed out that while Hitler was very pro-faith, he was anti-church). But even more ridiculous, riddle me this - what if i were to show you records showing that Hitler went to church "religiously" (pun intended)? What if i were to tell you that he went to church every Sunday the whole time? Would that be "proof"? Hardly. You could just say he was putting that act on for the benefit of the people... the same way you've been doing all along! ^_^;
i mean, seriously, you've been given direct quotes... they're not good enough. You asked for quotes in private, and were given them too... they're not good enough either. i've even gone out of my way to describe dozens of actions of Hitler's that make no sense unless he was Christian... not good enough. Now you're asking for what church he attended? Why should i bother looking that up? As Klaw 2 says, you're just moving the goalposts, and this particular move is particularly silly. Dismissing Hitler's church attendance as irrelevant is trivial - especially if you've already dismissed everything the man said and wrote.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
To show you how silly what you're trying to pull is, i'll do the same thing. ^_^; i am going to claim that... Hitler was not really anti-Semitic. i am going to claim that he just used the Jews as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate people, but he really didn't hate them personally. What's that you say? "That's an idiotic claim?" Well, we know the man was a liar, right? We know he believed in using lies to manipulate the masses, right? So it stands to reason that he might have used a similar tactic with respect to his anti-Semitism, does it not? ^_^;
(And don't - just don't - try to play along with that in order to protect your own shaky premise. That would be the ultimate in disrespect to the six million or so Jews that died and millions more that suffered. Just don't go there.)
|
Lets not forget they were not all Jews |
No, duh. -_- But the ones who were affected by Hitler's anti-Semitism were.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| devout !!!!.. well he did show piety, but for me His talk of God/religion is sanctimonious claptrap plain and simple. |
See - you have no reason for saying that. It's (again, you asked me to show you this) shit you made up. You are selectively choosing which Hitler quotes to support (the ones where he talks about propaganda), and which to ignore (the ones where he talks about his religious beliefs). And even more dishonestly, you're doing so completely without reason, because the two sets of quotes are not exclusive. What's so difficult about the idea that Hitler used propaganda and manipulation to impress his religious views on the public (rather than hide them, as you claim)? Unlike your version of events, that theory explains everything while being contradicted by nothing.
(And he wasn't even the first or the last Christian to write about manipulating people!! Look, this is from Thomas freakin Aquinas, the father of modern Christian thought: "Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches." Was Thomas Aquinas not a Christian now? ^_^)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have seen where people try to say the holocaust didnt even happen, we know it did, and was not limited to Jews alone, I assume he would have got to blacks and gays also and all the other little sub-humans in due time, I am trying to research how much money/business was taken from the Jewish community during this period , and how much real political power/influence the Jewish community had at the time, I am quite sure I have not said Hitler was not anti-semetic , you could argue he was anti-everyone who was not Arian , who were the closest none Arians to the Germans , and did they have there assets stolen ? did his views on the Jews stem from the bible or from his real need to change Christian attitudes toward Judo-Christian law to acomplish his military aims. |
Once again, we have the answer to that question... but i suppose you'll choose to ignore it because it is based on what Hitler said.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Woah there Neddy.... I have not said he was an Athiest.. |
No, you haven't, but then you haven't said a whole hell of a lot of anything, now have you? You've offered no evidence for your claims except your "feelings". You say you "feel" that he was lying about his Christianity, but not his anti-Semitism (for example)... no evidence, of course, it's just what you feel. So... i feel that you think he was an atheist. ^_^ i know i have no evidence for this, except that some of your quotes can be circumstantially interpreted to support the claim if you sorta kinda squint... but i feel it to be so. ^_^; Hey, if that kind of evidence is good enough for you, why can't it be good enough for me?
So far, the only reasons you've given us for the claim that Hitler wasn't Christian so far are:
- Hitler sometimes lied - or often lied, if you prefer - but you have a mysterious gift where you can tell when he was lying and when he was not. (The rest of us rely on old fashioned methods, like seeing when his words don't match his deeds.)
- You don't think he was Christian. You feel that he was a cartoonish megalomaniac who wanted to establish himself as the deity of his own religion. The fact that there is no evidence to support any of this is apparently irrelevant.
i tell you what, though, here's your chance. ^_^ Go ahead, let's hear your argument, complete with evidence. If Hitler wasn't a Christian, and he wasn't an atheist, what do you think he was? Why? What evidence? Let's hear it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I see it as I am the only person that has taken in to account more than just quotes.... |
Lies. ^_^;
First, we're not taking anything into account but quotes? Then explain this: "Yes, but people from all walks of life don't join a Christian-values political party, make it more rabidly Christian, and attempt to institute a Christian state church. ^_^;" Isn't that evidence - his behaviour - more than just quotes?
Second, what exactly are you taking into account, if not just quotes - and specifically, only those quotes that serve your purpose? Hm? Specifically, you consider the quotes where talks about stupidity of the masses and that manipulating them is all fine and good (as you mention in the next bit). Meanwhile, you ignore:
- The quotes where he specifically describes his religious beliefs.
- Testimony from friends who all describe him as devout.
- The evidence of his behaviour, before, during and after his rise to power.
Ah, of course, what am i saying? ^_^; You are relying on more than just (some) quotes, you're relying on (some) quotes... and your feeling. ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ... when in a book a person praises the church for its ability to control the masses, then assumes a religious stance aimed at the masses.... |
Ok, let's think rationally here. Christianity is c2000 years old now, and it has been very dominant for c1600 years or more. Do you think Christians are stupid? Seriously. Do you think they're all dumb? Or do you think they're all perfect, virtuous little icons of moral integrity? i'm asking these questions quite seriously. Because you seem to think that in over a thousand years of Christian thought that not one single Christian has written about the power of the church and religion to control the masses. Do you really believe that? Because it sounds a little loony to me.
i'm going to go on the assumption that you're not really that gullible, and that you do believe that Christians can - and have - written about using Christianity for such Machiavellian tricks in the past. i mean, i could offer you dozens of quotes showing famous Christians throughout history cheerfully supporting lying to the public to further the cause of the church - including Popes! - but i'm going to assume you're smart enough to realize how obvious it is that this has happened in the past on several occasions. Christians aren't stupid - they're smart enough to realize how easy their religion can be used to manipulate the ignorant. And they're not perfect little moral soldiers - they can and have used their religion in this way in the past.
So... given that Christians can - and have - written about - and done - such dishonest things in spite of - or even in the name of - their religion... what part of Hitler saying (or doing) such things provides any sign that he was not Christian?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Discussing if someone was a Christian or not, is not quite the same as discussing if Christianity is a good moral base for any society, you would probably agree with me on the answer to that point, we probably could do better. |
Absolutely. If Hitler was Christian, that by itself doesn't make Christianity responsible for the Holocaust. (Of course, there are other factors in the equation that do make Christianity quite culpable, but that's another story. And even though Christianity was a cause of the Holocaust, that doesn't make the whole religion criminal... in the years since, the parts of Christianity that were responsible for the Holocaust have been mostly excised - with the possible exception of whatever kind of Christianity Mel Gibson subscribes to.)
But historical revisionism is evil, and denying Hitler's religion is historical revisionism, plain and simple. The evidence for religion being a very important part of who Hitler was, and his actions, is overwhelming. The motivation for denying it has always been to protect the sanctity of religion (although, if you have an alternate motivation, as you keep implying, feel free to share it - but so far your reasons have all be irrational) which makes it all the more heinous.
| Melacos wrote: |
| ... western science. |
i am always suspicious of people who say "western science". Is there a difference between science here and in China that i am not aware of?
| Melacos wrote: |
| The thing here, as I see it, is that religion - as a product of basic human instincts - is not really a question of whether or not to have it, but rather of which form it takes. We're in need of explanatory models for counter-intuitive occurences, and by that, concepts to lean on. |
That's actually an interesting point of view. To give it proper justice, i'll have to mull it over for a while, but i can give you my knee-jerk responses to it for now.
First - i won't deny that religion is a product of basic human instincts, or that it fulfils certain basic human needs. But i question whether that alone is justification enough to just toss out the question of whether or not to have it. Violent retaliation is another product of basic human instincts. Males treating females as property is yet another product of basic human instincts. In these cases, we have built a society that requires that we lift ourselves above these basic human instincts... so simply being a basic human instinct is not reason enough for saying that we just have to accept it. As for satisfying basic human needs, that may be true... but as Dawkins himself points out, that doesn't make religion true. Comforting is not the same as true. And given the expense and damage that religion causes, it certainly seems justified to say that it's worthwhile to look for something else that satisfies those needs that religion does.
| Melacos wrote: |
| This leads me on to the second thing I'm a little opposed to; regardless of Dawkins mission in trying to show how religion and science are mutually exclusive ideas in almost every way, I cannot totally share this opinion. (Western) Science itself have many characteristica that can be termed 'religious' as well. It is as well out of need for explanatory models, that this has come to be, and just as religion it is part of a tradition that changes and reflects the contemporary historical period. Just accepting scientifically validated ideas to be true, is as hollow as logic in any religion. |
There are several problems with this.
Yes, science from some of the same basic needs as religion - to explain. The difference is the two wildly different - and incompatible - methods. Science is carefully designed using tools that guarantee the highest probability possible of being right given our limited knowledge and capabilities. To put it another way, science is designed so that there is nothing that has a better chance of being right. (Note: that doesn't mean that science is guaranteed to be right, it just means that if you have two different people trying to find an answer, and one is using science and the other is using anything else - the smart bet would be to trust the scientist.) But as part of this, science refuses to answer some of the other basic needs religion answers: the comfort of familiarity and ceremony, and of offering meaning to life, and that there is anything better possible. So they are really not all that similar. Science refuses to go for the easy answer, or the fulfilling answer, whereas that's pretty much religion's game. In fact, science will readily and happily admit when and if it can't answer something, whereas religion usually tries to offer an explanation for everything (no matter how absurd), in order to avoid the discomfort of having to admit ignorance.
The fact that science changes is part of science's very definition, whereas religion - as part of its definition - insists on ultimate truths that shouldn't shift over time, so it shouldn't vary with changes in society. The fact that it does is quite damning, and you will find that many religious apologists spend a great deal of time either denying that their religion has changed, or insisting that previous generations had it all wrong... but they have it right now. That's another significant difference. If science doesn't change... it's failing. If religion does change... it's failing.
And finally, your last sentence is technically true... but wrong-headed. Yes, simply accepting scientific claims as true would be as hollow as religious faith... but that's the opposite of how science works (although, it is exactly how religion works). In science, anyone who advocated simply accepting something because they say so, or because it sounds good, or because it is comforting... would be laughed out of the field, because it's so absurdly anti-science, it's laughable. A scientific theory is never simply accepted as true... it is rigorously challenged always, perpetually, never-ending. Ideas as old as human knowledge have been challenged and overturned by science, and will continue to be. By contrast, people are still citing books that are thousands of years old as infallible in religions.
Of course, that's within science... how about lay persons? If they accept science as correct is it the same as accepting religion as correct. Absolutely not - that's just absurd. Even if you don't know how they figured some fact out, and even if the math of that fact is totally beyond you, the nature of science and scientific inquiry means that you can be rationally assured that any fact science gives you has the backing of evidence, reason and the fact that it has withstood challenge. It's like saying you have two guys telling you which path is the safest way through a minefield. On the one hand you have a guy who has spent years charting the minefield in detail with the latest technology, cross-checking his results with others, and scrupulously testing whenever there is any conflict. On the other, you have a guy who says God is telling him the safe path. By no rational way can you argue the two sources are equally reliable, or that you are taking an irrational leap of faith by going with the first guy over the second - no matter how hard you try. Trusting science is not faith, it's completely rational.
| Melacos wrote: |
| If seeing religion and science as two completely separate branches, and thinking that a world without religion would simply benefit science, is merely fallacious. Being emotionally involved in non-rational concepts, makes us overall more dedicated, and maybe this in fact itself benefits science. |
There have been plenty enough irreligious scientists to refute this, though. Openly and outspokenly atheist scientists like Sagan talk about their reverence for nature, and their love of discovery, and their fascination with the workings of the universe. Some scientists have even called this kind of reverence "religion" - because it shares many similar features, notably the ones you think we need real religion to provide - but of course that term is misleading. There is no faith involved, and even the reverence is rational for most of those guys.
Religion does not and cannot benefit science, except for in very limited ways. Like, religious alms could be collected and used to fund science, or religious acolytes could be required to do scientific experiments or research as part of their order... these kinds of things have been done in the past, and it is these kinds of things that supporters of religion try to use to justify keeping religion in science. But the problem is, that support has its limits. Sooner or later, science will almost certainly start to undermine any religion (except the one religion that turns out to be ultimately and complete true... but what's the chance of that?). The church in the middle ages was quite happy to patronize science... until it started showing the cracks in the church's dogma. That's how it will always go - religion may support science for a while, but eventually, they will be in conflict. And when that conflict arises, history shows the result: religion tries to destroy science, by undermining it, falsifying it, silencing parts of it that it doesn't like, and generally throwing wrenches into the workings of science. And it even happens today! Just look at "creation science". | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | I care little about Christianity ...... what shit have I made up ? .... I like standing in the woods alone, its so noisy, if you care to listen, the only reason I can see yourself and others claiming that he was Christian is Christian bashing, you even go on to bash Christians anyway
Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book" . |
"The only reason?" ^_^; Are you serious?!?! Haven't you been here for the last half dozen posts or so?!?!
Ok, you want an example of shit you've made up? ^_^; Right there, there's a good example: this idea that Hitler had to be a "practicing Christian" to be a Christian. As Bikerman has already pointed out, that's an incredibly silly requirement because so many Christians don't regularly go to church (and we've already pointed out that while Hitler was very pro-faith, he was anti-church). But even more ridiculous, riddle me this - what if i were to show you records showing that Hitler went to church "religiously" (pun intended)? What if i were to tell you that he went to church every Sunday the whole time? Would that be "proof"? Hardly. You could just say he was putting that act on for the benefit of the people... the same way you've been doing all along! ^_^; |
No not exactly.. What would help prove to me that he was religious is a record of him attending a Church at least on a semi-regular basis before it was politically advantagous....
| Indi wrote: |
i mean, seriously, you've been given direct quotes... they're not good enough. You asked for quotes in private, and were given them too... they're not good enough either. |
Now who lies ?......really that was a joke , the pigeon carrying the PM's must have got lost in flight , so the not seen the private messages (I asked to see H's private messages you referred to not to be sent them) you refered to certainly are not good enough , are you being dishonest or do we have crossed wires, I think I will give you the benifit of the doubt 
| Indi wrote: |
i've even gone out of my way to describe dozens of actions of Hitler's that make no sense unless he was Christian... not good enough. Now you're asking for what church he attended? Why should i bother looking that up? As Klaw 2 says, you're just moving the goalposts, and this particular move is particularly silly. Dismissing Hitler's church attendance as irrelevant is trivial - especially if you've already dismissed everything the man said and wrote. |
You really think asking what Church a Christian attended is moving the goalposts ? I myself think its a reasonable question
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
To show you how silly what you're trying to pull is, i'll do the same thing. ^_^; i am going to claim that... Hitler was not really anti-Semitic. i am going to claim that he just used the Jews as a convenient scapegoat to manipulate people, but he really didn't hate them personally. What's that you say? "That's an idiotic claim?" Well, we know the man was a liar, right? We know he believed in using lies to manipulate the masses, right? So it stands to reason that he might have used a similar tactic with respect to his anti-Semitism, does it not? ^_^;
(And don't - just don't - try to play along with that in order to protect your own shaky premise. That would be the ultimate in disrespect to the six million or so Jews that died and millions more that suffered. Just don't go there.)
|
Lets not forget they were not all Jews |
| Indi wrote: |
| No, duh. -_- But the ones who were affected by Hitler's anti-Semitism were. |
No actually they were not, again as you profess to know so much this is dilberate dishonesty ^_^
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | devout !!!!.. well he did show piety, but for me His talk of God/religion is sanctimonious claptrap plain and simple. |
See - you have no reason for saying that. It's (again, you asked me to show you this) shit you made up. You are selectively choosing which Hitler quotes to support (the ones where he talks about propaganda), and which to ignore (the ones where he talks about his religious beliefs). And even more dishonestly, you're doing so completely without reason, because the two sets of quotes are not exclusive. What's so difficult about the idea that Hitler used propaganda and manipulation to impress his religious views on the public (rather than hide them, as you claim)? Unlike your version of events, that theory explains everything while being contradicted by nothing. |
The pot calling the kettle black springs to mind, I am here quite willing to be convinced, what you have said is not convincing me, I only see you doing what your accusing me off ,with added direct insults I can only assume is to bolster your own point, your taking direct quotes from known political liars and saying there motivation is Christianity, I am looking , listening , and (ok sometimes attempting) reading German literature , art , and music from the late 1800's to the early 1900's in an attempt to see what the nature of there society was like at the time , granted my understanding is limited but I have seen nothing that is more religious than anti-capitalist or simply racist....then I think of the well used British saying "You Jew" which for those who dont know...or want to correct me.... means , you have more than enough but you wont share , this saying to me is racist not religious, based on a financial view, Yes that view can be based on Christian teachings Yes Christianity can be the cause of racial hatred Yes Christianity can help unscrupulous people rise to power , But that is not your point is it....... your point is this perticular (I will leave it to you to decide if he was unscrupulous or not) person was a devout Christian, I see more evidence pointing to his use of many things , none of them put Christianity over his political party , I dont see him ever trying to protect Christianity he/they only uses it as a tool of death ** I will answer Bikerman and hopefully express myself more later**
But in the mean time...more obligatory Christian bashing
| indi wrote: |
(And he wasn't even the first or the last Christian to write about manipulating people!! Look, this is from Thomas freakin Aquinas, the father of modern Christian thought: "Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches." Was Thomas Aquinas not a Christian now? ^_^) |
and some goalpost moving included ^_^
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have seen where people try to say the holocaust didnt even happen, we know it did, and was not limited to Jews alone, I assume he would have got to blacks and gays also and all the other little sub-humans in due time, I am trying to research how much money/business was taken from the Jewish community during this period , and how much real political power/influence the Jewish community had at the time, I am quite sure I have not said Hitler was not anti-semetic , you could argue he was anti-everyone who was not Arian , who were the closest none Arians to the Germans , and did they have there assets stolen ? did his views on the Jews stem from the bible or from his real need to change Christian attitudes toward Judo-Christian law to acomplish his military aims. |
Once again, we have the answer to that question... but i suppose you'll choose to ignore it because it is based on what Hitler said. |
What did his contemporarys say ? ,Is war never big buisiness ? do you expect me to deny the rest of reasons for war , do you expect me to see the other reasons as minor compared to religion , do you expect me to take what I am told blindly on "faith" with no investigation or questioning ?
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Woah there Neddy.... I have not said he was an Athiest.. |
No, you haven't, but then you haven't said a whole hell of a lot of anything, now have you? You've offered no evidence for your claims except your "feelings". You say you "feel" that he was lying about his Christianity, but not his anti-Semitism (for example)... no evidence, of course, it's just what you feel. So... i feel that you think he was an atheist. ^_^ i know i have no evidence for this, except that some of your quotes can be circumstantially interpreted to support the claim if you sorta kinda squint... but i feel it to be so. ^_^; Hey, if that kind of evidence is good enough for you, why can't it be good enough for me? |
No one says it isnt.. only you imply it .. I am not trying to convince you I am correct, I am not trying to attack your beliefs , just because you cant accept that I see things a different way by looking at the evidence for myself you continue to repeat yourself, you seem to just concentrate on religion alone , after a while it becomes almost fundementalist sounding and a little disconcerting ....anyway I see we are back to Hitler
| Indi wrote: |
So far, the only reasons you've given us for the claim that Hitler wasn't Christian so far are:
- Hitler sometimes lied - or often lied, if you prefer - but you have a mysterious gift where you can tell when he was lying and when he was not. (The rest of us rely on old fashioned methods, like seeing when his words don't match his deeds.)
- You don't think he was Christian. You feel that he was a cartoonish megalomaniac who wanted to establish himself as the deity of his own religion. The fact that there is no evidence to support any of this is apparently irrelevant.
i tell you what, though, here's your chance. ^_^ Go ahead, let's hear your argument, complete with evidence. If Hitler wasn't a Christian, and he wasn't an atheist, what do you think he was? Why? What evidence? Let's hear it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I see it as I am the only person that has taken in to account more than just quotes.... |
Lies. ^_^;
First, we're not taking anything into account but quotes? Then explain this: "Yes, but people from all walks of life don't join a Christian-values political party, make it more rabidly Christian, and attempt to institute a Christian state church. ^_^;" Isn't that evidence - his behaviour - more than just quotes? |
Was this Christian state church know as the Reich Church , he joined the party because he liked what he had heard, the question is why was he there, I did read somewhere he claimed to be the seventh member but was actually around the hundreth mark, maybe it is the fact that the victors write history that he is constantly shown as a liar, lie after lie after lie and yet you want me to bring evidence he told the truth....... How about Goebbels diarys ?
| Indi wrote: |
Second, what exactly are you taking into account, if not just quotes - and specifically, only those quotes that serve your purpose? Hm? Specifically, you consider the quotes where talks about stupidity of the masses and that manipulating them is all fine and good (as you mention in the next bit). Meanwhile, you ignore:
- The quotes where he specifically describes his religious beliefs.
- Testimony from friends who all describe him as devout.
- The evidence of his behaviour, before, during and after his rise to power.
Ah, of course, what am i saying? ^_^; You are relying on more than just (some) quotes, you're relying on (some) quotes... and your feeling. ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | ... when in a book a person praises the church for its ability to control the masses, then assumes a religious stance aimed at the masses.... |
Ok, let's think rationally here. Christianity is c2000 years old now, and it has been very dominant for c1600 years or more. Do you think Christians are stupid? Seriously. Do you think they're all dumb? Or do you think they're all perfect, virtuous little icons of moral integrity? i'm asking these questions quite seriously. Because you seem to think that in over a thousand years of Christian thought that not one single Christian has written about the power of the church and religion to control the masses. Do you really believe that? Because it sounds a little loony to me.
i'm going to go on the assumption that you're not really that gullible, and that you do believe that Christians can - and have - written about using Christianity for such Machiavellian tricks in the past. i mean, i could offer you dozens of quotes showing famous Christians throughout history cheerfully supporting lying to the public to further the cause of the church - including Popes! - but i'm going to assume you're smart enough to realize how obvious it is that this has happened in the past on several occasions. Christians aren't stupid - they're smart enough to realize how easy their religion can be used to manipulate the ignorant. And they're not perfect little moral soldiers - they can and have used their religion in this way in the past.
So... given that Christians can - and have - written about - and done - such dishonest things in spite of - or even in the name of - their religion... what part of Hitler saying (or doing) such things provides any sign that he was not Christian?
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Discussing if someone was a Christian or not, is not quite the same as discussing if Christianity is a good moral base for any society, you would probably agree with me on the answer to that point, we probably could do better. |
Absolutely. If Hitler was Christian, that by itself doesn't make Christianity responsible for the Holocaust. (Of course, there are other factors in the equation that do make Christianity quite culpable, but that's another story. And even though Christianity was a cause of the Holocaust, that doesn't make the whole religion criminal... in the years since, the parts of Christianity that were responsible for the Holocaust have been mostly excised - with the possible exception of whatever kind of Christianity Mel Gibson subscribes to.)
But historical revisionism is evil, and denying Hitler's religion is historical revisionism, plain and simple. The evidence for religion being a very important part of who Hitler was, and his actions, is overwhelming. The motivation for denying it has always been to protect the sanctity of religion (although, if you have an alternate motivation, as you keep implying, feel free to share it - but so far your reasons have all be irrational) which makes it all the more heinous. |
The alternate motivations are there ,assuming he was a human , yes I will agree yet again Christianity did indeed play a part in what happened, more so by its inaction, its a lose lose situation I dont see Christianity comming away clean or ever being able to shake the stain
| Bikerman wrote: |
So, now we are getting somewhere. Without a definition of what makes a Christian, the discussion is obviously going to go nowhere. You (Tumbleweed) now seem to have put some flesh on this with: | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Show me where Hitler is shown to be a practising Christian, which Church did he attend regularly through his life ?,because he said so is not evidence to me , given his proven track record and how he talks of propaganda in his "Book" . |
So, a Christian is defined as a 'practising Christian'? And a practising Christian is defined as someone who regularly attends Church throughout their life ?
Is that really what you wanted to say?
That would seem to be contrary to the theology of most of the Christian denominations I am aware of. Not attending mass is certainly considered to be a sin in some denominations (including the one I am most familiar with - Catholicism) but it is certainly not grounds for considering the non-attendee a 'non-Christian'. If we use this definition then I wonder how many people who profess themselves to be Christians are, in fact, not so? I can tell you for certain that here in the UK this would make the large majority of the population 'non Christian'. Personally speaking I would be quite happy if that were indeed the case, but I suspect that such a contention would meet with a lot of resistance. |
** Define a Christian ..... Could we say the allied forces were Christian ?, if we assume they were the we could start by deciding what they were fighting for , to define there Christian values , and seeing what they spoke out against as Christian values could we argue that the from a Christian point of view the winners had God on there side and so the true Christians, personally I find it hard to find a Christian amoungst my peers who has the faith ,or maybe confidence, to speak there convictions , most indeed just refuse to argue before you let them know there going to have one, the mention of religion I have noticed usually brings a question along the lines of "Are you a religious nutter ? " No "Thank God" they say | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ** Define a Christian ..... Could we say the allied forces were Christian ?, if we assume they were the we could start by deciding what they were fighting for , to define there Christian values , and seeing what they spoke out against as Christian values could we argue that the from a Christian point of view the winners had God on there side and so the true Christians, personally I find it hard to find a Christian amoungst my peers who has the faith ,or maybe confidence, to speak there convictions , most indeed just refuse to argue before you let them know there going to have one, the mention of religion I have noticed usually brings a question along the lines of "Are you a religious nutter ? " No "Thank God" they say |
No of course we cannot say that the allies were Christian. Many, probably most of them, were, some of them were not. What has this got to do with Hitler's Christianity?
Are you actually going to answer your own question, or are you just going to gibber? You seem to be implying that Christians are defined by attendance at church - a ridiculous contention, which I have already dealt with. Now you are talking about 'Christian values', without defining what those values are. How can you define the values of a group of people without defining what that group is? Have you actually got a point here?
Since you contend that Hitler was not a Christian then you should be able to state what a Christian is, and why Hitler fails that test (since Hitler was baptised and claimed to be a Christian).
Up to now all I have seen is waffle and blatant untruths. Your whole argument seems to be 'I don't think he was, therefore he wasn't'. It's not very convincing. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | ** Define a Christian ..... Could we say the allied forces were Christian ?, if we assume they were the we could start by deciding what they were fighting for , to define there Christian values , and seeing what they spoke out against as Christian values could we argue that the from a Christian point of view the winners had God on there side and so the true Christians, personally I find it hard to find a Christian amoungst my peers who has the faith ,or maybe confidence, to speak there convictions , most indeed just refuse to argue before you let them know there going to have one, the mention of religion I have noticed usually brings a question along the lines of "Are you a religious nutter ? " No "Thank God" they say |
No of course we cannot say that the allies were Christian. Many, probably most of them, were, some of them were not. What has this got to do with Hitler's Christianity?
Are you actually going to answer your own question, or are you just going to gibber? You seem to be implying that Christians are defined by attendance at church - a ridiculous contention, which I have already dealt with. Now you are talking about 'Christian values', without defining what those values are. How can you define the values of a group of people without defining what that group is? Have you actually got a point here?
Since you contend that Hitler was not a Christian then you should be able to state what a Christian is, and why Hitler fails that test (since Hitler was baptised and claimed to be a Christian).
Up to now all I have seen is waffle and blatant untruths. Your whole argument seems to be 'I don't think he was, therefore he wasn't'. It's not very convincing. |
Again whos trying to convince who !!!! you cant say the allied where Christian dispite there leaders retoric , yet you can of the Nazis , it seems reasonable to me to define the rest of the worlds attitude toward the Nazis , One way to define a Christian is there Church attendence, your saying if I stand outside a Christian Church and watch the congregation go in I have to assume none of them are Christians, did the majority of Hitlers opposing leaders say they were Christian , and did they contend Hitler was wrong in his actions, apart from the fact as you say its my question would you like to answer it ?, you say its ridiculous to assume someone is Christian because they attend a Christian Church, yet its ok to assume they are just because they say so, what next only Athiests won the war ? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Again whos trying to convince who !!!! you cant say the allied where Christian dispite there leaders retoric , yet you can of the Nazis , it seems reasonable to me to define the rest of the worlds attitude toward the Nazis , One way to define a Christian is there Church attendence, your saying if I stand outside a Christian Church and watch the congregation go in I have to assume none of them are Christians, did the majority of Hitlers opposing leaders say they were Christian , and did they contend Hitler was wrong in his actions, apart from the fact as you say its my question would you like to answer it ?, you say its ridiculous to assume someone is Christian because they attend a Christian Church, yet its ok to assume they are just because they say so, what next only Athiests won the war ? |
You seem to have a problem reading what I write (or you are deliberately misrepresenting me).
I did not say that the Nazis were all Christians - I said HITLER was a Christian, just like Churchill was a Christian, just like FDR was a Christian (and, yes, they all DID state that they were Christians). Some of the Nazi party were Christians, some were not - just like the allies. It would be stupid to generalise and say an entire army (or group of armies) was Christian. (As a simple exemplar, clearly many of the Indian soldiers who fought for Britain were NOT Christian).
I did not say that people coming out of a church were unlikely to be Christian - I said that you cannot assume that people who do not attend church are not Christian.
If someone is baptised into the Christian faith, and clearly, and repeatedly states that they are Christian, then by what authority or criteria do you say that they are NOT a Christian?
Frankly you have gone beyond childishness now and into the realms of the ridiculous and the insulting. You are deliberately (or stupidly) misrepresenting postings in a thoroughly dishonest (or idiotic) manner. You are, in short, not worth debating, so therefore I will withdraw.
PS - I assume, from your grammar and spelling, that English is not your first language. Fair enough, I don't pick on people who are communicating in a foreign (to them) language, but you might like to consider that the use of multiple exclamation marks (!!!!) is often a sign of a deranged mind. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | You could just say he was putting that act on for the benefit of the people... the same way you've been doing all along! ^_^; |
No not exactly.. What would help prove to me that he was religious is a record of him attending a Church at least on a semi-regular basis before it was politically advantagous.... |
No, forget about it. You asked to be shown how he acted like a Christian (goalpost 1), and you were shown (joining a Christian values party, converting Germany to a non-secular Christian country, converting his allies, etc.). Then you wanted for evidence that Hitler believed in the "god of Abraham", and that he wasn't just a deist (goalpost 2), and got that, too. Then you asked if his private letters mentioned Christianity (goalpost 3), and of course they do too. Then, after admitting Hitler was anti-atheist, you wanted to know whether that was just because he couldn't control atheists or whether he actually believed in a god (goalpost 4), and i think that's been cleared up, too. And then you wanted to know what church he attended (goalpost number 5), despite the facts that attending church is not mandatory for being Christian, or even all that common in most places, and that there is no relationship between attending church and being Christian - whether Hitler went or not, he may have been doing it for show or he may have been doing it out of habit with no interest in the religion, or he may have shunned church and been a devout believer. (This last goalpost is the silliest of them all.)
Everything you've asked for up to this point you've been given. Every objection you've made has been shown to be lame and pointless. And - despite being explicitly asked, you've given nothing back. Forget about it, i'm not taking you or your requests seriously unless you show me that you're serious, too. i asked you to explain your position clearly. Until you do, i can make only one assumption about it, and that is that you are irrationally attempting to redefine history to suit your own sectarian ideological purposes. There is no other way i can see that you can ignore all the evidence presented by myself, Klaw 2, liljp617, Bikerman, achowles and wherever else you've looked for evidence (if anywhere). i said it before, the ball's in your court, and unless you intend to play it properly, as far as i'm concerned the game's over. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Again whos trying to convince who !!!! you cant say the allied where Christian dispite there leaders retoric , yet you can of the Nazis , it seems reasonable to me to define the rest of the worlds attitude toward the Nazis , One way to define a Christian is there Church attendence, your saying if I stand outside a Christian Church and watch the congregation go in I have to assume none of them are Christians, did the majority of Hitlers opposing leaders say they were Christian , and did they contend Hitler was wrong in his actions, apart from the fact as you say its my question would you like to answer it ?, you say its ridiculous to assume someone is Christian because they attend a Christian Church, yet its ok to assume they are just because they say so, what next only Athiests won the war ? |
You seem to have a problem reading what I write (or you are deliberately misrepresenting me). |
You seem to have the problem my friend, lets go back to my first post.....Racism and fascism like the Nazis, like the Nazis , you move to religion ignoring the racism and fascism, accusing me of claiming Hitler was an athiest or something simular, insinuating that I am attacking atheism by saying Hitler was a athiest , I only mentioned the Nazis because they did contain both racism and fascism , but if you insist they were an exclusive christian creation and club and there ideology was completely taken from the Christian Bible, oh and of course and Hitler was a devout practising Christian then so be it , I am not here to argue with you to change your beliefs , but you may as well be trying to convince me he was a humanist.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I did not say that the Nazis were all Christians - I said HITLER was a Christian, just like Churchill was a Christian, just like FDR was a Christian (and, yes, they all DID state that they were Christians). Some of the Nazi party were Christians, some were not - just like the allies. It would be stupid to generalise and say an entire army (or group of armies) was Christian. (As a simple exemplar, clearly many of the Indian soldiers who fought for Britain were NOT Christian). |
But you go on as if Hitler was the one and only decision maker , that he was a creation and follower of Christianity, the Nazis were totally Hitler ,your initial " I wish these " jump in states your perception of the Nazis as being controlled by a person who is religious , you start off with positive christianity and neo-paganism and move on to christianity simply because I in a way I dont intent to defend it by saying Hitler was'nt one , but lets just remember who brought him up !!!
| Bikerman wrote: |
I did not say that people coming out of a church were unlikely to be Christian - I said that you cannot assume that people who do not attend church are not Christian.
If someone is baptised into the Christian faith, and clearly, and repeatedly states that they are Christian, then by what authority or criteria do you say that they are NOT a Christian? |
You have studied Christianity more than myself , define Christs teachings just the most important will do
All I asked was if Hitler was a Christian what church did he attend, I assummed he never attended one ,I thought maybe my assumptions were wrong , I thought maybe there was a congregation that could speak for his religious side , and strangely for some reason I am still left with my assumptions.
| Bikermum wrote: |
Frankly you have gone beyond childishness now and into the realms of the ridiculous and the insulting. You are deliberately (or stupidly) misrepresenting postings in a thoroughly dishonest (or idiotic) manner. You are, in short, not worth debating, so therefore I will withdraw.
PS - I assume, from your grammar and spelling, that English is not your first language. Fair enough, I don't pick on people who are communicating in a foreign (to them) language, but you might like to consider that the use of multiple exclamation marks (!!!!) is often a sign of a deranged mind. |
The Englishman in me can take the insult of spelling and grammar, but also knows a withdrawal with an insult is no withdrawal, you are going to pick on me because of my spelling and grammar is this what you have come to lower yourself to "Spelling Monitor" ... a little sillyness up above there just to live up to your expectations
!!!! but who was trying to tell who what...... I am half suitcase and half homicidal maniac , what am I , but who do you say that I am?
I have also heard the first person to bring Hitler up in a conversation is blowing smoke out of there ass
| Douglas Adams wrote: |
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. |
Do you agree or not , can these people ever really be trusted , do they allways practise what they preach these people who are politicians , religious or not, no spin , no acting , no pretence , all pigs fed and ready to fly !!!
Sighs
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | You could just say he was putting that act on for the benefit of the people... the same way you've been doing all along! ^_^; |
No not exactly.. What would help prove to me that he was religious is a record of him attending a Church at least on a semi-regular basis before it was politically advantagous.... |
No, forget about it. You asked to be shown how he acted like a Christian (goalpost 1), and you were shown (joining a Christian values party, converting Germany to a non-secular Christian country, converting his allies, etc.). Then you wanted for evidence that Hitler believed in the "god of Abraham", and that he wasn't just a deist (goalpost 2), and got that, too. Then you asked if his private letters mentioned Christianity (goalpost 3), and of course they do too. Then, after admitting Hitler was anti-atheist, you wanted to know whether that was just because he couldn't control atheists or whether he actually believed in a god (goalpost 4), and i think that's been cleared up, too. And then you wanted to know what church he attended (goalpost number 5), despite the facts that attending church is not mandatory for being Christian, or even all that common in most places, and that there is no relationship between attending church and being Christian - whether Hitler went or not, he may have been doing it for show or he may have been doing it out of habit with no interest in the religion, or he may have shunned church and been a devout believer. (This last goalpost is the silliest of them all.) |
Seems every question you dont like is irrelevent.....hmmmmm that sounds familier
| Indi wrote: |
Everything you've asked for up to this point you've been given. Every objection you've made has been shown to be lame and pointless. And - despite being explicitly asked, you've given nothing back. Forget about it, i'm not taking you or your requests seriously unless you show me that you're serious, too. i asked you to explain your position clearly. Until you do, i can make only one assumption about it, and that is that you are irrationally attempting to redefine history to suit your own sectarian ideological purposes. There is no other way i can see that you can ignore all the evidence presented by myself, Klaw 2, liljp617, Bikerman, achowles and wherever else you've looked for evidence (if anywhere). i said it before, the ball's in your court, and unless you intend to play it properly, as far as i'm concerned the game's over. |
And yet I am still not convinced, and please remind me how you play philosophy
Ok as you seem to be giving me things I am not getting , calling me names and stating because Hitler and his close associates "said so" is lame , when the voters were Christian what else could he have appeared to be when trying to get elected , read on from most of Hitlers "religious" quotes and show me where he does not use the same tactic as you and say something along the lines of , and anyway it does not matter because there communist or capitalist or some other reason to hate , he covers as many bases as possible, he said so and so did he.
I asked what church he attended.........and again a diatribe, as aparently his mother was a devout Catholic I thought maybe she had taken him to church as a child , was he an alter boy or not ? when you could have said he went to many many churchs, in fact he was instrumental at putting "bums on seats" for the church(s), he certainly had no preference for which denominations church he could help fill with people, he said things like the church and politics should be seperate,and yet funded them and tried to create one,more bums on seats I imagine.... but if I read jewish-materialism againg I wilt go meed.....toooo late !!!!
But as the balls in my court I will remain willing to be convinced, maybe we should move this discussion back to our "Cultural Christian" friend. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You seem to have the problem my friend, lets go back to my first post.....Racism and fascism like the Nazis, like the Nazis , you move to religion ignoring the racism and fascism, accusing me of claiming Hitler was an athiest or something simular, insinuating that I am attacking atheism by saying Hitler was a athiest , I only mentioned the Nazis because they did contain both racism and fascism , but if you insist they were an exclusive christian creation and club and there ideology was completely taken from the Christian Bible, oh and of course and Hitler was a devout practising Christian then so be it , I am not here to argue with you to change your beliefs , but you may as well be trying to convince me he was a humanist. |
You see you are doing it again - completely misrepresenting what I said - in fact downright lying.
Where did I say that the Nazis were an exclusively Christian creation? Point out the posting.
Where did I say that Nazi ideology was taken completely from the bible? Point out the posting.
Where did I say that Hitler was a devout practising Catholic? Point out the posting. I said he was a Christian - as he himself claimed to be.
The fact is that I said none of those things - you simply accuse me of saying them. You are extremely dishonest and I've done debating with you since there is no point debating someone who continually and deliberately misrepresents what you say.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in totalHitler was a Christian. Enough said.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You seem to have the problem my friend, lets go back to my first post.....Racism and fascism like the Nazis, like the Nazis , you move to religion ignoring the racism and fascism, accusing me of claiming Hitler was an athiest or something simular, insinuating that I am attacking atheism by saying Hitler was a athiest , I only mentioned the Nazis because they did contain both racism and fascism , but if you insist they were an exclusive christian creation and club and there ideology was completely taken from the Christian Bible, oh and of course and Hitler was a devout practising Christian then so be it , I am not here to argue with you to change your beliefs , but you may as well be trying to convince me he was a humanist. |
So basically you said something, like this:
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives, if we point out the bad points of atheism |
So bassically you wrote that and I clearly see that atheism in the same sentence as nazi.
We had a discussion about hitler being christian or not and you never said you misunderstood me, and now you see that your ship is sinking...
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | You could just say he was putting that act on for the benefit of the people... the same way you've been doing all along! ^_^; |
No not exactly.. What would help prove to me that he was religious is a record of him attending a Church at least on a semi-regular basis before it was politically advantagous.... |
No, forget about it. You asked to be shown how he acted like a Christian (goalpost 1), and you were shown (joining a Christian values party, converting Germany to a non-secular Christian country, converting his allies, etc.). Then you wanted for evidence that Hitler believed in the "god of Abraham", and that he wasn't just a deist (goalpost 2), and got that, too. Then you asked if his private letters mentioned Christianity (goalpost 3), and of course they do too. Then, after admitting Hitler was anti-atheist, you wanted to know whether that was just because he couldn't control atheists or whether he actually believed in a god (goalpost 4), and i think that's been cleared up, too. And then you wanted to know what church he attended (goalpost number 5), despite the facts that attending church is not mandatory for being Christian, or even all that common in most places, and that there is no relationship between attending church and being Christian - whether Hitler went or not, he may have been doing it for show or he may have been doing it out of habit with no interest in the religion, or he may have shunned church and been a devout believer. (This last goalpost is the silliest of them all.) |
Seems every question you dont like is irrelevent.....hmmmmm that sounds familier |
Hey, don't get tiffy with me - i just did exactly what you asked me to. ^_^; You wanted me to show you where your moving goalposts were, so i did. Don't blame me if having your dishonesty spelled out at your own request is painful.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Everything you've asked for up to this point you've been given. Every objection you've made has been shown to be lame and pointless. And - despite being explicitly asked, you've given nothing back. Forget about it, i'm not taking you or your requests seriously unless you show me that you're serious, too. i asked you to explain your position clearly. Until you do, i can make only one assumption about it, and that is that you are irrationally attempting to redefine history to suit your own sectarian ideological purposes. There is no other way i can see that you can ignore all the evidence presented by myself, Klaw 2, liljp617, Bikerman, achowles and wherever else you've looked for evidence (if anywhere). i said it before, the ball's in your court, and unless you intend to play it properly, as far as i'm concerned the game's over. |
And yet I am still not convinced, and please remind me how you play philosophy
Ok as you seem to be giving me things I am not getting , calling me names and stating because Hitler and his close associates "said so" is lame , when the voters were Christian what else could he have appeared to be when trying to get elected , read on from most of Hitlers "religious" quotes and show me where he does not use the same tactic as you and say something along the lines of , and anyway it does not matter because there communist or capitalist or some other reason to hate , he covers as many bases as possible, he said so and so did he |
i don't understand half of what you said, but if you're asking for more from me... no. No way. Forget about it. Until you provide evidence for your claim, i'm writing you off as a crank. As far as i'm concerned, i have provided more than enough evidence to convince any rational person - anyone else here think i haven't done enough? - so if you're not convinced yet that means one of two things:
- You know something i don't and are not sharing your knowledge - which is why i have asked for it several times, and am now demanding it.
- You don't care about rational thought - you want to believe what you believe regardless of any evidence or reason. In other words, you're just a nut that i wouldn't want to waste my time on.
Until you provide whatever evidence you're withholding for point 1, i'm going to have to assume 2.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I asked what church he attended.........and again a diatribe, as aparently his mother was a devout Catholic I thought maybe she had taken him to church as a child , was he an alter boy or not ? when you could have said he went to many many churchs, in fact he was instrumental at putting "bums on seats" for the church(s), he certainly had no preference for which denominations church he could help fill with people, he said things like the church and politics should be seperate,and yet funded them and tried to create one,more bums on seats I imagine.... but if I read jewish-materialism againg I wilt go meed.....toooo late !!!! |
Again, i don't understand half of this - and again, if you're asking for more from me the answer is no. i've given you more than enough. i don't see what point relating Hitler's childhood desire to be a priest would make - do you still believe now what you believed at 8 years old? If you changed your views between then and now, why couldn't Hitler change his views as he grew up? i don't see what point it would make to talk more about Hitler's faith-based initiatives (i already mentioned that when he made atheism illegal, he replaced the freethinker base of operations with a Christian outreach centre to bring more people to Christ... but i guess you missed that, hm?) - you'd just write those off as faking it for the voters. i frankly don't see the point in giving you anything more, especially since you haven't given a damn thing back.
So i'm waiting. The ball is in your court. Provide evidence or a reasonable argument for believing Hitler was not a Christian if you want anything else from me. | Indi wrote: |
So i'm waiting. The ball is in your court. Provide evidence or a reasonable argument for believing Hitler was not a Christian if you want anything else from me. |
Ive been called a liar a nut ,dishonest and a few other things in this thread, and yet I feel I have given you just that , my initial post was there to ask is there bad side to athiesm , does it have one ? what can be the dangers ? But Bikerman moved the goalposts !!!! , I was wondering could a generation or indeed an individual take on the task of killing religion, can it be ever be killed.......but those three little words "Like the Nazis" brought out nothing but intolerance, backed up by more and more intolerence, you keep saying I am moving the goal posts as if you define the argument , Bikerman said Hitler was a Christian, you have said he was a devout Christian, but was that really the question ? who is skirting what issue ?.....But Hey lets go back to one of my moving goal post moments , I will ask again where does Jesus's teachings relate to Hitlers practical applications to problems , I dont ask because I think the answer will only validate my own thoughts, I ask because I really cant see how they do, maybe thats the winning sides education system or as you say I am a nut , it seems either way I have no answer.
So on the point of Hitler being a Christian I am still unconvinced. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Ive been called a liar a nut ,dishonest and a few other things in this thread, and yet I feel I have given you just that , my initial post was there to ask is there bad side to athiesm , does it have one ? what can be the dangers ? |
Your initial post did not just ask questions. It made comparisons, and those comparisons were misinformed and offensive. And when people pointed out to you how offensive and misinformed your comparisons were, you defended them... and that is why you haven't been particularly popular in this thread.
If you just want to ask what the "dangers" of atheism are, you should just do so. You shouldn't provide your own list of "dangerous" versions of atheism - especially when they are all flagrantly wrong - when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| But Bikerman moved the goalposts !!!! |
i neither know nor care what Bikerman did. i was talking about you. Even if Bikerman did move the goalposts, that doesn't make it right for you to do it too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| , I was wondering could a generation or indeed an individual take on the task of killing religion, can it be ever be killed....... |
Which, of course, has nothing to do with atheism in particular. Religions have been attempting to kill each other off since the dawn of time. If atheism is trying to do the same thing, then the only difference between that and religion is that it is not trying to replace the religions it kills off with another religion. But even that's not necessarily true, because atheism does not mean lack of religion.
So, in other words, your "wondering" was off-topic, misinformed and offensive. You were - and it seems still are - completely clueless about what atheism is.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| but those three little words "Like the Nazis" brought out nothing but intolerance, backed up by more and more intolerence, you keep saying I am moving the goal posts as if you define the argument , Bikerman said Hitler was a Christian, you have said he was a devout Christian, but was that really the question ? who is skirting what issue ?..... |
That would be you that's skirting the issue.
Why do i say this? Because you - as you just said - brought up the Nazis as an example of atheism gone bad. Sheer stupidity, because the Nazi movement was an explicitly Christian movement - so it has nothing to do with "atheism gone bad". Even if you refuse to accept that Hitler was a Christian, you cannot deny that the vast majority of the Nazis were. Germany was - and still is! - a predominantly Christian country. So bringing up Nazis in conjunction with "atheism going bad" was stupid, and wrong.
Yet, you keep defending this stupid and obviously wrong comparison! Even now! You're still determined to believe that Hitler was not a Christian... as if that makes any difference to the stupidity and offensiveness of your original comments... and you still can't give any rational reason why anyone would want to believe that.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
But Hey lets go back to one of my moving goal post moments , I will ask again where does Jesus's teachings relate to Hitlers practical applications to problems , I dont ask because I think the answer will only validate my own thoughts, I ask because I really cant see how they do, maybe thats the winning sides education system or as you say I am a nut , it seems either way I have no answer.
So on the point of Hitler being a Christian I am still unconvinced. |
i can't help the fact that you're unconvinced, because i can't make you think intelligently.
All i can do is analyze your reasons for believing Hitler was not a Christian, and see if they have any worth at all - or whether you're just wasting everyone's time.
But you're not giving me your reasons. You're just asking me for mine, over and over and over and over. Even now, again. i've given you pages of reasons, and everyone else seems pretty well convinced. But you've given nothing.
So no, i say again - no matter how many times you ask me for more, i am giving you nothing more. Not until you tell us what you believe, and why.
And until you do that, i have no reasonable option but to assume you have no reasons, and you're just an irrational buffoon who will believe what you what to believe even if it flies in the face of pages of reasonable evidence.
So, i say again, the... ball... is... in... your... court....I haven't read it but I'd certainly like to. It sounds interesting.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Ive been called a liar a nut ,dishonest and a few other things in this thread, and yet I feel I have given you just that , my initial post was there to ask is there bad side to athiesm , does it have one ? what can be the dangers ? |
Your initial post did not just ask questions. It made comparisons, and those comparisons were misinformed and offensive. And when people pointed out to you how offensive and misinformed your comparisons were, you defended them... and that is why you haven't been particularly popular in this thread. |
Playing the popularity game is not my concern, unlike the average politician
| Indi wrote: |
| If you just want to ask what the "dangers" of atheism are, you should just do so. You shouldn't provide your own list of "dangerous" versions of atheism - especially when they are all flagrantly wrong - when you don't have a clue what you are talking about. |
What are the bad points to Atheism...... there you go ...oh wait I think I said that before.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | But Bikerman moved the goalposts !!!! |
i neither know nor care what Bikerman did. i was talking about you. Even if Bikerman did move the goalposts, that doesn't make it right for you to do it too. Two wrongs don't make a right. |
Pleeeeeeeeeese , you two are like the Atheist tag team here on Frih, and please dont take offence when I say so Its not ment as an insult,I think of you both as the A Team but please dont piss up my leg and tell me its raining.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | , I was wondering could a generation or indeed an individual take on the task of killing religion, can it be ever be killed....... |
Which, of course, has nothing to do with atheism in particular. Religions have been attempting to kill each other off since the dawn of time. If atheism is trying to do the same thing, then the only difference between that and religion is that it is not trying to replace the religions it kills off with another religion. But even that's not necessarily true, because atheism does not mean lack of religion. |
So can I take it from that that an Atheist world would still have religion ?
| Indi wrote: |
| So, in other words, your "wondering" was off-topic, misinformed and offensive. You were - and it seems still are - completely clueless about what atheism is. |
Please show me where I have been offensive, I am not above making an apology where needed, The Nazis were not only Christian, there is well documented infighting amoungst the Nazis over there own ideology, again I will say "like the Nazis" or as you would have it "comparable to the Nazis" may have been a bad choice of words but I think the context was easily followed, you could have ignored it and still answered the question, after repeatedly telling you your evidence does not change my opinion, even asking if we can get back to our "Cultural Christian" freind is not enough to stop you being what I can only discribe as fanatically obsessed with some battle against any opinion that differs from yours , its almost like your religious or a politician
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| but those three little words "Like the Nazis" brought out nothing but intolerance, backed up by more and more intolerence, you keep saying I am moving the goal posts as if you define the argument , Bikerman said Hitler was a Christian, you have said he was a devout Christian, but was that really the question ? who is skirting what issue ?..... |
| Indi wrote: |
That would be you that's skirting the issue.
Why do i say this? Because you - as you just said - brought up the Nazis as an example of atheism gone bad. Sheer stupidity, because the Nazi movement was an explicitly Christian movement - so it has nothing to do with "atheism gone bad". Even if you refuse to accept that Hitler was a Christian, you cannot deny that the vast majority of the Nazis were. Germany was - and still is! - a predominantly Christian country. So bringing up Nazis in conjunction with "atheism going bad" was stupid, and wrong. |
Nope , I did not bring them up as an example of Atheism I brought them up as examples of fascism or racism hence the term "Fascism or rascim like the Nazis" ,comparable to simular in some noticeable way like, you seem to have no understanding of the word ,or indeed the context it was initially used in
| Indi wrote: |
| Yet, you keep defending this stupid and obviously wrong comparison! Even now! You're still determined to believe that Hitler was not a Christian... as if that makes any difference to the stupidity and offensiveness of your original comments... and you still can't give any rational reason why anyone would want to believe that. |
I would agree Hitler was a Cultural Christian by definition , but a devout Christian , a follower of Jesus, I still remain unconvinced on his actions inspite of his rhetoric.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | But Hey lets go back to one of my moving goal post moments , I will ask again where does Jesus's teachings relate to Hitlers practical applications to problems , I dont ask because I think the answer will only validate my own thoughts, I ask because I really cant see how they do, maybe thats the winning sides education system or as you say I am a nut , it seems either way I have no answer.
So on the point of Hitler being a Christian I am still unconvinced. |
i can't help the fact that you're unconvinced, because i can't make you think intelligently.
All i can do is analyze your reasons for believing Hitler was not a Christian, and see if they have any worth at all - or whether you're just wasting everyone's time.
But you're not giving me your reasons. You're just asking me for mine, over and over and over and over. Even now, again. i've given you pages of reasons, and everyone else seems pretty well convinced. But you've given nothing.
So no, i say again - no matter how many times you ask me for more, i am giving you nothing more. Not until you tell us what you believe, and why.
And until you do that, i have no reasonable option but to assume you have no reasons, and you're just an irrational buffoon who will believe what you what to believe even if it flies in the face of pages of reasonable evidence.
So, i say again, the... ball... is... in... your... court.... |
Sigh........Why should I give you reasons as to why I think Hitler was not a Christian, I am not here to convince anyone any religion or set of beliefs is wrong, your in the correcting people buisiness not moi, and so we go on waffle waffle, Im not going to answer any more of your questions you say......well whats new I say | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | If you just want to ask what the "dangers" of atheism are, you should just do so. You shouldn't provide your own list of "dangerous" versions of atheism - especially when they are all flagrantly wrong - when you don't have a clue what you are talking about. |
What are the bad points to Atheism...... there you go ...oh wait I think I said that before. |
What are you talking about? What "bad points"? i said you listed Nazism (along with facism and racism, of course) as one of the "dangers" of atheism. You did. You can't deny that.
You also can't deny that none of those things has anything whatsoever to do with atheism. You just introduced them at random. Hell, i can do that same thing too: "What about the dangers of atheism? Like child molestation, chattel slavery and reality television?" There's nothing intelligent or productive about that question. It's just sheer ignorance. Just like yours was. The only difference is that i don't intend to defend that question as legitimate.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | But Bikerman moved the goalposts !!!! |
i neither know nor care what Bikerman did. i was talking about you. Even if Bikerman did move the goalposts, that doesn't make it right for you to do it too. Two wrongs don't make a right. |
Pleeeeeeeeeese , you two are like the Atheist tag team here on Frih, and please dont take offence when I say so Its not ment as an insult,I think of you both as the A Team but please dont piss up my leg and tell me its raining. |
i have no idea what you're talking about. Whether we are the "atheist tag team" or not doesn't really make any difference. And whether he actually did move the goalposts or not - i don't know or care if/when he did - that doesn't make it ok for you to do it. To borrow from your analogy: don't piss on my leg then blame Bikerman for it. You did it - you moved goalposts - and that's a fact. i pointed it out clearly. i don't care what Bikerman did. Even if he moved the goalposts too, it doesn't make it ok for you to do it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | , I was wondering could a generation or indeed an individual take on the task of killing religion, can it be ever be killed....... |
Which, of course, has nothing to do with atheism in particular. Religions have been attempting to kill each other off since the dawn of time. If atheism is trying to do the same thing, then the only difference between that and religion is that it is not trying to replace the religions it kills off with another religion. But even that's not necessarily true, because atheism does not mean lack of religion. |
So can I take it from that that an Atheist world would still have religion ? |
Probably several religions. They just wouldn't have gods. We'd probably still have Zen Buddhism, Jainism and Scientology.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | So, in other words, your "wondering" was off-topic, misinformed and offensive. You were - and it seems still are - completely clueless about what atheism is. |
Please show me where I have been offensive, I am not above making an apology where needed, The Nazis were not only Christian, there is well documented infighting amoungst the Nazis over there own ideology, again I will say "like the Nazis" or as you would have it "comparable to the Nazis" may have been a bad choice of words but I think the context was easily followed, you could have ignored it and still answered the question, after repeatedly telling you your evidence does not change my opinion, even asking if we can get back to our "Cultural Christian" freind is not enough to stop you being what I can only discribe as fanatically obsessed with some battle against any opinion that differs from yours , its almost like your religious or a politician |
i honestly don't understand half of what you say, and i don't know if that's because you're writing it so badly or if it's because it just doesn't make sense. i don't know what this "'Cultural Christian' friend (sic)" nonsense is about, nor what fanaticism or politics has to do with pointing out that you were simply and plainly wrong. And i have already pointed out where you were offensive. Do you really need me to do it again and again?
Alright, fine, here we go again. Without any rational reasoning you compared atheism to Nazism - ok, fine, as you like, not Nazism directly, but Nazism by way of a bunch of offensive ideologies that it has absolutely no relation to. All fine and good - it was ignorant, but so what? People make mistakes. But when it was pointed out to you how rude and incorrect that was... you defended it! And you have been defending it since. In other words, you said something ignorant and offensive, and you have been defending that ever since.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | That would be you that's skirting the issue.
Why do i say this? Because you - as you just said - brought up the Nazis as an example of atheism gone bad. Sheer stupidity, because the Nazi movement was an explicitly Christian movement - so it has nothing to do with "atheism gone bad". Even if you refuse to accept that Hitler was a Christian, you cannot deny that the vast majority of the Nazis were. Germany was - and still is! - a predominantly Christian country. So bringing up Nazis in conjunction with "atheism going bad" was stupid, and wrong. |
Nope , I did not bring them up as an example of Atheism I brought them up as examples of fascism or racism hence the term "Fascism or rascim like the Nazis" ,comparable to simular in some noticeable way like, you seem to have no understanding of the word ,or indeed the context it was initially used in |
ORLY? So, this would be an appropriate usage then? "Tumbleweed has demonstrated by his ignorance and disdain for atheism that he disapproves of it, like Hitler."
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I would agree Hitler was a Cultural Christian by definition , but a devout Christian , a follower of Jesus, I still remain unconvinced on his actions inspite of his rhetoric. |
In other words... link.
And as i've said, if that's what you want to believe, fine, go for it. But that means that you are - categorically - defining yourself as a nutter. Which means that anyone - myself included - would be a nutter to take you seriously. In other words, the only rational thing i or anyone else can do is dismiss you as a nutter. If you're ok with that, then we're all good. But if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to take your own beliefs more seriously than that.
The choice is yours. Either accept being dismissed by a nutter, or do something to show us that you're not. As i keep saying, the ball is in your court.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Sigh........Why should I give you reasons as to why I think Hitler was not a Christian, I am not here to convince anyone any religion or set of beliefs is wrong, your in the correcting people buisiness not moi, and so we go on waffle waffle, Im not going to answer any more of your questions you say......well whats new I say |
Why should you? Because:
- You haven't given any reasons so far that aren't plain silly.
- You seem to want to your opinion on Hitler to be taken seriously, and not just written off as a crackpot's ravings.
- You've been asked by several people for what your reasons are, meaning that there are... were... several people who were interested in taking your beliefs seriously. i doubt many remain, but...
But, ultimately, it's up to you. i've told you why i refuse to give you any more reasons or arguments: because i've already given dozens of arguments and pages of evidence, you've given nothing, and i am starting to think that you're just a nut who won't be convinced by any rational argument, and thus a waste of everyone's time. If you're comfortable with that assessment, then fine, we're all good here.
If you're not, and if you want to be taken seriously... then again, the ball is in your court. | danhayes wrote: |
I am currently reading this book and was wondering if anyone else has?
Personally I am an athiest as I feel there is just not enough evidence to support religion. I'd be interested if any Christians have read this book and then became athiests because of it. |
You should also read one who thinks differently from Dawkins, you know, so that you don't get brainwashed.. The link is the first part of six articles entitled "Debunking the God Elusion."By all means read the thought of Deepak Chopra in the link cited. In fact I would encourage people to do so, critically, and spot the numerous flaws in his arguments. I won't spoil your fun by going into detail (yet) - I'll leave it to the reader.
PS - Here's a clue to the tone and content of the debate.
In the introduction we are told | Quote: |
| In the fall of 2006, mind-body and consciousness expert and author Deepak Chopra, M.D. debated the existence of God with atheist author Richard Dawkins on British television. |
Note the way the two people are described. Chopra is described as an 'expert' in mind-body and consciousness (expert according to whom? Himself, of course). He is also given his (only) qualification as an honorific - a Medical Doctor.
Dawkins, on the other hand, who is a genuine expert in evolutionary biology, ethnology and zoology, is described as 'atheist author'. Note that Professor Dawkins' much more impressive qualifications (MA, DPhil, FRS, FRSL) are not even mentioned, and they don't even bother to use the honorific - Professor.
You just *know* where this is going before you even start reading. And let me add, when you have read it you know that you were right
Because the quoted article doesn't actually give details of the debate between Dawkins and Chopra, let me even up the propaganda slightly by giving a link to Dawkins talking to Chopra where it is pretty clear that Chopra has no clue what he is talking about:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
I'll demolish Chopra's arguments later if nobody else is willing or able to do so - I'm fairly sure, however, that the flaws are self evident and it won't be necessary...
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:46 pm; edited 7 times in total | mgeek wrote: |
| Habermas, a well known philosopher is the interviewer. |
LOL...Habermas is not a well known philosopher - he is a well know Christian apologist and theologian - different thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas | Bikerman wrote: |
| mgeek wrote: | | Habermas, a well known philosopher is the interviewer. |
LOL...Habermas is not a well known philosopher - he is a well know Christian apologist and theologian - different thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas |
But that isn't the issue is it? | Bikerman wrote: |
By all means read the thought of Deepak Chopra in the link cited. In fact I would encourage people to do so, critically, and spot the numerous flaws in his arguments. I won't spoil your fun by going into detail (yet) - I'll leave it to the reader.
PS - Here's a clue to the tone and content of the debate.
In the introduction we are told | Quote: | | In the fall of 2006, mind-body and consciousness expert and author Deepak Chopra, M.D. debated the existence of God with atheist author Richard Dawkins on British television. |
Note the way the two people are described. Chopra is described as an 'expert' in mind-body and consciousness (expert according to whom? Himself, of course). He is also given his (only) qualification as an honorific - a Medical Doctor.
Dawkins, on the other hand, who is a genuine expert in evolutionary biology, ethnology and zoology, is described as 'atheist author'. Note that Professor Dawkins much more impressive qualifications (MA, DPhil, FRS, FRSL) are not even mentioned, and they don't even bother to use the honorific - Professor.
You just *know* where this is going before you even start reading. And let me add, when you have read it you know that you were right
|
Here is Flew on Dawkins. Try to demolish that one...
| Quote: |
Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.
Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.
TotheSource
|
[MOD - Multiple copies deleted - Bikerman]Demolish what? What exactly is Flew's point?
| Quote: |
| I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data. |
An opinion, nothing more.
Now, we can ask, how qualified is Flew to make this assessment? Is he himself a scientist? Nope. Is Dawkins a scientist? Yep. Is Flew familiar with a large range of scientific views? Nope. As he himself says: | Quote: |
| I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super radical controversy about the conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit. |
Is Dawkins familiar with a large range of scientific views? Yep. He is a fellow of the Royal Society and counts amongst his friends and acquaintances many top scientists in different fields.
Has any scientist ever complained that Dawkins has been 'dishonest' when he has cited their views? None that I know of. So where exactly does Flew get the nerve to say Dawkins has been dishonest? Where is his evidence? Who has complained? Exactly what views has he dishonestly reported, or dishonestly omitted?
Flew says that latest scientific evidence tends to support the notion of a God. OK - what evidence is this? He doesn't say, of course, because he hasn't got a clue.
What you have is a tired old man who was once a decent scholar but is now too old and lazy to do proper scholarship. As he approaches death he would like to believe there is 'more to it', and so he has convinced himself that God might exist. He isn't the first old man to do this and he won't be the last. To pretend that his 'conversion' has anything to do with the facts, however, is laughable, and to pretend that he has anything other than personal opinion to add to the debate is simply wrong. | Indi wrote: |
[*]You seem to want to your opinion on Hitler to be taken seriously, and not just written off as a crackpot's ravings.
[*]You've been asked by several people for what your reasons are, meaning that there are... were... several people who were interested in taking your beliefs seriously. i doubt many remain, but...[/list]But, ultimately, it's up to you. i've told you why i refuse to give you any more reasons or arguments: because i've already given dozens of arguments and pages of evidence, you've given nothing, and i am starting to think that you're just a nut who won't be convinced by any rational argument, and thus a waste of everyone's time. If you're comfortable with that assessment, then fine, we're all good here.
If you're not, and if you want to be taken seriously... then again, the ball is in your court. |
Your dozens of arguments and pages of evidence, which to my mind mainly consist of small quotes from big speeches of a man trying to get into or gain power ,quite frankly what else could he say ? antagonising the church was certainly a No No,( I think Bikerman said somewhere way way up there that as Hitler gained more power he did indeed start to attack the Church... not that you know or care ) He has to be seen to believe in the Christian God in some shape or form because of his electorate, all I am saying is forget the talk wheres the corroborating evidence , I am a crackpot for believing that saying it is not good enough and that I would like to see what he actually did and how that relates to Christianity or more specifically the teachings of Jesus , for someone who must have studied Christianity to be able to appose it so ardently this should be a simple task , so what do you do.......just refuse to answer the question , I care little for what the questions answer is but your simple refusal to answer on the grounds that I am a crackpot and wont listen anyway is laughable , as laughable as all this typing and yet still forgetting Fascim and Racism , in an attempt to what I can only assume is change the subject and keep it changed.... Shush ....listen.... can anyone else here someone chanting "four legs good two legs bad"....No ? must be just little old crackpot me then , You think Hitler was a devout Christian , I think (still at this time) he was not a Christian and more than likely had his own idea of "The Creator of the Universe" ....anyway can I take back the words "Like the Nazi's" and replace it with "any totalitarian regime" ?Believing in the Christian God and believing Jesus Christ existed and was the son of that god makes you a Christian. Hitler, very clearly, showed he believed this on numerous occasions through a number of ways. Unless you have the ability to get inside a man's brain and find out what he does or does not believe, what he says is all that is necessary to declare him a Christian/non-Christian. Hitler was Christian. He showed he believed in the Christian God (and was doing his work) and he believed Jesus Christ was the son of that god.
Either way, you've provided nothing to support your claim that he WASN'T Christian. You've disagreed with every bit of evidence posted showing he was a Christian, and you never provide anything to discount the claim except "I don't think he was Christian just because." Sorry, you can't expect to be taken seriously if that's the best you can muster. Which is the precise reason nobody has agreed with you the in this thread and the precise reason you've gained no ground since your first post.
| Bikerman wrote: |
What you have is a tired old man who was once a decent scholar but is now too old and lazy to do proper scholarship. As he approaches death he would like to believe there is 'more to it', and so he has convinced himself that God might exist. He isn't the first old man to do this and he won't be the last. To pretend that his 'conversion' has anything to do with the facts, however, is laughable, and to pretend that he has anything other than personal opinion to add to the debate is simply wrong. |
That's just the point. Atheism is a passing fancy. When an atheist grows old, he begins to go back to old childhood beliefs which then appears more real than before. Atheism was institutionalized by the USSR as its official worldview. And where is the USSR now or the atheism it espoused. Nada.
So how real is atheism when its staunchest supporters can grow old and move on to its opposite? | mgeek wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
What you have is a tired old man who was once a decent scholar but is now too old and lazy to do proper scholarship. As he approaches death he would like to believe there is 'more to it', and so he has convinced himself that God might exist. He isn't the first old man to do this and he won't be the last. To pretend that his 'conversion' has anything to do with the facts, however, is laughable, and to pretend that he has anything other than personal opinion to add to the debate is simply wrong. |
That's just the point. Atheism is a passing fancy. When an atheist grows old, he begins to go back to old childhood beliefs which then appears more real than before. Atheism was institutionalized by the USSR as its official worldview. And where is the USSR now or the atheism it espoused. Nada. |
Atheism was not institutionalised by the USSR - Marxism was. Atheism is not a world-view - the very idea is stupid. How can you say 'my world-view is that I don't believe in God(s)'? It doesn't make any sense, does it?
Do you believe in Apollo? Thor? Aphrodite? (I could go on and name thousands of Dieities). Does it make any sense to say that your world-view is that 'you don't believe in the Greek or Roman (or the Norse, or the Japanese, or the Chinese..etc..) Gods'? Of course it doesn't...it is a ridiculous proposition, since it says nothing about what you DO believe. Why, then, do you insist on treating atheists in this ridiculous manner? As I've said before - the only theological difference between us is that I believe in one less God than you do.
| Quote: |
| So how real is atheism when its staunchest supporters can grow old and move on to its opposite? |
You manage to combine two fallacies in one sentence - the Ad populum fallacy and the faulty generalisation fallacy. Should I list the staunch Christians who became atheists? I could (starting with myself), but why would I bother? It proves nothing. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Your dozens of arguments and pages of evidence, which to my mind mainly consist of small quotes from big speeches of a man trying to get into or gain power |
i find it amusing how selective your mind is, that it somehow manages to see only the quotes from Hitler's speeches, and not the quotes from Hitler's private conversations, quotes from his book, things his close friends said about him and the evidence of his actions throughout his career.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| quite frankly what else could he say ? antagonising the church was certainly a No No,( I think Bikerman said somewhere way way up there that as Hitler gained more power he did indeed start to attack the Church... not that you know or care ) |
And as i've said repeatedly - he did antagonize the Church, sometimes indirectly, sometimes directly all throughout his career. He never supported the Church. He even attempted to create his own "church" to force the other churches (Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) out of Germany. In early years the Church supported him strongly because he was a good Christian leader laying out a good Christian society... even though he wasn't big on the Church, they didn't care, because any time the flock grows, at least some of the sheep will stray into their pews. And he used them, sure. Why not? It was only later on when Hitler got too powerful (and threatened the Vatican, militarily), that they changed their tune and started to oppose him (but note: they never condemned him while he was in power).
But the thing i haven't seemed to be able to get through your thick skull is that opposition to the Church is not equal to opposition to Christianity. It is not only possible, it is easy to be a devout Christian, and a bitter enemy of the Church at the same time. Hitler wouldn't be the first, not by a longshot. Hitler believed that the churches were corrupt, and he wanted to create a "pure" version of Christianity (which he called Positive Christianity).
It is completely irrational to say Hitler was not a Christian because he was an enemy of the Church, because there is overwhelming evidence from other quarters that he was a Christian, and because we know the reason he opposed the church... and it was because he thought he was a better Christian than they were! We know all this from his own words, his own writings, the words and writings of his associates, and his actions.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| He has to be seen to believe in the Christian God in some shape or form because of his electorate, all I am saying is forget the talk wheres the corroborating evidence , I am a crackpot for believing that saying it is not good enough and that I would like to see what he actually did and how that relates to Christianity or more specifically the teachings of Jesus , for someone who must have studied Christianity to be able to appose it so ardently this should be a simple task , so what do you do.......just refuse to answer the question |
No. What i did was answer the question, repeatedly. Over and over and over and over. You just keep ignoring the answer because you don't like it, so i refuse to answer it any more.
Every question you're bringing up now has already been answered, for example. Repeatedly. You're just not getting it. And you're getting upset because i refuse to keep repeating it. Tough. The answers are all there, and everyone else is satisfied with them. If you're not, you either didn't read them, or you didn't understand them, or you know something that everyone else doesn't that makes the issue cloudy. i've asked what you know, and you've given nothing... so i have to fall back on the assumption that you have nothing, and that you simply either didn't read or didn't understand all the evidence that's already there.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I care little for what the questions answer is but your simple refusal to answer on the grounds that I am a crackpot and wont listen anyway is laughable , as laughable as all this typing and yet still forgetting Fascim and Racism , in an attempt to what I can only assume is change the subject and keep it changed.... Shush ....listen.... can anyone else here someone chanting "four legs good two legs bad"....No ? must be just little old crackpot me then |
It is the prerogative of little children and fools to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Yet the Emperor remains Emperor,
and the fool,
remains a fool.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You think Hitler was a devout Christian , I think (still at this time) he was not a Christian and more than likely had his own idea of "The Creator of the Universe" |
Every Christian has their own idea of what God is like. It would be easier to get the entire population of Europe to agree on pizza toppings than it would be to get two Christians to agree on the nature of God.
Hitler was no different in that respect. But that's not what made him Christian, of course. It was the fact that he believed in Jesus Christ as saviour that made him Christian. And yes, he did say that, publicly and privately.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ....anyway can I take back the words "Like the Nazi's" and replace it with "any totalitarian regime" ? |
You can't make an ignorant comparison less ignorant by replacing a specific example with a vague, general one. Atheism has absolutely no relationship to totalitarian regimes. None at all. Nothing about being atheist leads one to totalitarianism, and nothing about totalitarian leads one to atheism. (Quite the opposite, actually - a true totalitarian will, ultimately, if they go all the way, declare themselves to be, in essence, a god. This is what happened to places like the Soviet Union, for example, where the state grasped power of everything, and eventually shoved aside the competing gods in religions to declare itself divine by making the state religion worship of the state itself. The only thing that made that "religion" atheist was the fact that they didn't literally declare the state a god (as most previous totalitarians have done), so they had no literal god, although the state itself was pretty close to it.) | Indi wrote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: | | Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion... |
No, i don't.
| redhakaw wrote: | ... since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario. |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
| redhakaw wrote: | | what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism? |
i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.)
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | ... f we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ? |
Well dur, of course not. ^_^; But then again, that's not what Dawkins did. He presented a complete, coherent, book-length argument against religion. He didn't just highlight a list of "bad points", the man is an Oxford scholar for Christ's sake. ^_^; Don't you think he can do a little better than just "religion suck 'cause o' the Crusades!"?
From start to finish he undermined religion's claims, its history, its reasoning, its necessity and more. He took every "good point" that religious proponents put forward and showed what's wrong with it. But mostly his concern was with showing readers that an alternative to religion is not only possible, and not only plausible, it is even honourable. Or, in plain English, if you are in a religion and you feel something is wrong but think there's no choice but to just accept the teachings without question, you're wrong - there is another choice.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here.
And yes, i'd say it's pretty damned obvious he wants to kill religion, but then that's the point here - to sully religion, not to aggrandize atheism. He spends the entire book dissing religion in one way or another, going over its history, its claims and so on, but he never once talks about the history of atheism, its claims, and he only gives cursory descriptions of what atheism is, and how the universe is explained by atheist beliefs (and those only come up because he's bashing the religious claims about them).
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.' This is one of the reasons, I believe, that Dawkins is cautious with his terminology. I have read most of the book some time back and thought it interesting. The way I read the book was that in Dawkins view, many people who are religious, do so without ever questioning as to why they believe. I vaguely recall 'The god gene' and 'memes.' Memes would be the ideology/thought(religion) passed down over generations.
Back to how I interpreted Dawkins' intentions; What I saw was a man attempting to provoke your inquisitive nature. In others words ask questions as to why you believe.
BTW: Bertrand Russel's Teacup is a belief without religion. | Quote: |
| Probably several religions. They just wouldn't have gods. We'd probably still have Zen Buddhism, Jainism and Scientology. |
Zen works, Jainism is borderline (Jainism believes that every soul is divine and has the potential to achieve God-consciousness) and Scientology is just outright ridiculous. Scientology most certainly believes in a deity and spirits, or is that Xenu and thetans?
MD. | Bikerman wrote: |
Flew says that latest scientific evidence tends to support the notion of a God. OK - what evidence is this? He doesn't say, of course, because he hasn't got a clue.
|
I've heard arguments that the 'Anthropic principle' points to God's existence and intelligent design. I do believe that the arguments have been succesfully refuted. The God / No God argument will go on forever, and neither side will ever prove the other wrong. How sad is that? Unfortunately we can't prove anything with the exception of theorems in self-evident systems such as math. | mediadar wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: | | Atheism is not an alternative to religion, it is the alternative |
you mean to say theism rather than religion... |
No, i don't.
| redhakaw wrote: | ... since there are atheistic religions such as buddhism?
true that the opposite of theism is non other than atheism, but i dont think its a yes or no scenario. |
i thought i was clear, but apparently not.
Yes, there are atheist religions... there are theist and atheist religions, but there are no theist non-religions, only atheist ones. That means that if you get rid of religion, and all you have left is non-religions, since all of them are atheist, all you have left is atheism. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but it doesn't have to be. All theist beliefs are religions, some atheist beliefs are religions and some are not. So if we get rid of religion, what is left? Voilà: atheism.
So if you take away all religion, then what is left - whatever that happens to be - must be atheist. It can't be theist. Thus, atheism is the one and only alternative to religion.
| redhakaw wrote: | | what's your take about agnosticism and noncognitivism? |
i don't see what either of those has to do with it. If you give up religion, you will be atheist. Period. Whether you're also agnostic or non-cognitivist doesn't really matter.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | How about fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives... |
As long as no religion is involved, then the belief - whatever it is - must be an atheist belief. (In reality, there was a whole bunch of religion behind the Nazi beliefs, "Gott mit uns"... but there didn't have to be - they could have been atheist beliefs, albeit irrational ones.)
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | ... f we point out the bad points of atheism ( I am sure there are some ) does that make all of it bad ? |
Well dur, of course not. ^_^; But then again, that's not what Dawkins did. He presented a complete, coherent, book-length argument against religion. He didn't just highlight a list of "bad points", the man is an Oxford scholar for Christ's sake. ^_^; Don't you think he can do a little better than just "religion suck 'cause o' the Crusades!"?
From start to finish he undermined religion's claims, its history, its reasoning, its necessity and more. He took every "good point" that religious proponents put forward and showed what's wrong with it. But mostly his concern was with showing readers that an alternative to religion is not only possible, and not only plausible, it is even honourable. Or, in plain English, if you are in a religion and you feel something is wrong but think there's no choice but to just accept the teachings without question, you're wrong - there is another choice.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I have not read all (of any) of Dawkins books just passages and only a handfull of his articles that are online (seen a few of his filmed discussions also) and I would agree with redhakaw ,Dawkins does in his own(ish) words "want to kill religion" , and for me in his shorter (and I assume related) works he does place atheism on a pedestal so to speak , I do agree with a lot of what I have read or heard him say he does make sense ,strangly though I somehow feel I am allready living in the world he wants. |
If you say so. ^_^; i'm not as big a Dawkins fanboy as either of you, i guess. i haven't read his atheist screeds, if any. i have, however, read the book we're actually talking about here.
And yes, i'd say it's pretty damned obvious he wants to kill religion, but then that's the point here - to sully religion, not to aggrandize atheism. He spends the entire book dissing religion in one way or another, going over its history, its claims and so on, but he never once talks about the history of atheism, its claims, and he only gives cursory descriptions of what atheism is, and how the universe is explained by atheist beliefs (and those only come up because he's bashing the religious claims about them).
To put it another way, when a 400 page book devotes over 370 pages to undermining religion, and less than 30 to describing atheism... i'd say it's pretty safe to call it a book about undermining religion, not putting atheism on a pedestal. If you read a 400 page book about fighting dragons in a fantasy land that had a less than 30 page aside about recipes used by adventurers, would you call it a fantasy book or a cookbook? My answer's obvious. ^_^; |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.' |
No it's not....it's umm basically the exact opposite of that.
For the love of all that is good in this world
Last edited by liljp617 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total | mediadar wrote: |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.' This is one of the reasons, I believe, that Dawkins is cautious with his terminology. I have read most of the book some time back and thought it interesting. The way I read the book was that in Dawkins view, many people who are religious, do so without ever questioning as to why they believe. I vaguely recall 'The god gene' and 'memes.' Memes would be the ideology/thought(religion) passed down over generations.
Back to how I interpreted Dawkins' intentions; What I saw was a man attempting to provoke your inquisitive nature. In others words ask questions as to why you believe.
BTW: Bertrand Russel's Teacup is a belief without religion. |
Atheism isn't really a doctrine, usually a doctrine is a bunch of rules you should abide to. If there is only the rule "there is no god" wich in most cases isn't the only rule for people.
I don't know if dawkins is carefull but most commen atheism = lack of belief in gods.
| mediadar wrote: |
I've heard arguments that the 'Anthropic principle' points to God's existence and intelligent design. I do believe that the arguments have been succesfully refuted. The God / No God argument will go on forever, and neither side will ever prove the other wrong. How sad is that? Unfortunately we can't prove anything with the exception of theorems in self-evident systems such as math. |
Ahh wikipedia always has an answer;
| Quote: |
| The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science. |
And as far as the "god exists" and "god doesn't exists" argument, it can only end when someone proves that god exists in some scientific manner or god appears to us all. | liljp617 wrote: |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.'
No it's not....it's umm basically the exact opposite of that.
For the love of all that is good in this world |
How do you figure? The opposite of what I posted would be a belief in a God. Was it the ism that confused you? ism's are beliefs by definition, no? Atheism, no matter where you look up the definition, is a 'belief' that 'no God,' exists, and ism's are defined as, 'doctrines; theories; and systems of principles such as ..... pacifism, relativism, theism and uh..... atheism. To clear things up a little more, theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, atheism would be the opposite, no? The belief in the existence of 'no god!'
God bless you,
MD. | mediadar wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.'
No it's not....it's umm basically the exact opposite of that.
For the love of all that is good in this world |
How do you figure? The opposite of what I posted would be a belief in a God. Was it the ism that confused you? ism's are beliefs by definition, no? Atheism, no matter where you look up the definition, is a 'belief' that 'no God,' exists, and ism's are defined as, 'doctrines; theories; and systems of principles such as ..... pacifism, relativism, theism and uh..... atheism. To clear things up a little more, theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, atheism would be the opposite, no? The belief in the existence of 'no god!' |
Nope.
Atheism is a LACK of belief in God(s).
(How many times do we have to go through this I wonder - perhaps I'll create a sticky).
Strong atheism - the assertion that there is no God(s)
Atheism - lack of belief in a God(s)
The prefix 'A' does not mean the opposite (that is the prefix 'Anti'). The prefix 'A' mean 'apart from' or 'not'.
Take an extreme example - a person who has never heard of God(s) and doesn't know, or care, whether they exist or not. They are an atheist. | Bikerman wrote: |
| mediadar wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: |
I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.'
No it's not....it's umm basically the exact opposite of that.
For the love of all that is good in this world |
How do you figure? The opposite of what I posted would be a belief in a God. Was it the ism that confused you? ism's are beliefs by definition, no? Atheism, no matter where you look up the definition, is a 'belief' that 'no God,' exists, and ism's are defined as, 'doctrines; theories; and systems of principles such as ..... pacifism, relativism, theism and uh..... atheism. To clear things up a little more, theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, atheism would be the opposite, no? The belief in the existence of 'no god!' |
Nope.
Atheism is a LACK of belief in God(s).
(How many times do we have to go through this I wonder - perhaps I'll create a sticky).
Strong atheism - the assertion that there is no God(s)
Atheism - lack of belief in a God(s)
The prefix 'A' does not mean the opposite (that is the prefix 'Anti'). The prefix 'A' mean 'apart from' or 'not'.
Take an extreme example - a person who has never heard of God(s) and doesn't know, or care, whether they exist or not. They are an atheist. |
We can sit here and argue all day, or until you get it straight. If Theism is the belief in God, atheism is the belief that there is 'no god.' We can argue semantics all day, but even the 'lack of a belief in god' is a 'belief that there is no god.' Actually a before means without(or as you said, apart from), as in asymptomatic.
Anyhow, you can not prove God's existence, nor can a theist prove god's existence, all you are left with is the faith(or belief) that you are right.
| Quote: |
| Take an extreme example - a person who has never heard of God(s) and doesn't know, or care, whether they exist or not. They are an atheist. |
Let's leave phenomena and noumena for another day. You would have to assume that he would believe in absolutely nothing supreme.
Got to run,
Check back later.
MD
Last edited by mediadar on Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total | mediadar wrote: |
| We can sit here and argue all day, or until you get it straight. If Theism is the belief in God, atheism is the belief that there is 'no god.' We can argue semantics all day, but even the 'lack of a belief in god' is a 'belief that there is no god.' Actually a before means without(or as you said, apart from), as in asymptomatic. |
It is not me that needs to get it straight. I understand the term perfectly well.
If you do not know the difference between strong atheism and atheism then that is your problem, not mine. A person with no exposure to the idea of Gods does not 'believe that God does not exist' - how could they since they aren't even aware of the concept.
Likewise, many atheists (like myself) do not assert that God does not exist. That would be a belief, and since I tend to be a rationalist, I try to avoid unnecessary belief systems. It is possible (but I think extremely unlikely) that God does exist - I simply don't happen to believe in God(s).
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total | mediadar wrote: |
| I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.' |
i am very careful in defining it. i've even written a book on it. And your definition is wrong. Not different, wrong - if we define atheism that way, then it turns out there are no atheists... anywhere. Sounds odd, but that's what happens if you follow that definition to its logical conclusion. Other posters have already corrected your definition, so that's all that i think needs to be said about that.
| mediadar wrote: |
| BTW: Bertrand Russel's Teacup is a belief without religion. |
There are many, many, many beliefs without religion. There is nothing special about Russell's Teacup in this regard. i believe that electrons exist - that is a belief without religion. It is a faith-based belief without religion (assuming someone actually believes it), but again, there's nothing special about that. The gambler who goes to the track believing that today is his lucky day has a faith-based belief without religion.
| mediadar wrote: |
| Quote: | | Probably several religions. They just wouldn't have gods. We'd probably still have Zen Buddhism, Jainism and Scientology. |
Zen works, Jainism is borderline (Jainism believes that every soul is divine and has the potential to achieve God-consciousness) and Scientology is just outright ridiculous. Scientology most certainly believes in a deity and spirits, or is that Xenu and thetans? |
It is fashionable to bash Scientology as wacky - but not Christianity or Islam - because Scientology is a "fringe" religion. That is bigotry - nothing more, nothing less. If you have a religion or any religious beliefs, then you are a hypocrite for making fun of Scientology. It is no more or less ridiculous than any other religion out there - for example, an omnipotent supernatural being that creates everything... but oh, not evil, somehow he's not responsible for that even though he created everything... and in order to fix his damaged "perfect" creation he has to - for some bizarre reason - manifest an incarnation of himself, torture the hell of out it and execute it. Sure, nothing ridiculous there.
Now, as for the details, Scientology does not explicitly require a deity, although it doesn't rule one out. Yes, it has "spirits" and "souls", but spirits are not gods, so having spirits does not change the fact that it can be an atheist religion. And no, neither Xenu nor thetans have anything to do with gods. So Scientology would be a religion that could exist in an atheist world.
As would Jainism. The goal is more precisely god-like consciousness (omniscience, etc.) - attaining moksha doesn't make you a god. There are no gods. Again, that would mean it can exist in an atheist world. | Indi wrote: |
| mediadar wrote: | | I'd be very careful in defining atheism. Atheism is a belief or doctrine that there is 'no god.' |
i am very careful in defining it. i've even written a book on it. And your definition is wrong. Not different, wrong - if we define atheism that way, then it turns out there are no atheists... anywhere. Sounds odd, but that's what happens if you follow that definition to its logical conclusion. Other posters have already corrected your definition, so that's all that i think needs to be said about that.
| mediadar wrote: | | BTW: Bertrand Russel's Teacup is a belief without religion. |
There are many, many, many beliefs without religion. There is nothing special about Russell's Teacup in this regard. i believe that electrons exist - that is a belief without religion. It is a faith-based belief without religion (assuming someone actually believes it), but again, there's nothing special about that. The gambler who goes to the track believing that today is his lucky day has a faith-based belief without religion.
| mediadar wrote: | | Quote: | | Probably several religions. They just wouldn't have gods. We'd probably still have Zen Buddhism, Jainism and Scientology. |
Zen works, Jainism is borderline (Jainism believes that every soul is divine and has the potential to achieve God-consciousness) and Scientology is just outright ridiculous. Scientology most certainly believes in a deity and spirits, or is that Xenu and thetans? |
It is fashionable to bash Scientology as wacky - but not Christianity or Islam - because Scientology is a "fringe" religion. That is bigotry - nothing more, nothing less. If you have a religion or any religious beliefs, then you are a hypocrite for making fun of Scientology. It is no more or less ridiculous than any other religion out there - for example, an omnipotent supernatural being that creates everything... but oh, not evil, somehow he's not responsible for that even though he created everything... and in order to fix his damaged "perfect" creation he has to - for some bizarre reason - manifest an incarnation of himself, torture the hell of out it and execute it. Sure, nothing ridiculous there.
Now, as for the details, Scientology does not explicitly require a deity, although it doesn't rule one out. Yes, it has "spirits" and "souls", but spirits are not gods, so having spirits does not change the fact that it can be an atheist religion. And no, neither Xenu nor thetans have anything to do with gods. So Scientology would be a religion that could exist in an atheist world.
As would Jainism. The goal is more precisely god-like consciousness (omniscience, etc.) - attaining moksha doesn't make you a god. There are no gods. Again, that would mean it can exist in an atheist world. |
Anyhow........
No one is bashing scientology(at least not me), and if you took the time to read my signature you would know what I'm about. I am curious as to this book you wrote, could you give me the title and publisher?
I have a question for you and Bikerman, atheists refute God's existence, but can you prove(I realize that the burden of proof does not rest on you), beyon any doubt that god does not exist?
If you can't, then all you've got to go on is faith, yes?
Last edited by mediadar on Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total | mediadar wrote: |
I have a question for you and Bikerman, atheists refute God's existence, but can you prove(I realize that the burden of proof does not rest on you), beyon any doubt that god does not exist?
If you can't, then all you've got to go on is faith, yes? |
No. You still haven't got it.
We don't 'refute' the existence of God. How could we?
Look, let's use a simple analogy. The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU).
Now, let's say I believe in IPU (may her holy hooves never be shod). That is a faith position - agreed?
Now, do you believe in IPU? If not then is that a 'faith' position? Can you prove that IPU does not exist? Of course you can't.
We have three possibilities then -
a) you do believe in IPU (a faith position),
b) you don't believe in IPU, or
c) you positively assert that IPU does not exist. (a faith position)
We can define 'faith' as 'belief without, or in spite of, evidence'. It is apparent, therefore, that a and c are faith positions but b is not. Since there is no evidence for the existence of IPU then it is NOT a faith position to 'not believe' in IPU. Since there is no conclusive proof that IPU does not exist then it IS a faith position to positively state that is the case. Do you see the difference?
Now, speaking for myself, I take the position that the existence of God(s) is extremely unlikely. I can't prove that God does not exist (how do you prove a negative?) but just as the onus is on believers in IPU to demonstrate the evidence, the onus is on theists to demonstrate THEIR evidence. Given that I have never seen any such evidence then it is entirely rational to 'not believe'. | Bikerman wrote: |
| mediadar wrote: | I have a question for you and Bikerman, atheists refute God's existence, but can you prove(I realize that the burden of proof does not rest on you), beyon any doubt that god does not exist?
If you can't, then all you've got to go on is faith, yes? |
No. You still haven't got it.
We don't 'refute' the existence of God. How could we?
Look, let's use a simple analogy. The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU).
Now, let's say I believe in IPU (may her holy hooves never be shod). Do you believe in IPU? If not then is that a 'faith' position? Can you prove that IPU does not exist? Of course you can't.
We have two possibilities then - you either don't believe in IPU, or you positively assert that IPU does not exist. The first is not a faith position - it is merely a lack of belief. The second IS a faith position (belief without, or in spite of, evidence - which is how we define faith).
Do you see the difference? |
Bikerman, I get yours and Indi's point, I just view things differently. I do not believe in God, I lack belief in God. We do not need an example of IPU, we already have God! Whether you call on the Spaghetti Monster, Teacups, flying unicorns, the example remains the same.
Back to Dawkins, Do yo think this was an attempt to stimulate questioning, Oh, and have you seen his segment on Jesus camps? Now there is a topic for conversation.I think Dawkins intent was the one he clearly describes in the opening. Specifically he is aiming to raise consciousness about atheism as a viable 'word-view' and to reassure those who have been brought-up in a theistic environment that there is nothing odd, immoral or 'evil' about adopting an atheist stance.
I've seen a few comments from Dawkins on the 'Jesus Camp' documentary - is that what you mean?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0504.xml | Bikerman wrote: |
I think Dawkins intent was the one he clearly describes in the opening. Specifically he is aiming to raise consciousness about atheism as a viable 'word-view' and to reassure those who have been brought-up in a theistic environment that there is nothing odd, immoral or 'evil' about adopting an atheist stance.
I've seen a few comments from Dawkins on the 'Jesus Camp' documentary - is that what you mean?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/05/do0504.xml |
Yes. Dawkins' website offers a better insight on the subject, scary stuff indeed.
Given that the world's population is divided into, 32% Christian; 19% Islamic; Hinduism 13%; etc... and Atheism holding at 2%, chances are you'll be feeling like an 'Englishman in New York' for some time to come. Maybe, just maybe, when all the mysticism and superstitions that surround religion are dispelled...........Well, I have a strong suspicion that atheism is rather massively under-reported in such statistics.
I personally know many people who write 'Church of England' on official forms but, when pressed, don't really believe in any God - they simply belong to 'the club'. I'm pretty sure this is fairly widespread.
Here in the UK being an atheist is not really a big issue. Religion does not come up often in conversation and when it does most people are pretty relaxed about it. We still have a bit of 'legacy' discrimination built into our systems (blasphemy laws and Bishops sitting in the House of Lords would be the only 2 major ones) but we are a pretty secular society.
I know that the same is true of many European countries but not, unfortunately, of the US...
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, I have a strong suspicion that atheism is rather massively under-reported in such statistics.
I personally know many people who write 'Church of England' on official forms but, when pressed, don't really believe in any God - they simply belong to 'the club'. I'm pretty sure this is fairly widespread.
Here in the UK being an atheist is not really a big issue. Religion does not come up often in conversation and when it does most people are pretty relaxed about it. We still have a bit of 'legacy' discrimination built into our systems (blasphemy laws and Bishops sitting in the House of Lords would be the only 2 major ones) but we are a pretty secular society.
I know that the same is true of many European countries but not, unfortunately, of the US... |
It's okay, I'm on the task
We're working on it haha...gonna be a while unfortunately | Bikerman wrote: |
| I know that the same is true of many European countries but not, unfortunately, of the US... |
Yes... unfortunately not in the US... I can't even walk to class without someone trying to hand me a bible or some sort of flier for their church. When I tell them I'm not interested they always want to "pray for me" and crap like that. Too bad there's so many damn churches next to my university... I think what you said may be true to some extent in the US (mostly with the younger people around my age). Many people I know have stopped going to church in recent years after their parents stopped forcing them (but they still call themselves "Christians"). But there are still many super-religious older people (especially in the "bible belt," where most of my family lives but I fortunately do not live there). | mediadar wrote: |
| No one is bashing scientology(at least not me), and if you took the time to read my signature you would know what I'm about. |
If i read your signature, i know what Diderot was about. When i read your words, i see you calling one religion ridiculous while presenting the others with a straight face... and, presuming you're religious (which i judge by your cluelessness about atheism), you don't think your own religion is ridiculous. Ipso facto, you are a religious bigot - you think it's ok to call Scientology ridiculous, but assumedly your own religion's wackiness is a-ok.
| mediadar wrote: |
| I have a question for you and Bikerman, atheists refute God's existence, but can you prove(I realize that the burden of proof does not rest on you), beyon any doubt that god does not exist? |
Your question starts out with a falsehood that we have already pointed out to you. Atheists do not necessarily refute God's existence. They might, but the vast majority - by far - do not. i do not. i know Bikerman does not. Richard freakin' Dawkins does not! Your characterization of atheism is obviously wrong, just by virtue of the evidence that it doesn't actually describe most atheists (not to mention the logic, but that's another story).
Now, ignoring the falsehood the question starts out with - because... it really has nothing to do with the question - all that's left is the question: "can you prove beyond any doubt that God does not exist?"
No, i cannot. i'm not even motivated to try. i don't claim that God doesn't exist. Never did.
Of course, even if i wanted to try, your question is ridiculous, on two counts. First, you are asking for proof of a negative - that's impossible. No matter what the question is about, unless you're dealing with a closed system or a tautology, you cannot prove a negative, ever. Second, you are asking for a standard of proof that is completely absurd. Of course i can't prove God does or doesn't exist beyond any doubt - i can't even prove this keyboard i'm typing on exists beyond any doubt.
You are asking a non-question. No one can answer yes - and it has nothing to do with atheism or God at all. Replace "God" with "your own head" and ask yourself that question... you can't even answer yes then.
So in summary, my answer is "no", but i can't imagine why that would surprise you. You asked such a stupid question that it is impossible for it to be answered any other way - and if a question only has one answer, you don't really learn anything from it. You just waste everyone's time.
| mediadar wrote: |
| If you can't, then all you've got to go on is faith, yes? |
No, of course not.
First, because i know this is what you're going for, let's pretend for the moment that i actually believe that God doesn't exist - or in other words, that i refute God's existence. (i don't really believe that, but your question is based on that assumption, and it makes little sense if the assumption isn't true (it makes little sense anyway, but i already covered that), so in order to give you any kind of answer, i have to pretend to be a strong atheist.) Second, let's throw the ridiculously impossible standard of proof out the window. With the standard of proof you are asking for, i can't even prove that i am alive, or that i don't have a second head. It's absurd, and i can't give a rational answer to an absurd question. So forget about that silly "beyond any doubt" clause, and let's deal with beyond any doubt that is rational.
No, if i believe God does not exist, faith is not the only crutch i have to lean on. As a matter of fact, there several - and i mean many - non-faith ways by which i can arrive at the conclusion. Here are just two categories of examples i might use.
First, i might use evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Or, more specifically, the lack of evidence. Now, of course absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence... but it is sure a good place to start. And, let's face it, if that is good enough for you to believe you don't have two heads without calling it faith, it's good enough for me to believe we don't have one god.
Second, i might use reason, but this one is tricky because it depends on a clear and honest definition of God... and it is a rare theist that gives you a clear and honest definition of their god, and if you take 10 theists you'll get 11 different definitions. But if you do present me with a definition of God, i will look at it with reason and pick it apart, and when i find out that it is inconsistent, i can dismiss it.
Now, of course, neither of these methods will satisfy your level of proof, but as i said your level of proof is ridiculous. Nevertheless, both of these methods provide the same kind of proof that you use to believe that you have two arms and one head... and if you can believe those without faith, then i can deny God without faith.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Yes... unfortunately not in the US... I can't even walk to class without someone trying to hand me a bible or some sort of flier for their church. When I tell them I'm not interested they always want to "pray for me" and crap like that. |
Yes! Me too! >_< i don't know what's wrong with me. i must seriously look like i'm in dire need of some divine salvation. i get stopped all the time... recently even more often, at least once a week, and although it's usually by the usual suspects (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example), i've been stopped by some of the most obscure religions you can think of. It's kind of a laughing point around here, because i never get stopped when i'm with Anna, and she never gets stopped on her own - leading us to presume they can just smell the sulphury stench of damnation on her already... but apparently not on me.
Most of the time i just take a flier or pamphlet (i have a stack of Watchtowers, and i usually read them, too), and walk on. Sometimes i engage them in a chat (only if a. they look reasonably intelligent, b. they are members of a sect that is new to me, or c. i'm feeling like being a shit), and sometimes they gamely take me on.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I think what you said may be true to some extent in the US (mostly with the younger people around my age). Many people I know have stopped going to church in recent years after their parents stopped forcing them (but they still call themselves "Christians"). |
According to Dawkins, this is really his target audience - people that don't really believe, but continue to stick with the religion simply because (they think) there are no better options. | Indi wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Yes... unfortunately not in the US... I can't even walk to class without someone trying to hand me a bible or some sort of flier for their church. When I tell them I'm not interested they always want to "pray for me" and crap like that. |
Yes! Me too! >_< i don't know what's wrong with me. i must seriously look like i'm in dire need of some divine salvation. i get stopped all the time... recently even more often, at least once a week, and although it's usually by the usual suspects (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example), i've been stopped by some of the most obscure religions you can think of. It's kind of a laughing point around here, because i never get stopped when i'm with Anna, and she never gets stopped on her own - leading us to presume they can just smell the sulphury stench of damnation on her already... but apparently not on me.
Most of the time i just take a flier or pamphlet (i have a stack of Watchtowers, and i usually read them, too), and walk on. Sometimes i engage them in a chat (only if a. they look reasonably intelligent, b. they are members of a sect that is new to me, or c. i'm feeling like being a shit), and sometimes they gamely take me on. |
I usually get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door but don't usually see God folk out in public.
One time I was in Daytona Beach and this guy was standing around with his family handing out fliers. They were all wearing bible quote shirts and he said something to me about Jesus. My cousin and I just looked at him and continued to walk. Then he said "You boys don't want to go to hell, do you?" I found his technique annoying and amusing at the same time. It was as if he was handing out free "go to heaven cards".
I just told him "Yes, I do want to go to hell" sarcastically and kept walking.
It made me think though. Had he been successful with the hell technique previously? | Indi wrote: |
| mediadar wrote: | | No one is bashing scientology(at least not me), and if you took the time to read my signature you would know what I'm about. |
If i read your signature, i know what Diderot was about. When i read your words, i see you calling one religion ridiculous while presenting the others with a straight face... and, presuming you're religious (which i judge by your cluelessness about atheism), you don't think your own religion is ridiculous. Ipso facto, you are a religious bigot - you think it's ok to call Scientology ridiculous, but assumedly your own religion's wackiness is a-ok.
|
Darling, there is not a religious bone in my body. I'd like to know where I presented a specific, or as you put it, 'other' religions with a straight face? Now I'll ask again, what is the title and publisher of your book, if you don't mind? | Indi wrote: |
Yes! Me too! >_< i don't know what's wrong with me. i must seriously look like i'm in dire need of some divine salvation. i get stopped all the time... recently even more often, at least once a week, and although it's usually by the usual suspects (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example), i've been stopped by some of the most obscure religions you can think of. It's kind of a laughing point around here, because i never get stopped when i'm with Anna, and she never gets stopped on her own - leading us to presume they can just smell the sulphury stench of damnation on her already... but apparently not on me.
Most of the time i just take a flier or pamphlet (i have a stack of Watchtowers, and i usually read them, too), and walk on. Sometimes i engage them in a chat (only if a. they look reasonably intelligent, b. they are members of a sect that is new to me, or c. i'm feeling like being a shit), and sometimes they gamely take me on. |
Most of the time I get stopped by the usual suspects also, but sometimes I do get stopped by some interesting group of people and that's always interesting... Sometimes I'll talk to them and if I feel lke being an ass, I'll give them a hard time by critically challenging what they have to say.
| Indi wrote: |
According to Dawkins, this is really his target audience - people that don't really believe, but continue to stick with the religion simply because (they think) there are no better options. |
That's because it's hard to give up beliefs that you've had for so long (at least it was for me). I stopped believing in God when I was about 16 (after learning some basic biology and really thinking critically about what I believed in) but I was a "Christian" until I was about 17. Now it's hard for me to understand why I bought into those beliefs for so long. | miacps wrote: |
| I usually get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door but don't usually see God folk out in public. |
Yeah, i do a lot of walking - around campus, and i much prefer to walk the 5 minutes to the store rather than drive. i tend to get caught at the store (which is a fairly large plaza in a residential area) and campus - but more often at the store.
| miacps wrote: |
One time I was in Daytona Beach and this guy was standing around with his family handing out fliers. They were all wearing bible quote shirts and he said something to me about Jesus. My cousin and I just looked at him and continued to walk. Then he said "You boys don't want to go to hell, do you?" I found his technique annoying and amusing at the same time. It was as if he was handing out free "go to heaven cards".
I just told him "Yes, I do want to go to hell" sarcastically and kept walking. |
i will channel my darker half for a moment, and suggest that the next time that happens, your sarcastic answer should be something along the lines of, "No, so that's why we're walking away." Or just look him over and then say, "Looks like we're already there."
| miacps wrote: |
| It made me think though. Had he been successful with the hell technique previously? |
i wonder at that. i've hypothesized that most of these techniques were developed in environments that are entirely mono-religious. That means that when they were invented and tested, they were pretty much tested right on the congregation. They never really had a chance to test these things on actual non-faithful, just faithful that were trying their best to put themselves into what they believe is the mindset of the non-faithful... which, as you probably know, is pretty far off from reality.
i remember vividly one experience i had in Wyoming (or possibly Utah - it was a long drive). Anna and i pulled into a truck stop to get a bite, and she started chatting with a family from Ottawa who told her they'd passed this big flashy haunted house that their kids begged to go see... but when they got in the "scary" stuff in this haunted house wasn't monsters and vampires and so on... it was burning in hell. It was a Christian fundamentalist haunted house. ^_^; So of course Anna had to go see it.
i think they marked us the moment we pulled up, because they were giving us dirty stares almost before we got out of the car. They probably would have refused us entry if it hadn't been for Anna's "charm" (read: whining and begging)... they were certainly hesitant to let us in.
But when we got in... what a hoot. It was broken into separate rooms with actors doing little skits in each room. The first bunch of rooms showed various temptations - stealing a toy, premarital sex (that one, of course, amused Anna to no end, although the poor kids doing the scene were rather frazzled by her not-so-helpful stage directions) - then the next room showed most of the players "burning" and suffering various torments in hell - then the next room showed the kid that stole the candy bar praying for forgiveness - and finally the last room was... they claim... "heaven", with the kid enjoying a curiously homoerotic/paedophilic moment with "Jesus". And if that wasn't amusing enough, "Jesus" besought us to fall to our knees right then and there and pray to be saved, along with him and Snickers (i can't remember the boy's name, but Anna dubbed him Snickers after his ill-gotten confection). My only contribution at that point was to ask, "Can i have the Snickers instead?"
i can't imagine any conceivable way that someone without their head firmly implanted rectally could fail to see that such a spectacle does not invoke fear in a normal person but rather hilarity... unless said person is living in the proverbial cave. In this case, the cave is the little pocket of Christian America they live in, which - i observed - is completely cut off from the outside world, culturally. Anna tried and succeeded to pass off Canadian Tire money as real Canadian currency on several occasions (although she never actually went through with it - and for those who don't know, Canadian Tire money looks like Monopoly money, and comes in denominations of 5¢, 10¢, 25¢...).
| mediadar wrote: |
| Darling, there is not a religious bone in my body. |
There is a religious bone in everyone's body. That is why religions are so prevalent now and throughout history. The key is to recognize it for what it is, and feed it with "religion" that is not destructive, or based on ignorance - for example, the sense of wonder at the scale of the universe.
| mediadar wrote: |
| I'd like to know where I presented a specific, or as you put it, 'other' religions with a straight face? |
i always wonder at people who ask me to point out where they said something right after i criticized it explicitly while referring directly to it, and sometimes even quoting it.
i mean, seriously, let's be logical about this. i'm going to allow that you forgot what you wrote - hey, it happens, even to intelligent people - but wouldn't it even occur to you that the comment i am referring to might be in the present thread? And given that... rather obvious... assumption, you only made 8 posts in this thread before asking that question, most of them only two or three sentences long, most of them back-to-back... is it really that hard to spot the explicit wording i repeated? How often do you use the word "ridiculous" with reference to religion? Is it seriously that often that in the space of 8 posts you said it so many times you can't possibly dig out the specific reference i am referring to?
EVEN AFTER I EXPLICITLY QUOTED IT?
Would you really like me to quote it again? Perhaps in colour this time?
| mediadar wrote: |
| Now I'll ask again, what is the title and publisher of your book, if you don't mind? |
And again i'll decline to answer, because i do mind.
First of all, it is not a mass market book, so you cannot go to your local bookstore and pick it up. You'd have to specifically order it from my university press, and i really can't see you or anyone else around here going out of your way to do that. Secondly, the reason it is not a mass market book is because it is an essentially technical overview of a very specific and obscure corner of academia. It is hardly for consumption by the general public. Thirdly, if i did give out that information, you'd have - gift-wrapped - my real name, address and home phone number. Not gonna happen.
So basically, if i gave that information, the chances are slim to none that you'd get anything out of it but my identity. i don't really see what i have to gain from that.
If you're really that curious about the topic, go to your local college or university and ask the philosophy department for texts on the subject... and be prepared to read. Maybe they'll recommend mine, maybe they won't - hey, maybe they'll recommend something even better.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| That's because it's hard to give up beliefs that you've had for so long (at least it was for me). I stopped believing in God when I was about 16 (after learning some basic biology and really thinking critically about what I believed in) but I was a "Christian" until I was about 17. Now it's hard for me to understand why I bought into those beliefs for so long. |
i'm not sure inertia is the main reason people don't switch away quicker. The way i imagine it is by picturing a vegetarian in an old-fashioned town, like the stereotypical Texas they satirize in King of the Hill.
Imagine a person in that town, where everyone eats red meat three squares a day, and grilling is a sport... who comes to a growing sense of discomfort with the idea of eating meat. At first, they don't really understand explicitly why they think vegetarianism is the way to go, maybe basing it on some gut instinct they felt on watching some animal butchered... but soon they start hearing tidbits about how meat isn't all that healthy for you. Of course, inevitably they're offered more meat, and when they try to beg off, saying they hear it isn't all that healthy, they're laughed at, told to "look at Jim! He eats 3 40 oz steaks a day and he's the picture of health!", and basically treated like they're being silly. If they persist, they get told they're insulting the host offering them meat, and they have to eat it.
And what can they do? They have a few vague notions that vegetarianism is healthier, along with a few disjointed facts that the meat-eaters around them casually dismiss. Unless they're really determined vegetarians... they'll probably be eating meat for a long time.
Enter Richard Dawkins, with an entire book on why vegetarianism is a healthier choice, why the dismissals made by the meat-eaters are all flawed... and basically shouting, "it's not only ok to be a vegetarian! You should be proud! Stand up!"
That's what i see the book as being about. A lot of people are surrounded by religions, and the few sparse facts they get about alternatives are laughed off or treated with hostility... and they don't have anywhere near enough knowledge about them to defend them coherently. Just look around these forums! Apparently even the atheists don't know what atheism is! ^_^; Then comes Dawkins, with a robust, clear, and uncompromising outline of the alternatives.
Basically, i don't think it's inertia that holds people back from walking away from their religion, i think it's ignorance, as in they don't know much about the alternative to their religion, so they don't know what they can do, let alone why it is a good, solid choice to make. There are probably people who have access to all that knowledge and simply haven't bothered to look it up yet, but i suspect that more people simply don't know where to look, or even that something might be there to look for.^^Indi
While you do make a good point (that I believe has a lot of validity in it) I do believe that inertia does have a lot to do with statistical Christians (or any other religion). One example is myself. I completely believed in God as a child but I began to doubt it as a teenager. I remember thinking to myself, "Why do I believe in God? This is just sounding ridiculous." The only answer that I was able to come up with was, "Well I've known he exists my whole life so there must be something to this." Even after I finally came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, I still continued to be a "Christian" because it had become a part of my life. It took me a while (it was a gradual process) to completely shed that identity.
I'm not the only example that I can think of. Today I asked several people who claim to be Christians but don't always act like it why they believe in God and their responses were things similar to the way that I felt. This makes me think that they don't legitimately believe in God, but it's become a part of them.
Indi,
I would like to apologize for using the term Darling in my previous post. Although no one mentioned it, I thought it inappropriate.
The term 'you can't prove a negative,' is a negative in itself and yes, negatives can be proven.(unless we are talking mythical creatures) As for Scientology. when I said it was ridiculous, think of the context, I was making reference to Xenu as a deity. You used Scientology as a reference of a religion without a deity....
Peace,
MD.
Indi and Afaceinthematrix:
You might be interested in the article I stumbled across earlier about Colorado Coalition of Reason (COCORE), and their billboard campaign... (I started a new thread about it before I read your posts) the reason for their campaign is to reach out to others who feel isolated due to their lack of faith.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html#-
Before I read your posts, I was checking out this thread because I found another article (ok, I admit it, I've been reading Rotten.com *hangs head in shame*) about Dawkin's book being blamed for a young man's suicide:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459
| World Net News wrote: |
| A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it. |
(This site reports with a heavy fundamentalist Christian bias.) Books don't kill people.
Insecure people with psychological issues kill themselves. (not trying to sound harsh)
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
^^Indi
While you do make a good point (that I believe has a lot of validity in it) I do believe that inertia does have a lot to do with statistical Christians (or any other religion). One example is myself. I completely believed in God as a child but I began to doubt it as a teenager. I remember thinking to myself, "Why do I believe in God? This is just sounding ridiculous." The only answer that I was able to come up with was, "Well I've known he exists my whole life so there must be something to this." Even after I finally came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist, I still continued to be a "Christian" because it had become a part of my life. It took me a while (it was a gradual process) to completely shed that identity.
I'm not the only example that I can think of. Today I asked several people who claim to be Christians but don't always act like it why they believe in God and their responses were things similar to the way that I felt. This makes me think that they don't legitimately believe in God, but it's become a part of them. |
Oh, it is quite possible. In fact, i would be surprised if it weren't really a case of both. i mean, let's be realistic - if it were just a matter of ignorance, and you really did want to find out more, any half-determined person in a free country would have an easy job of it. Ignorance alone doesn't really hold water... but ignorance and inertia, that makes sense. Now you have a person who doesn't really know the details of the other options, and simply isn't motivated to go find them out. They're fairly comfortable as is.
Of course, when they start to get too uncomfortable, then they will overcome their inertia and seek out the information to snuff out their ignorance.
| mediadar wrote: |
| The term 'you can't prove a negative,' is a negative in itself and yes, negatives can be proven.(unless we are talking mythical creatures) |
What i said was: "... unless you're dealing with a closed system or a tautology, you cannot prove a negative, ever."
That statement is a statement about logic. Logic is a closed system. Therefore that statement does not apply to logic itself. And since it is a statement about logic itself, it can be negative and provable (because it is not true within logic itself). This is a metalogic argument.
The universe (or the cosmos, or reality, whatever) is not a closed system. If that logical argument is applied to the universe, it applies. You can prove a negative in logic, mathematics, or any closed system. You cannot prove a negative in general, and certainly not for the case of the universe.
You can never prove that God does not exist - it is impossible.
You can prove that God does exist - although, of course, that proof cannot be absolute. But if you can accept the premises of the argument (and the argument is not fallacious, of course), then you can prove God exists. But there is no set of reasonable premises that can lead to proof that he does not.
| mediadar wrote: |
| As for Scientology. when I said it was ridiculous, think of the context, I was making reference to Xenu as a deity. You used Scientology as a reference of a religion without a deity.... |
i am thinking of the context, and it is unfortunate that you did not make your statement just a week before you did, or i could have put it directly to some of the leaders of Scientology in this province - they hosted a seminar to explain Scientology in their own terms. Unfortunately, this did not come up in time, so i have to rely on my own knowledge of the teachings of Scientology - which is quite extensive. And the context that you think you have is just plain wrong.
Xenu is not a deity in Scientology. Xenu is not even anything approaching the concept of a deity... in any religion. Xenu was just a person. An alien person, but a person. Not a god in any way, shape or form.
Scientology holds that we are all immortal "things" - thetans - that resurrect life after life... and carry the emotional scars from each life. So when something traumatic happens to you, when you die and are reborn, you are reborn with an unconscious emotional trauma you cannot remember that affects your life and personality. These are called engrams.
Now we all accumulate engrams during the process of our lives, and these all come back to haunt us and affect our future lives... but there are a few major "incidents" that affect us all - as a race - which explain certain universalities in human blah blah blah. Anyway, the punch line is that there are a handful of major "incidents" in our past that affect all humans. One of those events is the Xenu event, where an alien overlord rounded up, tortured and killed (and did various other horrible things) to a bunch of aliens (us in our past lives), which left us all with a major engram that we all share.
Note: Xenu is just an alien overlord. Not a god. Not by any definition at all. This is just an event that happened in this universe in the past when we were inhabiting other bodies. Xenu was just another alien.
So whatever context it was that prompted you to imply Xenu was a deity, it was wrong.
| Jinx wrote: |
| Before I read your posts, I was checking out this thread because I found another article (ok, I admit it, I've been reading Rotten.com *hangs head in shame*) about Dawkin's book being blamed for a young man's suicide: |
i'm not familiar with Rotten.com, but if that worldnetdaily.com is on your reading list, you should definitely be ashamed of that. ^_^;
Now most people will try to tiptoe around this issue and be sensitive, etc. etc. and they will probably criticize me for being so harsh - but that man killed his son, and i speak up about it with the hope that it shines the light on what an ignorant kook he was, and maybe saves some other kid... but i doubt that will happen, because it is perfectly ok in our culture for a parent to turn their child into an ignorant, frightened, emotionally damaged basket case in the name of religion... while reading a book by a biology professor is considered dangerous.
That man killed his son, assuming he had a hand in the kid's upbringing, and assuming he raised the kid the way he talked in that article. i direct you to this: "He suggested the moral is for Christians simply to abandon public schools wholly." This is not a rational man - even if you grant he is speaking out of pain right now. He is so blinded by his religion, he would prefer the child ditch school rather than the religion.
Now why did the child really kill himself? Who knows, but let's take the father's theory as fact. This boy - at 10 years old - considered himself to be "a culture warrior and traditionalist", and named himself after the rapture. Where do you think that came from? School? Not bloody likely.
And then he has an existentialist crisis where his growing knowledge began to conflict with his beliefs. So what? People have these all the time. But this boy has had his beliefs beaten into his head so bloody hard, that the conflict made him feel so guilty for doubting his religious beliefs he shot himself. You doubt? Well listen to the words of one of the boy's relatives: "Jesse was always great about defending his beliefs, but somehow, the professors and the book had presented him information that he found to be irrefutable. He had not talked … about it because he was afraid of how you might react. ... and that he knew most of your defenses of Christianity because he himself used them often. Maybe he had used them against his professors and had the ideas shot down." See what's in there? The relative says straight up - the kid was afraid of disappointing his father because his father's "defences" failed against the arguments in the book and from the professors.
Where could that kind of guilt come from? From the school that was teaching him to open his mind? Doubtful. From his father...? We have a winner.
It was not Dawkins, or the boy's growing knowledge and doubts, that killed him. IT WAS THE FEAR that those doubts stirred up. And that did not come from Dawkins. It came from his father.
That boy was killed by his father (and his father's fundamentalist religious teaching), not Dawkins. | Indi wrote: |
i remember vividly one experience i had in Wyoming (or possibly Utah - it was a long drive). Anna and i pulled into a truck stop to get a bite, and she started chatting with a family from Ottawa who told her they'd passed this big flashy haunted house that their kids begged to go see... but when they got in the "scary" stuff in this haunted house wasn't monsters and vampires and so on... it was burning in hell. It was a Christian fundamentalist haunted house. ^_^; So of course Anna had to go see it.
i think they marked us the moment we pulled up, because they were giving us dirty stares almost before we got out of the car. They probably would have refused us entry if it hadn't been for Anna's "charm" (read: whining and begging)... they were certainly hesitant to let us in.
But when we got in... what a hoot. It was broken into separate rooms with actors doing little skits in each room. The first bunch of rooms showed various temptations - stealing a toy, premarital sex (that one, of course, amused Anna to no end, although the poor kids doing the scene were rather frazzled by her not-so-helpful stage directions) - then the next room showed most of the players "burning" and suffering various torments in hell - then the next room showed the kid that stole the candy bar praying for forgiveness - and finally the last room was... they claim... "heaven", with the kid enjoying a curiously homoerotic/paedophilic moment with "Jesus". And if that wasn't amusing enough, "Jesus" besought us to fall to our knees right then and there and pray to be saved, along with him and Snickers (i can't remember the boy's name, but Anna dubbed him Snickers after his ill-gotten confection). My only contribution at that point was to ask, "Can i have the Snickers instead?" |
That's awesome!
We never get anything like that where I live; the reason most likely being that any place within a certain distance from the coast is too much of a melting pot for those things to be taken seriously. | Indi wrote: |
But when we got in... what a hoot. It was broken into separate rooms with actors doing little skits in each room. The first bunch of rooms showed various temptations - stealing a toy, premarital sex (that one, of course, amused Anna to no end, although the poor kids doing the scene were rather frazzled by her not-so-helpful stage directions) - then the next room showed most of the players "burning" and suffering various torments in hell - then the next room showed the kid that stole the candy bar praying for forgiveness - and finally the last room was... they claim... "heaven", with the kid enjoying a curiously homoerotic/paedophilic moment with "Jesus". And if that wasn't amusing enough, "Jesus" besought us to fall to our knees right then and there and pray to be saved, along with him and Snickers (i can't remember the boy's name, but Anna dubbed him Snickers after his ill-gotten confection). My only contribution at that point was to ask, "Can i have the Snickers instead?" |
Haha.... Your wife was giving them stage directions during sex scenes? I can imagine that watching that was humorous. I can also imagine that making those actors not very comfortable... but they probably needed the advice... I'd imagine that most fundamentalists don't have a lot of sexperience... considering birth control is banned (or is that just in Catholicism?)... you can't have sex too often if birth control is banned... I would like to visit that "haunted house." Do you have any idea if it's still in operation or was it just a short term thing?Wife? ^_^; i've been called masochistic, but i'm not that masochistic. Besides, there's a bit of a gender mismatch. ^_^;
Yes, Anna was giving the jock boy instructions on how to grope properly, "Oh, come on! They don't bite! Just get in there and grab a handful and squeeze! Don't make me come over there and show you," and so on. Unsurprisingly they didn't listen to her, which caused her to comment (loudly) as we left that room that if groping was really a sin, the boy had nothing to worry about.
Honestly, i am not sure if it is a regular thing. i was under the impression that it was at least a seasonal thing (this was early November, so i assumed it was for Halloween... which i am not sure of because it seems a little un-fanatical-Christian-ish to celebrate Halloween), because it was such a sophisticated operation i can't really believe it was a one-time deal. You don't really spend that much time and effort putting up tents and building such elaborate props for a one-time deal, right? And now that i think about it, some of the props didn't really look freshly painted....
^^ Ahh, sorry. I just saw Anna, a name often associated with females, and made an incorrect assumption! I guess the old saying is true, "When you assume you make an ass out of you and me (ass/u/me)!" Anyways... the "haunted house" sounded like fun! I want to visit there sometime!
| Indi wrote: |
You can't make an ignorant comparison less ignorant by replacing a specific example with a vague, general one. Atheism has absolutely no relationship to totalitarian regimes. None at all. Nothing about being atheist leads one to totalitarianism, and nothing about totalitarian leads one to atheism. (Quite the opposite, actually - a true totalitarian will, ultimately, if they go all the way, declare themselves to be, in essence, a god. This is what happened to places like the Soviet Union, for example, where the state grasped power of everything, and eventually shoved aside the competing gods in religions to declare itself divine by making the state religion worship of the state itself. The only thing that made that "religion" atheist was the fact that they didn't literally declare the state a god (as most previous totalitarians have done), so they had no literal god, although the state itself was pretty close to it.) |
Oh yes.......and Hitler was well aware of the Christian totalitarianism present in the world, what religion was allowed to do in the past, how people had twisted it to there own ends, how it held political power , how usefull it can be in controlling the masses, he also like you discribe above (at least attempted to) declare himself "chosen by God to do Gods work"... erm..... is'nt that the same as declaring yourself divine ? , He also tried to set up a state church , placed ristrictions of what priests could or could not say , he turned the church into a servant of the state , when it failed by amalgamation he used force 
...... anyway please feel free to choose your own persuasive definitions of what is ignorant or not, I will continue to make up my own mind based on the unbiased facts as I see them, I dont care for your seemingly athiest apology/excuse for the state a country can get into without religion any fool can tell you you dont need religion to create monsters out of people, my initial post was to find out where these monsters would take there ideology from what excuses would arise for the greed , death and destruction that inevitablly follows human progress ... will we just stop making up excuses ?... I think this is the part where you refuse to answer any more questions | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Oh yes.......and Hitler was well aware of the Christian totalitarianism present in the world, what religion was allowed to do in the past, how people had twisted it to there own ends, how it held political power , how usefull it can be in controlling the masses, he also like you discribe above (at least attempted to) declare himself "chosen by God to do Gods work"... erm..... is'nt that the same as declaring yourself divine ? , He also tried to set up a state church , placed ristrictions of what priests could or could not say , he turned the church into a servant of the state , when it failed by amalgamation he used force ...... |
So? None of this suggests he wasn't Christian. All of this can and has been done by Christians in the past (and present). In fact, all he'd need is a funny hat and he could be a pope.
You keep listing things Hitler did and saying that you can interpret them as being done with atheist motivations, and i keep pointing out that you can also interpret that as being done with Christian motivations and that assuming Christian motivations explains a whole bunch of other things that atheist motivations do not. We can go on doing this forever if that is going to get your rocks off, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense at all to call Hitler an atheist given the evidence.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| anyway please feel free to choose your own persuasive definitions of what is ignorant or not |
The reason my definitions are persuasive is because they are correct. It is actually quite easy to persuade people of a point when your opponent's argument is so plainly just silly.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I will continue to make up my own mind based on the unbiased facts as I see them |
You see, there's the problem right there. If you are looking at the "facts as you see them", then you are - by default - automatically looking at biased facts.
Rather than looking at "the facts as you see them", just look at the facts and see what answer they give.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I dont care for your seemingly athiest apology/excuse for the state a country can get into without religion any fool can tell you you dont need religion to create monsters out of people |
i never claimed you needed religion to make monsters. i just said Hitler was a Christian:
- by his own claim.
- by the evidence of his belief system.
- by the words of his friends.
- by his upbringing.
- by his actions before coming to power.
- by his actions after coming to power.
And i provided evidence for each of those points.
The evidence that Hitler was a Christian comes from:
- the claims of Christian writers who never met him, all written after his death (during his life, everyone agreed he was Christian).
- your imagination.
The conclusion seems obvious.
Of course you can have monsters without religion, but that is not the point. Hitler was a Christian, most of his associates and the Nazi leaders were Christian, the NSDAP (Nazi party) was an explicitly Christian party, and the population of Germany that carried out the atrocities for Hitler were almost completely Christian. That is the point i have been making.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| my initial post was to find out where these monsters would take there ideology from what excuses would arise for the greed , death and destruction that inevitablly follows human progress ... |
If greed, death and destruction follow human progress, then going back a thousand or ten thousand years i should find human beings that are generous, live full lives without fear of early death and that are unfamiliar with rampant destruction.
Do you seriously think that is what i will find?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| will we just stop making up excuses ?... I think this is the part where you refuse to answer any more questions |
The only questions you have asked in this post are:
- Isn't declaring yourself chosen by God to do God's work the same as declaring yourself divine?
- Will we (i don't know who you mean by "we", but i assume humanity) just stop making excuses for greed, death and destruction?
i don't know why you think i would refuse to answer these or any questions - no matter how ignorant the questions may be. If you want answers, here they are:
- No. Don't be absurd.
- If this is not a rhetorical question: Why are you asking me? i am hardly the spokesperson for all of humanity, and i don't really want to do be.
If these answers aren't really helpful or informative in anyway, that's because the questions you asked were idiotic. If you want smart answers, don't ask dumb questions. | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Oh yes.......and Hitler was well aware of the Christian totalitarianism present in the world, what religion was allowed to do in the past, how people had twisted it to there own ends, how it held political power , how usefull it can be in controlling the masses, he also like you discribe above (at least attempted to) declare himself "chosen by God to do Gods work"... erm..... is'nt that the same as declaring yourself divine ? , He also tried to set up a state church , placed ristrictions of what priests could or could not say , he turned the church into a servant of the state , when it failed by amalgamation he used force ...... |
So? None of this suggests he wasn't Christian. All of this can and has been done by Christians in the past (and present). In fact, all he'd need is a funny hat and he could be a pope. |
and by none religious people too, and most certainly people claiming to be religious or even Gods , as I said way way up there all this propaganda is nothing new, so whats your point ?
| indi wrote: |
You keep listing things Hitler did and saying that you can interpret them as being done with atheist motivations, and i keep pointing out that you can also interpret that as being done with Christian motivations and that assuming Christian motivations explains a whole bunch of other things that atheist motivations do not. We can go on doing this forever if that is going to get your rocks off, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense at all to call Hitler an atheist given the evidence. |
Your absolutely right , BUT no I do not keep insisting Hitler was an athiest , I just deny "the" evidence that he was a Christian because its not convincing to me, Im not a Christian and I care little for Christianity in a direct personal sense , I dont want to be seen as standing up for Christianity because I am not, yes yes yes Christianity has been the catalist for much pain and grief ,has been the cause of much conflict and division of communitys , its been an excuse for war and control of the masses for millennia , it would be so easy for me to say I agree that Hitler was a Christian but like yourself I think he was to intelligent to believe in the bullshit , unfortunatly for him the bullshit was well dug in and held power and influence, allthough the church congregations had been dropping in numbers since WWI (back to bums on seats) .
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | anyway please feel free to choose your own persuasive definitions of what is ignorant or not |
The reason my definitions are persuasive is because they are correct. It is actually quite easy to persuade people of a point when your opponent's argument is so plainly just silly. |
I think its just plain sill how you cant see Hitler killing the Church with kindness, then literally killing those who opposed him despite his kindness, I think its plain silly to not see that Jesus (and we must assume Christians) would not aprove of such actions , so to say those things are done in the name of the Christian God & Son is getting back to the same old BS.... EXCUSES a reason to gain what you really want
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I will continue to make up my own mind based on the unbiased facts as I see them |
| Indi wrote: | | You see, there's the problem right there. If you are looking at the "facts as you see them", then you are - by default - automatically looking at biased facts. |
Ok I will just look at the facts the way you see them ..... ok done that.... no to biased given the lack of true convincing evidence ,the circumstantial evidence if looked at as only an end to a means can be seen in a different light, and anyway I will reject your information because it does not fit with my (pre) conception of the world, and blindly use instinct to find the truth
| Indi wrote: | | Rather than looking at "the facts as you see them", just look at the facts and see what answer they give. |
| Indi wrote: | | Tumbleweed wrote: | | I dont care for your seemingly athiest apology/excuse for the state a country can get into without religion any fool can tell you you dont need religion to create monsters out of people |
i never claimed you needed religion to make monsters. i just said Hitler was a Christian:
- by his own claim.
- by the evidence of his belief system.
- by the words of his friends.
- by his upbringing.
- by his actions before coming to power.
- by his actions after coming to power.
And i provided evidence for each of those points. |
The evidence that Hitler was a Christian comes from:
- the claims of Christian writers who never met him, all written after his death (during his life, everyone agreed he was Christian).
- your imagination.
The conclusion seems obvious.
Of course you can have monsters without religion, but that is not the point. Hitler was a Christian, most of his associates and the Nazi leaders were Christian, the NSDAP (Nazi party) was an explicitly Christian party, and the population of Germany that carried out the atrocities for Hitler were almost completely Christian. That is the point i have been making. |
That is the point....if we consider my first post, what do we replace religion with ? I agree as I have said before for the most , apart from the Hitler bit
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | my initial post was to find out where these monsters would take there ideology from what excuses would arise for the greed , death and destruction that inevitablly follows human progress ... |
If greed, death and destruction follow human progress, then going back a thousand or ten thousand years i should find human beings that are generous, live full lives without fear of early death and that are unfamiliar with rampant destruction.
Do you seriously think that is what i will find? |
Why would you find kind people as you go back in time ? people have had the same personality traits for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands , one would possibly find the same kind of people you find today some kind some not so ,most doing what it takes to see tomorrow, if your saying we are kinder today than then , I can only suggest you thank Christianity for its part in modern culture
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | will we just stop making up excuses ?... I think this is the part where you refuse to answer any more questions |
The only questions you have asked in this post are:
- Isn't declaring yourself chosen by God to do God's work the same as declaring yourself divine?
- Will we (i don't know who you mean by "we", but i assume humanity) just stop making excuses for greed, death and destruction?
i don't know why you think i would refuse to answer these or any questions - no matter how ignorant the questions may be. If you want answers, here they are:
- No. Don't be absurd.
- If this is not a rhetorical question: Why are you asking me? i am hardly the spokesperson for all of humanity, and i don't really want to do be.
|
You seem to be a good spokes person for history, if you can say with such assurtion what facts are historically correct then yes that does make you a spokes person for Humanity , when speaking about humanity as we were.
| Indi wrote: |
| If these answers aren't really helpful or informative in anyway, that's because the questions you asked were idiotic. If you want smart answers, don't ask dumb questions. |
I asked you to tell me how the teaching of Jesus relate to the actions of Hitler ....this is the point of where you started to get all shirty , refusing to answer and calling me names (which we all can see as playground tactics to make yourself and hence your points look better.... just like Hitler did)...... feel free to answer the question, I am not knowlegable enough about Christianity to collate the two.Again, the point is if you believe in the Christian God and you believe he sent his only son, Jesus, to die for our sins, you're a Christian.
Hitler did. End of story.
I can't help but chuckle at the stories of people being stopped by evangelising Christians. At my university I only get stopped by annoying socialists with pictures of Marx, claiming that the current economical situation (they use a different phrase) proves that capitalism has no future. Think of the guy in my avatar but with a different text on the board. And they're annoyingly persistent like handfleisch at communicating their likes and dislikes.
As for the rest of this thread... TL;DR
Last edited by Arnie on Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | So? None of this suggests he wasn't Christian. All of this can and has been done by Christians in the past (and present). In fact, all he'd need is a funny hat and he could be a pope. |
and by none religious people too, and most certainly people claiming to be religious or even Gods , as I said way way up there all this propaganda is nothing new, so whats your point ? |
^_^; My point is the same as it has always been. i can keep repeating it if you want, but it's not going to change. Here it is... again: There is a ton of evidence supporting the idea that Hitler was a devout Christian throughout his life, and not one single tiny atom of evidence that he was not. i say again, there is not one single smidgen of evidence to suggest that Hitler was faking his Christianity. Not one.
Your entire argument - which you have been repeating over and over despite the fact that pretty much everyone here who has commented on it has pointed out that it's stupid ^_^; - is basically the following: "Hitler did some things that non-Christians also do. Therefore you don't believe he was Christian." It is so monumentally stupid, i am thoroughly flabbergasted that you have pushed it this long. Basically, it's this: "yes, there sure is a ton of evidence Hitler was a Christian and nothing really to show that he wasn't... but he brushed his teeth! Yes! He brushed his teeth! And we all know a lot of non-Christians also brush their teeth! Therefore it is possible that Hitler wasn't a Christian!" Replace the teeth brushing with committing mass murder... and that is literally your entire argument. ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Your absolutely right , BUT no I do not keep insisting Hitler was an athiest , I just deny "the" evidence that he was a Christian because its not convincing to me, Im not a Christian and I care little for Christianity in a direct personal sense , I dont want to be seen as standing up for Christianity because I am not, yes yes yes Christianity has been the catalist for much pain and grief ,has been the cause of much conflict and division of communitys , its been an excuse for war and control of the masses for millennia , it would be so easy for me to say I agree that Hitler was a Christian but like yourself I think he was to intelligent to believe in the bullshit , unfortunatly for him the bullshit was well dug in and held power and influence, allthough the church congregations had been dropping in numbers since WWI (back to bums on seats) . |
Hitler was a smart man? ^_^; Since when? He may have been a canny politician... but i don't see how that makes him a rational man.
Oh, but pardon me! ^_^; i mean, of course if he was a really good politician that means he was an intelligent, rational, clear-thinking person! i mean, that's what all good politicians are like, right? ^_^;
Come on. ^_^; Your arguments are just getting stupider and stupider. This is really beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. For starters, even if Hitler was a brilliant thinker... so what? ^_^; Lots of brilliant thinkers have been devout Christians. It's rather offensive to imply that only stupid people are Christians, you know. (And by the way... "like yourself I think he was to intelligent to believe in the bullshit"... say what? ^_^ i most certainly do not think he was too intelligent to believe in the bullshit... and i've been saying so over and over.)
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I think its just plain sill how you cant see Hitler killing the Church with kindness, then literally killing those who opposed him despite his kindness, I think its plain silly to not see that Jesus (and we must assume Christians) would not aprove of such actions , so to say those things are done in the name of the Christian God & Son is getting back to the same old BS.... EXCUSES a reason to gain what you really want |
Oh my god, why didn't i think of that! He wasn't doing what Jesus would have wanted, so therefore he cannot be a Christian because all Christians always do what Jesus would approve of! ^_^; [/sarcasm]
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| That is the point....if we consider my first post, what do we replace religion with ? I agree as I have said before for the most , apart from the Hitler bit |
i have never "considered" your first post in any depth because it's a pretty weak post. You don't actually make any real points, and very few verifiable facts (and the few facts you did give that can be verified turn out to be sketchy at best). You ask a few questions with despicable implications... which is what got you in hot water to begin with... but you never really make a point. You ask what we might replace religion with if it were to be eliminated, and throw out "fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives", as if they are really the only or even the first thing that might pop up should religion be done with. That's all there is to this first post you keep pointing back to. It's a stupid, empty post, and no matter how you dress it up, it's nothing more than that.
If you would like to try and make a point, i say go for it. Go ahead, tell us what you think religion will be "replaced" with... and tell us why, rather than just making insulting insinuations and leaving us to have to sort through your silly vagueness to try and deduce a meaningful argument. And don't whine about how i'm stopping you from making an argument... just go and make it.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Why would you find kind people as you go back in time ? people have had the same personality traits for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands , one would possibly find the same kind of people you find today some kind some not so ,most doing what it takes to see tomorrow, if your saying we are kinder today than then , I can only suggest you thank Christianity for its part in modern culture |
Hey, you said death, greed and destruction "inevitably follow human progress". By that logic there should have been less death, greed and destruction in the past, hm? But i'm not seeing that. i'm seeing far less now than in the past. And if it were due to Christianity, then the Dark Ages in Europe would have had the least death, greed and destruction in all of human history.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| You seem to be a good spokes person for history, if you can say with such assurtion what facts are historically correct then yes that does make you a spokes person for Humanity , when speaking about humanity as we were. |
That is just incredibly stupid. ^_^; So because i can research historical knowledge and fact check the claims people make about Hitler (and other things), i am somehow qualified to speak for all humanity? Is there any part of that that even sounds intelligent? ^_^;
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I asked you to tell me how the teaching of Jesus relate to the actions of Hitler ....this is the point of where you started to get all shirty , refusing to answer and calling me names (which we all can see as playground tactics to make yourself and hence your points look better.... just like Hitler did)...... feel free to answer the question, I am not knowlegable enough about Christianity to collate the two. |
First, you didn't ask me to tell you how the teachings of Jesus relate to the actions of Hitler. You asked me:- Isn't declaring yourself chosen by God to do God's work the same as declaring yourself divine?
- Will we (i don't know who you mean by "we", but i assume humanity) just stop making excuses for greed, death and destruction?
And - second - i responded by calling the questions idiotic. Not you. The questions. Not you. The questions. Follow? These were my words: "If these answers aren't really helpful or informative in anyway, that's because the questions you asked were idiotic. If you want smart answers, don't ask dumb questions."
Third... how do playground tactics relate to Hitler anyway. ^_^; If you really want to equate me with Hitler, that seriously can't be the best you can do, is it?
And fourth, who even cares whether or not the teachings of Jesus relate to anything Hitler did? This is just another of your attempts to distort your earlier arguments to make them sound less stupid. We've already covered - over and over and over - that Hitler's version of Christianity was bastardized and completely weird (such that Jesus wasn't a Jew and that Paul was some kind of schemer who took advantage of Jesus for political ends, etc.). He thought he was doing God's work and even said so himself. Whether or not he was working in accordance with what was in the Bible is a little pointless to worry about, because he thought the Bible had been corrupted by Jews (which is why he wanted to "fix" Christianity by removing the Jewish corruptions to recover the "true" teachings of Jesus). None of this is new - it's been covered over and over in this thread - and none of this makes the claim that he was a Christian any weaker (as a matter of fact, the fact that he was so hung up on "saving" Christianity makes it stronger!!!).Atheism does not need to be disproved, it is logically absurd for a finite mind to deny the existence of an infinite mind.
The existence of God is assumed in the Bible, and the evidence for the existence of God is evident to those willing to open their eyes.
Ultimately, in reference to origins, there are only two choices. First, all came from something or someone capable of creating among everything else, DNA (the self duplicating machine of all life). I conveniently call that someone God. Second, all came from nothing caused by nothing. That is completely absurd, yet few atheists will admit that it is their only hope (they approach faith in nothing when they believe in abiogenesis).
Want to see a pretty funny interview with Richard Dawkins? Here's Richard Dawkins, the hardcore atheist, admitting it's possible that someone started the creation process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1LKEolX1M | jessicawalker wrote: |
| Atheism does not need to be disproved, it is logically absurd for a finite mind to deny the existence of an infinite mind. |
Why is that? Would you care to show us the chain of 'logic' that leads to this amazing conclusion, because the 'logical absurdity' certainly isn't evident. | Quote: |
| Ultimately, in reference to origins, there are only two choices. First, all came from something or someone capable of creating among everything else, DNA (the self duplicating machine of all life). I conveniently call that someone God. Second, all came from nothing caused by nothing. That is completely absurd, yet few atheists will admit that it is their only hope (they approach faith in nothing when they believe in abiogenesis). |
Yawn...
1) This use of the 'prime mover' argument has been done to death. It is special pleading of the worst kind (who created the creator?). Invoking an infinite creator to try and resolve this circularity is simply adding more entities to the problem - Occam says NO.
2) You are mixing up cosmology and biology (a common mistake amongst the religiously minded).
3) Abiogenesis is not 'life from nothing', it is life from non-life. | Quote: |
| Want to see a pretty funny interview with Richard Dawkins? Here's Richard Dawkins, the hardcore atheist, admitting it's possible that someone started the creation process. |
A typically dishonest characterisation.
a) The video is edited with a voiceover and not a true recording of the interview (another typically dishonest tactic).
b) At no point did Dawkins say that 'someone started the creation process'. He was asked what the statistical probability for the non existence of God was and he made it clear that it was very unlikely but he wasn't comfortable putting a statistical figure on it. This is entirely honest - you cannot prove a negative absolutely, you can only say it is very unlikely.
He was then asked if it were possible that some alien had seeded life on earth and he explained that yes, it is possible BUT that alien life would itself have needed to evolve, which leads to a circular argument | jessicawalker wrote: |
| Atheism does not need to be disproved, it is logically absurd for a finite mind to deny the existence of an infinite mind. |
When I read this part of the posting, I liked the idea about it, except of course when "mind" is added to infinite, as then that would make the "infinite" finite? But I think I get where the argument wants to go. For a pure scientist of course it would go nowhere | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | So? None of this suggests he wasn't Christian. All of this can and has been done by Christians in the past (and present). In fact, all he'd need is a funny hat and he could be a pope. |
and by none religious people too, and most certainly people claiming to be religious or even Gods , as I said way way up there all this propaganda is nothing new, so whats your point ? |
^_^; My point is the same as it has always been. i can keep repeating it if you want, but it's not going to change. Here it is... again: There is a ton of evidence supporting the idea that Hitler was a devout Christian throughout his life, and not one single tiny atom of evidence that he was not. i say again, there is not one single smidgen of evidence to suggest that Hitler was faking his Christianity. Not one. |
So what did Jesus teach ?????
| Indi wrote: |
| Your entire argument - which you have been repeating over and over despite the fact that pretty much everyone here who has commented on it has pointed out that it's stupid ^_^; - is basically the following: "Hitler did some things that non-Christians also do. Therefore you don't believe he was Christian." It is so monumentally stupid, i am thoroughly flabbergasted that you have pushed it this long. Basically, it's this: "yes, there sure is a ton of evidence Hitler was a Christian and nothing really to show that he wasn't... but he brushed his teeth! Yes! He brushed his teeth! And we all know a lot of non-Christians also brush their teeth! Therefore it is possible that Hitler wasn't a Christian!" Replace the teeth brushing with committing mass murder... and that is literally your entire argument. ^_^; |
You keep repeasting there this EVIDENCE yet all it is at best is retoric, and best still its from political speeches (polititions allways tell the truth ) and his sycophants , if you choose to see that as evidence then as I have inferred before so be it,
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Your absolutely right , BUT no I do not keep insisting Hitler was an athiest , I just deny "the" evidence that he was a Christian because its not convincing to me, Im not a Christian and I care little for Christianity in a direct personal sense , I dont want to be seen as standing up for Christianity because I am not, yes yes yes Christianity has been the catalist for much pain and grief ,has been the cause of much conflict and division of communitys , its been an excuse for war and control of the masses for millennia , it would be so easy for me to say I agree that Hitler was a Christian but like yourself I think he was to intelligent to believe in the bullshit , unfortunatly for him the bullshit was well dug in and held power and influence, allthough the church congregations had been dropping in numbers since WWI (back to bums on seats) . |
Hitler was a smart man? ^_^; Since when? He may have been a canny politician... but i don't see how that makes him a rational man.
Oh, but pardon me! ^_^; i mean, of course if he was a really good politician that means he was an intelligent, rational, clear-thinking person! i mean, that's what all good politicians are like, right? ^_^;
Come on. ^_^; Your arguments are just getting stupider and stupider. This is really beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. For starters, even if Hitler was a brilliant thinker... so what? ^_^; Lots of brilliant thinkers have been devout Christians. It's rather offensive to imply that only stupid people are Christians, you know. (And by the way... "like yourself I think he was to intelligent to believe in the bullshit"... say what? ^_^ i most certainly do not think he was too intelligent to believe in the bullshit... and i've been saying so over and over.) |
So you think Hitler was stupid, and by that do you inferr that someone else was "pulling his strings"
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I think its just plain silly how you cant see Hitler killing the Church with kindness, then literally killing those who opposed him despite his kindness, I think its plain silly to not see that Jesus (and we must assume Christians) would not aprove of such actions , so to say those things are done in the name of the Christian God & Son is getting back to the same old BS.... EXCUSES a reason to gain what you really want |
Oh my god, why didn't i think of that! He wasn't doing what Jesus would have wanted, so therefore he cannot be a Christian because all Christians always do what Jesus would approve of! ^_^; [/sarcasm] |
We are not talking about all Christians though are we ??????, the point is did Hitler ever do anything "Christian", did he live his life according to the teachings of Jesus..... I would guess thats a resounding NO
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | That is the point....if we consider my first post, what do we replace religion with ? I agree as I have said before for the most , apart from the Hitler bit |
i have never "considered" your first post in any depth because it's a pretty weak post. You don't actually make any real points, and very few verifiable facts (and the few facts you did give that can be verified turn out to be sketchy at best). You ask a few questions with despicable implications... which is what got you in hot water to begin with... but you never really make a point. You ask what we might replace religion with if it were to be eliminated, and throw out "fascism or racism like the nazi's as alternatives", as if they are really the only or even the first thing that might pop up should religion be done with. That's all there is to this first post you keep pointing back to. It's a stupid, empty post, and no matter how you dress it up, it's nothing more than that. |
All your posts in this thread are stupid, empty and closed minded,and blatantly anti-christian,but there good for a laff
| Indi wrote: |
| If you would like to try and make a point, i say go for it. Go ahead, tell us what you think religion will be "replaced" with... and tell us why, rather than just making insulting insinuations and leaving us to have to sort through your silly vagueness to try and deduce a meaningful argument. And don't whine about how i'm stopping you from making an argument... just go and make it. |
I allready have your just to anti-christian to even consider the things he did not do as evidence.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Why would you find kind people as you go back in time ? people have had the same personality traits for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands , one would possibly find the same kind of people you find today some kind some not so ,most doing what it takes to see tomorrow, if your saying we are kinder today than then , I can only suggest you thank Christianity for its part in modern culture |
Hey, you said death, greed and destruction "inevitably follow human progress". By that logic there should have been less death, greed and destruction in the past, hm? But i'm not seeing that. i'm seeing far less now than in the past. And if it were due to Christianity, then the Dark Ages in Europe would have had the least death, greed and destruction in all of human history. |
Again another dig at Christianity , we have progressed to today and we are capable of destroying worlds, I suppose the Christians are to blame for that to
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | You seem to be a good spokes person for history, if you can say with such assurtion what facts are historically correct then yes that does make you a spokes person for Humanity , when speaking about humanity as we were. |
That is just incredibly stupid. ^_^; So because i can research historical knowledge and fact check the claims people make about Hitler (and other things), i am somehow qualified to speak for all humanity? Is there any part of that that even sounds intelligent? ^_^; |
No you just choose to use the internet, any idiot can do that as you have proven, maybe you could look at some of the OSS reports on Hitler for the Nuremburg trials, or other intelligence reports on Hitler.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I asked you to tell me how the teaching of Jesus relate to the actions of Hitler ....this is the point of where you started to get all shirty , refusing to answer and calling me names (which we all can see as playground tactics to make yourself and hence your points look better.... just like Hitler did)...... feel free to answer the question, I am not knowlegable enough about Christianity to collate the two. |
First, you didn't ask me to tell you how the teachings of Jesus relate to the actions of Hitler. You asked me:- Isn't declaring yourself chosen by God to do God's work the same as declaring yourself divine?
|
Erm ........excuse me I did, just look back, then I will accept your apologys
| Indi wrote: |
| Will we (i don't know who you mean by "we", but i assume humanity) just stop making excuses for greed, death and destruction?And - second - i responded by calling the questions idiotic. Not you. The questions. Not you. The questions. Follow? These were my words: "If these answers aren't really helpful or informative in anyway, that's because the questions you asked were idiotic. If you want smart answers, don't ask dumb questions." |
Well any answer relating to Hitlers actions and jesus's teachings would do....for about the sixth time, I mean have you forgotten you refused to answer that same question time and time before ??
| Indi wrote: |
| Third... how do playground tactics relate to Hitler anyway. ^_^; If you really want to equate me with Hitler, that seriously can't be the best you can do, is it? |
I think you doing fine by yourself
| Indi wrote: |
| And fourth, who even cares whether or not the teachings of Jesus relate to anything Hitler did? This is just another of your attempts to distort your earlier arguments to make them sound less stupid. We've already covered - over and over and over - that Hitler's version of Christianity was bastardized and completely weird (such that Jesus wasn't a Jew and that Paul was some kind of schemer who took advantage of Jesus for political ends, etc.). He thought he was doing God's work and even said so himself. Whether or not he was working in accordance with what was in the Bible is a little pointless to worry about, because he thought the Bible had been corrupted by Jews (which is why he wanted to "fix" Christianity by removing the Jewish corruptions to recover the "true" teachings of Jesus). None of this is new - it's been covered over and over in this thread - and none of this makes the claim that he was a Christian any weaker (as a matter of fact, the fact that he was so hung up on "saving" Christianity makes it stronger!!!). |
So again I ask you how does the teachings of Jesus relate to Hitlers actions , what were these Jewish bastardisations he wanted to change and what did he want to use as the truth , and what did he use to support that truth....bastardised Darwinism ?Can we just end this? Tumbleweed, you're not being very convincing.
1.) It is a fact that the dark ages were ruled by Christian tyranny. Yes, they were Christians even though they didn't follow Christ's teachings. So what?
2.) Why does it bother you so much if Hitler was a Christian? You keep repeating he couldn't be a Christian for various reasons that would exclude MANY present and past followers of this religion.
Furthermore even if Hitler wasn't, nearly the entire Nazi party were. It appears you don't have a problem with this even though they did all the dirty work. They weren't "following the teachings of Christ", they were following Hitler's orders and killing innocents so does that make them non-Christian by default?
I really don't think so.
Suddenly I feel as if I'm wasting my time, I'm sure Indi and others have already said all of this.. 
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Again another dig at Christianity , we have progressed to today and we are capable of destroying worlds, I suppose the Christians are to blame for that to |
No, it would be a Christian's fault if he were to be push the nuke button while proclaiming "I'm fulfilling God's will!". That's the scary side to Christianity, it enables crazies which can go on to ruin everything. That wasn't a "dig at Christianity" by the way, it's completely true and Hitler is one big f**king glaring example.
Why can't you just accept that he was a crappy person, crappy Christian, and insane power hungry politician and leave it at that? That's what the evidence seems to point to. | miacps wrote: |
| Suddenly I feel as if I'm wasting my time, I'm sure Indi and others have already said all of this.. |
Repeatedly. | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And fourth, who even cares whether or not the teachings of Jesus relate to anything Hitler did? This is just another of your attempts to distort your earlier arguments to make them sound less stupid. We've already covered - over and over and over - that Hitler's version of Christianity was bastardized and completely weird (such that Jesus wasn't a Jew and that Paul was some kind of schemer who took advantage of Jesus for political ends, etc.). He thought he was doing God's work and even said so himself. Whether or not he was working in accordance with what was in the Bible is a little pointless to worry about, because he thought the Bible had been corrupted by Jews (which is why he wanted to "fix" Christianity by removing the Jewish corruptions to recover the "true" teachings of Jesus). None of this is new - it's been covered over and over in this thread - and none of this makes the claim that he was a Christian any weaker (as a matter of fact, the fact that he was so hung up on "saving" Christianity makes it stronger!!!). |
So again I ask you how does the teachings of Jesus relate to Hitlers actions , what were these Jewish bastardisations he wanted to change and what did he want to use as the truth , and what did he use to support that truth....bastardised Darwinism ? |
Tumbleweed, maybe it would be helpful if you read "Mein Kampf", or a summary of it on the Internet. It gives quite a good idea with where Hitler is headed with religion. It is sort of his autobiography and also a Bible of the Nationalist Socialist Ideology of the Nazis. If you have no time to read it, I have scanned the pages and the quotes below are relevant to your questions:
Quotation from Volume I: Chapter II: | Quote: |
As I delved more deeply into the teachings of Marxism and thus in tranquil clarity submitted the deeds of the Jewish people to contemplation, Fate itself gave me its answer.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of ail recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands l of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
|
Quotation from Volume I:Chapter III
| Quote: |
Anyone who thinks he can arrive at a religious reformation by the detour of a political organization only shows that he has no glimmer of knowledge of the development of religious ideas or dogmas and their ecclesiastical consequences.
Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.
And let it not be said that this is only a defense against the attacks from the other side!
It is certain that at all times unscrupulous scoundrels have not shunned to make even religion the instrument of their political bargains (for that is what such rabble almost always and exclusively deal in): but just as certainly it is wrong to make a religious denomination responsible for a
number of tramps who abuse it in exactly the same way as they would probably make anything else serve their low instincts.
Nothing can better suit one of these parliamentarian good-for-nothings and lounge-lizards than when an opportunity is offered to justify his political swindling, even after the fact.
For as soon as religion or even denomination is made responsible for his personal vices and attacked on that ground, this shameless liar sets up a great outcry and calls the whole world to witness that his behavior has been completely justified and that he alone and his eloquence are to be thanked for saving religion of the Church. The public, as stupid as it is forgetful, is, as a rule, prevented by the very outcry from recognizing the real instigator of the struggle or else has forgotten him, and the scoundrel has to all intents and purposes achieved his goal.
The sly fox knows perfectly well that this has nothing to do with religion; and he will silently laugh up his sleeve while his honest but clumsy opponent loses the game and one day, despairing of the loyalty and faith of humanity, withdraws from it all.
And in another sense it would be unjust to make religion as such or even the Church responsible for the failings of individuals. Compare the greatness of the visible organization before our eyes with the average fallibility of man in general, and you will have to admit that in it the relation of good and evil is better than anywhere else. To be sure, even among the priests themselves there are those to whom their holy office is only a means of satisfying their political ambition, yes, who in political struggle forget, in a fashion which is often more than deplorable that they are supposed to be the guardians of a higher truth and not the representatives of lies and slander-but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands.
No more than I condemn, or would be justified in condemning, the Church as such when a degenerate individual in a cassock obscenely transgresses against morality, do I condemn it when one of the many others besmirches and betrays his nationality at a time when this is a daily occurrence anyway. Particularly today, we must not forget that for one such Ephialtes there are thousands who with bleeding heart feel the misfortune of their people and like the best of our nation long for the hour in which Heaven will smile on us again.
And if anyone replies that here we are not concerned with such everyday problems, but with questions of principle and truth or dogmatic content, we can aptly counter with another question:
If you believe that you have been chosen by Fate to reveal the truth in this matter, do so; but then have the courage to do so, not indirectly through a political party-for this is a swindle; but for today's evil substitute your future good.
But if you lack courage, or if your good is not quite clear even to yourself, then keep your fingers out of the matter; in any case, do not attempt by roundabout sneaking through a political movement to do what you dare not do with an open vizor.
Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.
When Church dignitaries make use of religious institutions or doctrines to injure their nation, we must never follow them on this path and fight with the same methods.
For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people trust always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.
In my study of the Pan-German movement and its struggle against Rome, I then, and even more in the years to come, arrived at the following conviction: This movement's inadequate appreciation of the importance of the social problem cost it the truly militant mass of the people; its entry into parliament took away its mighty impetus and burdened it with all the weaknesses peculiar to this institution; the struggle against the Catholic Church made it impossible in numerous small and middle circles, and thus robbed it of countless of the best elements that the nation can call its own.
|
Quote from Chapter Volume I:IV | Quote: |
The Jewish state was never spatially limited in itself, but universally unlimited as to space, though restricted in the sense of embracing but one race. Consequently, this people has always formed a state within states. It is one of the most ingenious tricks that was ever devised, to make this state sail under the fiag of 'religion,' thus assuring it of the tolerance which the Aryan is always ready to accord a religious creed. For actually the Mosaic religion is nothing other than a doctrine for the preservation of the Jewish race. It therefore embraces almost all sociological, political, and economic fields of knowledge which can have any bearing on this function.
The urge to preserve the species is the first cause for the formation of human communities; thus the state is a national organism and not an economic organization. A difference which is just as large as it is incomprehensible, particularly to our so-called ' statesmen ' of today. That is why they think they can build up the state through economics while in reality it results and always will result solely from the action of those qualities which lie in line with the will to preserve the species and race. And these are always heroic virtues and never the egoism of shopkeepers, since the preservation of the existence of a species presupposes a spirit of sacrifice in the individual. The sense of the poet's words, 'If you will not stake your life, you will win no life,' is that the sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species. Thus, the most sensible prerequisite for the formation and preservation of a state is the presence of a certain feeling of cohesion based on similarity of nature and species, and a willingness to stake everything on it with all possible means, something which in peoples with soil of their own will create heroic virtues, but in parasites will create lying hypocrisy and malignant cruelty, or else these qualities must already be present as the necessary and demonstrable basis for their existence as a state so different in form. The formation of a state, originally at least, will occur through the exercise of these qualities, and in the subsequent struggle for self-preservation those nations will be defeated- that is, will fall a prey to subjugation and thus sooner or later die out which in the mutual struggle possess the smallest share of heroic virtues, or are not equal to the lies and trickery of the hostile parasite. But in this case, too, this must almost always be attributed less to a lack of astuteness than to a lack of determination and courage, which only tries to conceal itself beneath a cloak of humane convictions.
|
Quote from Chapter Volume I:VIII
| Quote: |
It is not the task of a theoretician to determine the varying degrees in which a cause can be realized, but to establish the cause as such: that is to say: he must concern himself less with the road than with the goal. In this, however, the basic correctness of an idea is decisive and not the difficulty of its execution. As soon as the theoretician attempts to take account of so-called 'utility' and 'reality' instead of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a polar star of seeking humanity and instead will become a prescription for everyday life. The theoretician of a movement must lay down its goal, the politician strive for its fulfillment. The thinking of the one, therefore, will be determined by eternal truth, the actions of the other more by the practical reality of the moment. The greatness of the one lies in the absolute abstract soundness of his idea, that of the other in his correct attitude toward the given facts and their advantageous application; and in this the theoretician's aim must serve as his guiding star. While the touchstone for the stature of a politician may be regarded as the success of his plans and acts-in other words, the degree to which they become reality-the realization of the theoretician's ultimate purpose can never be realized, since, though human thought can apprehend truths and set up crystal-clear aims, complete fulfillment will fail due to the general imperfection and inadequacy of man. The more abstractly correct and hence powerful the idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings. Therefore, the stature of the theoretician must not be measured by the fulfillment of his aims, but by their soundness and the influence they have had on the development of humanity. If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth, since the fulfillment of their ethical purposes will never be even approximately complete. In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.
|
Volume I:Chapter XI
| Quote: |
The Jewish religious doctrine consists primarily in prescriptions for keeping the blood of Jewry pure and for regulating the relation of Jews among themselves, but even more with the rest of the world; in other words, with non-Jews. But even here it is by no means ethical problems that are involved, but extremely modest economic ones. Concerning the moral value of Jewish religious instruction, there are today and have been at all times rather exhaustive studies (not by Jews; the drivel of the Jews themselves on the subject is, of course, adapted to its purpose) which make this kind of religion seem positively monstrous according to Aryan conceptions. The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-and this against their own nation.
|
Volume 2: Chapter I
| Quote: |
By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own existence. Taking humanity as it exists today and taking into consideration the fact that the religious beliefs which it generally holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be seriously shaken. We may safely say that man does not live merely to serve higher ideals, but that these ideals, in their turn, furnish the necessary conditions of his existence as a human being. And thus the circle is closed.
Of course, the word 'religious' implies some ideas and beliefs that are fundamental. Among these we may reckon the belief in the immortality of the soul, its future existence in eternity, the belief in the existence of a Higher Being, and so on. But all these ideas, no matter how firmly the individual believes in them, may be critically analysed by any person and accepted or rejected accordingly, until the emotional concept or yearning has been transformed into an active service that is governed by a clearly defined doctrinal faith. Such a faith furnishes the practical outlet for religious feeling to express itself and thus opens the way through which it can be put into practice.
Without a clearly defined belief, the religious feeling would not only be worthless for the purposes of human existence but even might contribute towards a general disorganization, on account of its vague and multifarious tendencies.
|
Ref: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ | Indi wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | Suddenly I feel as if I'm wasting my time, I'm sure Indi and others have already said all of this.. |
Repeatedly. |
Nobody is wasting his time here, you all get FRIH$ for this. If it weren't for that...
Also, when did this thread get Godwin'd? | Arnie wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | miacps wrote: | | Suddenly I feel as if I'm wasting my time, I'm sure Indi and others have already said all of this.. |
Repeatedly. |
Nobody is wasting his time here, you all get FRIH$ for this. If it weren't for that...
Also, when did this thread get Godwin'd? |
Perhaps you took this out of context Arnie. It was meant differently. You just have to read the discussion. Sort of was going in circles all the time.
What do you mean with the thread getting Godwin'd?Oh, I know what they meant all right... but I took it to the next level.
