Atheists and Theists are both right

[cuddly_tomato]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

Honestly, that doesn't really matter. Nor would it matter if Hitler held those beleifs, it's pretty unimportant. It's only usable as a counter against true religious nutcases who spam that Darwin is the source of all death and evil (evilutionists, awmaygaaaawd!) bladieblabladiebla. If Hitler held those beleifs, *shrug*, if Hitler didn't, *shrug*.

 

[caross73]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

So you trust what Hitler says in one quote, and then deny what he says in another. You're demolishing your own source. I only take issue with the idea that Hitler was NOT a Catholic.

Hitler MANY times invoked God, and was still a member of the Catholic church during the Holocaust. Thats just history.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Hitler to Gerhard Engel, 1941.

"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." -- Hitler at a Nazi Christmas Celebration in 1926.

So he's not a true Catholic... well, fine, but then who is? We understand people are fallible, crazy. So what. We don't have a time machine to go back and do an experiment, what if the church hadn't blamed the Jews for murdering the Savior -- would Hitler still have had as broad support? I don't know.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

Honestly, that doesn't really matter. Nor would it matter if Hitler held those beleifs, it's pretty unimportant. It's only usable as a counter against true religious nutcases who spam that Darwin is the source of all death and evil (evilutionists, awmaygaaaawd!) bladieblabladiebla. If Hitler held those beleifs, *shrug*, if Hitler didn't, *shrug*.

That's my point. I think theophobic people are too quick to link religion with conflict where the links aren't really there.

Worth a read. [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html]

 

[caross73]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

Honestly, that doesn't really matter. Nor would it matter if Hitler held those beleifs, it's pretty unimportant. It's only usable as a counter against true religious nutcases who spam that Darwin is the source of all death and evil (evilutionists, awmaygaaaawd!) bladieblabladiebla. If Hitler held those beleifs, *shrug*, if Hitler didn't, *shrug*.

That's my point. I think theophobic people are too quick to link religion with conflict where the links aren't really there.

Worth a read. [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html]

Except the link is there. Hitler learned from a very early age that the Jews were not to be trusted, that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death, and he remained a Catholic until his death.

You are very quick to lie about history 'Hitler was not a Catholic.' when it suits your 'atheists are too hard on religion' bias. I can't tell you he wouldn't have found another reason to commit genocide, but the Jews were an easy target because of European Christian bigotry, it was easy to rally them in support of someone doing God's work.

It is difficult to understate religion's influence on society and conflict.

 

[cyber_andyy]

This basicly proves OP original statement. I also tend to agree with this as well, as it applies to the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYS-GzBSIg

 

[cuddly_tomato]

You are very quick to lie about history 'Hitler was not a Catholic.' when it suits your 'atheists are too hard on religion' bias.

I don't think atheists are. I think theophobic anti-theists are. They are filled with hatred and ironically spend more energy and time on religion than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Please, do not accuse me of lying again and do not accuse me of being bias against atheists again.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

So you trust what Hitler says in one quote, and then deny what he says in another. You're demolishing your own source. I only take issue with the idea that Hitler was NOT a Catholic.

Hitler MANY times invoked God, and was still a member of the Catholic church during the Holocaust. Thats just history.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Hitler to Gerhard Engel, 1941.

"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." -- Hitler at a Nazi Christmas Celebration in 1926.

So he's not a true Catholic... well, fine, but then who is? We understand people are fallible, crazy. So what. We don't have a time machine to go back and do an experiment, what if the church hadn't blamed the Jews for murdering the Savior -- would Hitler still have had as broad support? I don't know.

If Hitler held those beleifs, that ment that Hitler was crazy. Same with the Westboro folks, they're the crazy one's, but you can't just shove it all in christianity's shoes. All it says is that christianty is preeeetty damned diverse, from the utter crazy to 'normal'. You can't blaim the normal people for what the crazy people are doing, do you think 'regular' christians support the Westboro church?

 

[caross73]

You told an untruth, that Hitler was not Catholic.

That is a lie. The Catholic church did not disown Hitler from its members in good standing until after his death.

THAT is the very definition of Catholicism. He was baptized, he remained in the church through the Holocaust. Either you are simply ignorant, or you are deliberately lying - I suspect the latter since you seem very knowledgeable on Hitler and Religion. So which is it?

 

[caross73]

Here:

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Yes, because as we all know Hitler was the most psychologically stable man in history, who told the truth about everything. Mein Kampf wasn't a political rant full of lies and slander intended to bring the German people over to his way of thinking was it?

Ahhh Goodwins law.

So you trust what Hitler says in one quote, and then deny what he says in another. You're demolishing your own source. I only take issue with the idea that Hitler was NOT a Catholic.

Hitler MANY times invoked God, and was still a member of the Catholic church during the Holocaust. Thats just history.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Hitler to Gerhard Engel, 1941.

"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." -- Hitler at a Nazi Christmas Celebration in 1926.

So he's not a true Catholic... well, fine, but then who is? We understand people are fallible, crazy. So what. We don't have a time machine to go back and do an experiment, what if the church hadn't blamed the Jews for murdering the Savior -- would Hitler still have had as broad support? I don't know.

If Hitler held those beleifs, that ment that Hitler was crazy. Same with the Westboro folks, they're the crazy one's, but you can't just shove it all in christianity's shoes. All it says is that christianty is preeeetty damned diverse, from the utter crazy to 'normal'. You can't blaim the normal people for what the crazy people are doing, do you think 'regular' christians support the Westboro church?

I can certainly blame the Christian church and a significant number of European Christians for enabling the holocaust. The case can be made. So the Catholic church has gotten better recently? While it un-excommunicates Holocaust denying bishops? Great! It only took 2000 years.

Faith is dangerous stuff. It MUST be questioned.

 

[Masterthief]

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -Blaise Pascal

"The Jews are the reason that Germany lost WWI" - Adolf Hitler
Doesn't make it true.
Edit: Crap, I just invoked Godwin's Law didn't I?

 

[Legion]

You poor poor soul, I will never murder non-believers, just you.

Another hardline moderate; this one talking about killing somebody for their lack of respect.

Lol, and you don't get sarcasm either, your just such a cute whatever extremist arnt 'cha?

I get sarcasm when its done well. What does that tell you?

That you need things spelt out for you slowly and clearly so as not to confuse you.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I can certainly blame the Christian church and a significant number of European Christians for enabling the holocaust. The case can be made. So the Catholic church has gotten better recently? While it un-excommunicates Holocaust denying bishops? Great! It only took 2000 years.

Faith is dangerous stuff. It MUST be questioned.

There is no Christian church. There are dozens of splinter groups. I also réally wonder how you would make a decent case against the Catholic church for enabeling the Holocaust. Didn't they recently apologize for not opposing the Holocaust enough? That still isn't the same as enabeling. Even if the churche would've strongly condemned it, Hitler could just pull up his middle finger and happely continued the slaughter.
But I won't say that faith IS dangerous, but that it cán be dangerous. Ofcourse it can, that's obvious, but most of the time it's not harmfull.
And yes it should be questioned, everything with power should be questioned, that includes churches, religions in general, governments, community leaders.

 

[caross73]

I can certainly blame the Christian church and a significant number of European Christians for enabling the holocaust. The case can be made. So the Catholic church has gotten better recently? While it un-excommunicates Holocaust denying bishops? Great! It only took 2000 years.

Faith is dangerous stuff. It MUST be questioned.

There is no Christian church. There are dozens of splinter groups. I also réally wonder how you would make a decent case against the Catholic church for enabeling the Holocaust. Didn't they recently apologize for not opposing the Holocaust enough? That still isn't the same as enabeling. Even if the churche would've strongly condemned it, Hitler could just pull up his middle finger and happely continued the slaughter.

So that makes it all better?

There is a Catholic church, one of whose Bishops blessed Hitler on his birthday while the holocaust was going on.

And until very recently, all those major splinter groups - Protestants and Catholics alike - held that the Jews killed Christ, perhaps especially the Protestants. Martin Luther wrote a book "On the Jews and their Lies" which was revered in Germany.

This is not the church didn't do enough to STOP the holocaust. The common belief among MANY Christians that the Jews were evil, which dates back to before the middle ages and is only now really being dispelled, created the conditions which ALLOWED the Third Reich to begin its campaign of extermination. Supposedly good men did nothing.

Can you blame an individual, well, maybe Pius the 12th. But other than that, of course not. But I can certainly ask, how did declaring Christ to be divine (I'm guessing this occurred at the Nicene council around 300 AD - because it wasn't accepted among gnostics (edit: Arians -- not Gnostics) until they were forced to), so that his death was an affront to God, an unevidenced claim held as true among a great proportion of believers, serve the greater goal of humanity?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I can certainly blame the Christian church and a significant number of European Christians for enabling the holocaust. The case can be made. So the Catholic church has gotten better recently? While it un-excommunicates Holocaust denying bishops? Great! It only took 2000 years.

Faith is dangerous stuff. It MUST be questioned.

There is no Christian church. There are dozens of splinter groups. I also réally wonder how you would make a decent case against the Catholic church for enabeling the Holocaust. Didn't they recently apologize for not opposing the Holocaust enough? That still isn't the same as enabeling. Even if the churche would've strongly condemned it, Hitler could just pull up his middle finger and happely continued the slaughter.

So that makes it all better?

There is a Catholic church, one of whose Bishops blessed Hitler on his birthday while the holocaust was going on.

And until very recently, all those major splinter groups held that the Jews killed Christ, even (perhaps especially) the Protestants. Martin Luther wrote a book "On the Jews and their Lies" which was revered in Germany.

This is not the church didn't do enough to STOP the holocaust. The common belief among MANY Christians that the Jews were evil, which dates back to before the middle ages and is only now really being dispelled, created the conditions which ALLOWED the Third Reich to begin its campaign of extermination. Supposedly good men did nothing.

Can you blame an individual, well, maybe Pius the 12th. But other than that, of course not. But I can certainly ask, how did declaring Christ to be divine, so that his death was an affront to God, an unevidenced claim, serve the greater goal of humanity?

And that's exactly what they apologised for: for doing nothing, for not protesting enough. But as you can see by the bolded part, that's history. You can't blaim today's church for the Crusades. People aren't like that anymore, they were yes, but that's history. Ofcourse you still have people who think that, just like you have horrible people like the one's from the Westboro church, but you can't blaim christianty today as a whole for all those things. Blaiming people and organisations for things that happend decades or centuries ago, is exactly as nonsense as fundamental christians who still discriminate against women because (according to them) one women thousands of years ago made a mistake. The concept of heritable sin is kinda dead in mainstream christianity, apart from the real loons. Ofcourse that doesn't make it better, you can't turn back time, but that doesn't mean they sincerally regret the mistakes of their forefathers.

 

[Fronken]

If it cant be proven then its not real, simple as that.

 

[caross73]

And that's exactly what they apologised for: for doing nothing, for not protesting enough. But as you can see by the bolded part, that's history. You can't blaim today's church for the Crusades. People aren't like that anymore, they were yes, but that's history. Ofcourse you still have people who think that, just like you have horrible people like the one's from the Westboro church, but you can't blaim christianty today as a whole for all those things. Blaiming people and organisations for things that happend decades or centuries ago, is exactly as nonsense as fundamental christians who still discriminate against women because (according to them) one women thousands of years ago made a mistake. The concept of heritable sin is kinda dead in mainstream christianity, apart from the real loons.

Where have I blamed today's Christians? Some of who weren't even born. I'm blaming the idea that mystical entities that can't be communicated with have desires about our human actions here on earth, either to justify or condemn them. Even Buddhism has been used to justify nerve gassing people on subways. Whenever religion does no wrong, it gets the credit for being this great force for good - like with charitable works, and when religion does evil, well, it wasn't religion, it was its fallible adherents.

Ofcourse that doesn't make it better, you can't turn back time, but that doesn't mean they sincerally regret the mistakes of their forefathers.

Have they actually identified what the mistake was? The flaw in their thinking that led to it? Or have they identified a symptom, and so the next mistake will be just as difficult to recognize as the first? Regret is meaningless without actually fixing the underlying problem.

I would argue the underlying problem is accepting people as the infallible's representative on earth (like the Pope), and guessing what divinities desire of us when you don't have a good communication channel (like prayer).

 

[Cowabungaa]

Where have I blamed today's Christians? Some of who weren't even born. I'm blaming the idea that mystical entities that can't be communicated with have desires about our human actions here on earth, either to justify or condemn them. Even Buddhism has been used to justify nerve gassing people on subways. Whenever religion does no wrong, it gets the credit for being this great force for good - like with charitable works, and when religion does evil, well, it wasn't religion, it was its fallible adherents.

Hmmm well I see what you mean, some kind of double standard, is that what you mean? I agree with the latter though. If people are done wrong and justify it with religion, I blaim the people, if people do good and justify it with religion, I praise the people. It's all about what individuals do with it. But I see what you mean with that double standard, same some people say about the goodness of their God. If good things happen, God helped them and made it possible, but when bad things happen God has 0 to do with it. Still I blaim the people for that, not religion in general, it's the people who ultimatly beleive the stuff, religion itself is...nothing, those beleives don't exist without the people beleiving them.

Have they actually identified what the mistake was? The flaw in their thinking that led to it? Or have they identified a symptom, and so the next mistake will be just as difficult to recognize as the first?

Can't answer those questions, I should look up the details from the apology

 

[caross73]

Where have I blamed today's Christians? Some of who weren't even born. I'm blaming the idea that mystical entities that can't be communicated with have desires about our human actions here on earth, either to justify or condemn them. Even Buddhism has been used to justify nerve gassing people on subways. Whenever religion does no wrong, it gets the credit for being this great force for good - like with charitable works, and when religion does evil, well, it wasn't religion, it was its fallible adherents.

Hmmm well I see what you mean, some kind of double standard, is that what you mean? I agree with the latter though. If people are done wrong and justify it with religion, I blaim the people, if people do good and justify it with religion, I praise the people. It's all about what individuals do with it. But I see what you mean with that double standard, same some people say about the goodness of their God. If good things happen, God helped them and made it possible, but when bad things happen God has 0 to do with it. Still I blaim the people for that, not religion in general, it's the people who ultimatly beleive the stuff, religion itself is...nothing, those beleives don't exist without the people beleiving them.

Have they actually identified what the mistake was? The flaw in their thinking that led to it? Or have they identified a symptom, and so the next mistake will be just as difficult to recognize as the first?

Can't answer those questions, I should look up the details from the apology

Ultimately the people decide what to believe. I think they have to be educated when they believe silly things that can be used to justify atrocities. Unfortunately, they think the silly rationales are harmless, and should not be criticized (deeply held beliefs - stop being such an arrogant theophobe), when in fact it is precisely the idea that Faith is an acceptable justification for behavior that allows one to do almost any evil that strikes one's fancy. Faith can be used to justify good things, as well as bad, but when you cede your actions to an ultimate moral authority, such as God -- well, you can see what has happened in the past. Do the people have a choice in which parts of scripture to believe? If its truly divine, then I don't think they do. You can't reject something on the basis that God wouldn't want that, when a dozen other people on the same grounds say he would!

How do you decide what to believe is a VERY important question.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Ultimately the people decide what to believe. I think they have to be educated when they believe silly things that can be used to justify atrocities. Unfortunately, they think the silly rationales are harmless, and should not be criticized (deeply held beliefs - stop being such an arrogant theophobe), when in fact it is precisely the idea that Faith is an acceptable justification for behavior that allows one to do almost any evil that strikes one's fancy. Faith can be used to justify good things, as well as bad, but when you cede your actions to an ultimate moral authority, such as God -- well, you can see what has happened in the past. Do the people have a choice in which parts of scripture to believe? If its truly divine, then I don't think they do. You can't reject something on the basis that God wouldn't want that, when a dozen other people on the same grounds say he would!

How do you decide what to believe is a VERY important question.

Choose? Well, I won't put it so black and white. Afterall, some people have religion almost literally hammered in them: they don't know any better. You've also got to rationalise the fact that the majority still doesn't use religion to justify evil actions. Islamic extremists, the Westboro church, they're all minorities.
How they decide, well that's a very interesting question indeed, one I can't answer.