Atheists and Theists are both right

[xenos60]

I think Atheism as a popular movement will die out when something bad happens, or it gets too popular. Then we can finally go back to good-'ol coexistence instead of this stupid one sided fanboy shit we have now.

 

[Sane Man]

If you believe Hitler was Christian then you simply have bought into revisionist history. How can the Catholic Church have any responsibility over someone who does not recognize it's authority? (I'm not a Catholic btw, but if you are one, you recognize the Catholic's Church authority here on Earth).

Hitler was most likely a pagan, but he was certainly not a Christian or an atheist. Every speech he gave where he claimed he was a Christian was while he was running for an elected office prior to World War II. Some documents found after the War ended even proved it further when they were released as they stated that he also sought the usurpation of Catholic and Protestant Churches in Germany. It was a report from General William J. Donovan who prepared it for the 1945 Nuremburg trials and released to the public in 2001. There were also reports of them wanting to set up a "National Reich Church" to replace the Christian Churches that viewed Christian Churches as wrong and foreign.

The Reich Church was to immediately stop the production of all Bibles, and one of its tenets was there is no forgiveness for sins. That most certainly in anyway shape or form is not Christianity.

 

[caross73]

If Hitler was not a Catholic, why was Pius XII sending a Bishop to bless him on his birthday and why did the Vatican wait to disown him until after his death. Or are now we defining Catholic as what one secretly considers themselves to be rather than what one is considered by others to be. If that is the case, then nothing Hitler has said can be used as evidence since he has contradicted himself at multiple times. But as far as the church was concerned, as far as GERMANY was concerned, as far as EUROPE was concerned, Hitler was a Christian and a Catholic, and Catholics, as represented by the Vatican, never disowned him until long after the scope of what he had done was revealed. The Pope even publicly lauded Hitler for the good work he was doing in Germany. Of course this is very uncomfortable for people to hear, but it is the truth.

If its what one secretly considers themselves to be, what one tells their confidants, well hell, then I'm a Born-again Baptist who is playing Devil's advocate and in so doing God's work. And you would have to take me at my word as soon as I tell someone that in confidence. But to all public appearances, I am a strident anti-theist. Which do YOU think I am?

Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches

No doubt. He hated anything that trampled on his authority. Does that make him not a Catholic? He was never excommunicated, never requested it, never denied his faith, and publicly paid homage to Rome and privately confessed a faith in God but not anyone who claimed to represent God on earth.

I ask you then, what is a Catholic to you. If Hitler is not a True Catholic, then who decides what a True Catholic is?

I've had friends who left the Mormon Church. They did so quietly. The Mormon Church still considered them members. That didn't make them members, it made the Mormon Church wrong. To be sure the Catholic Church failed in it's duties and still does so when it comes to Hitler. That doesn't make Hitler Catholic, it makes the Catholic Church corrupt.

And you don't want to know what I think you are....

I actually don't really care what you think of me, but its telling you can't answer a single question. Hitler was regarded as Catholic by the only authority on Catholicism that mattered. Apparently, when its convenient for one to not be religious because its an embarrassment, they aren't, but when Mother Teresa questions her faith, the shrew is still very nearly a saint. Pedophile priests, whatever else they are, are still Catholic until they are excommunicated. THATS the problem you face. You don't have the authority to say he isn't, only the church did, and they didn't, for whatever reason, even congratulating him on the Christian work he was doing. Christians in Europe practiced antisemitism for centuries. Hitler was nothing new except that he industrialized it.

We aren't talking about Mormons who are too lazy, or too afraid of social stigma to leave the church. This is the leader of the war power that was Germany who was accepted as one of the Catholic church's true faithful and used the power of religion to rally people to his cause. I'm sure Catholic priests themselves don't really believe half the things they tell the masses either or the Vatican would look a lot poorer.

Forget that he's a bad man, he was baptized. He was Catholic for all the time that it mattered. Its history now. The ones doing the revisionist history are the ones thinking with their gut, and its not me. I personally don't care what religion he was, he could be a Druid for all I care. What I don't like is people with an agenda distorting history.

You'd have better luck with some religion other than Catholicism that has no standard for membership. Hitler is a bad example. You might also look up the No True Scotsman fallacy, since everyone here seems to like it a lot without stating it outright, that Hitler's actions disqualified him from being a True Christian. Thats about as good as saying Osama bin Laden isn't a Muslim because he violated the Islamic Law that forbids the killing of innocents. He's just using Islam as a means to political power too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3144984.stm (Mussolini asks Pope to Excommunicate Hitler)
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-9780743245975-4 (Hitler and the Vatican: Inside the Secret Archives That Reveal the New Story of the Nazis and the Church)
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html (Quotes by Hitler on Religion)

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.? -A. Hitler

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

If I actually believed Hitler was Catholic I would capitulate. The fact is that while Hitler claimed Catholicism for political expediency and the Catholic Church accepted the claim because it was then and still is now corrupt, Hitler was not practicing as an adult. Furthermore there were Catholics in concentration camps for being Catholic. I can see the argument that because Hitler made the claim and the church accepted it that makes him Catholic. I don't agree with that argument. The Catholic Church is not the sole province of those who would use her for the wrong ends. I do find your adamancy towards this argument interesting. You have shown yourself to be outright hostile towards religion in general: ...when Mother Teresa questions her faith, the shrew is still very nearly a saint. She was considered a saint because despite her questioning her faith she kept working for what she considered God's work. So here's a question for you: I was baptized as a Catholic, practiced for years, have not been excommunicated, and having left the Church I currently do not practice. Am I Catholic? The "No True Scotsman" fallacy deals with genetic inheritance in it's original formulation. While certainly it can be applied to other qualifiers I have to ask: Apart from what we inherit biologically what makes us what we are? What we say or what we do? Especially when those two things are polar opposites.

Finally, why the outright hostility? This thread was started as my own musings on what might be possible. You didn't have to jump into this thread and yet you did. Your opening statements were attacks of character more than of substance (in the second case you completely missed the sarcasm others got without any trouble.) The content of your arguments are good (sometimes) but your style contains a viciousness I find interesting. I know where my "hostility" comes from. I jump at challenges and try to have fun in the process. I have a tendency to be over the top. You seem to either a) gaining personal power from the argument or b) trying to work out personal injuries. So, why the viciousness?

 

[caross73]

Catholic Church accepted the claim

Done. Thank you. What other standard is there? If we take the church as corrupt, and unable to determine who is Catholic, then NOONE has the authority to determine who is Catholic and who isn't.

Finally, why the outright hostility?

What hostility? "And you don't want to know what I think you are" The only one angry here is you. Here we have a bunch of revisionist historians passing along bad data who want to be right at all costs and don't like being corrected. Even if Hitler wasn't a Catholic (except he WAS and the church supported him and enabled the holocaust), he wasn't an atheist. Its really no skin off my back. He's currently not anything. But he was baptised, raised Catholic, served as an altar boy, confirmed, frequently invoked Catholicism publicly (and privately, although hated the church hierarchy). Was he at one point a Catholic? When EXACTLY did he stop being one?

I was baptized as a Catholic, practiced for years, have not been excommunicated, and having left the Church I currently do not practice. Am I Catholic?

Have you actually left the church? It sounds like you are simply not currently practicing. If you wish to not be considered Catholic, you would actually need to take action to leave the church, or be expelled.

The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't care what kind of information its dealing with. It has to do with definitions, and changing them after the fact in order to make an argument a tautology.

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Hitler was a Catholic. But Hitler murdered millions. Well, Hitler was no TRUE Catholic.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

Keep your world view. Enjoy it even. Say whatever you want to say you have the last word. This will be the last time I respond to you for at least quite a while, if ever.

 

[caross73]

*snip*

Keep your world view. Enjoy it even. Say whatever you want to say you have the last word. This will be the last time I respond to you for at least quite a while, if ever.

If you can't handle a simple disagreement about definitions and are going to feign injury instead of attack my argument, then its really no loss to me. I have not insulted you, I have not injured you, and frankly I give conversations on the internet all the importance they merit, which is not much. Why do you care so much that we don't agree?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

So the goal of things is not to find out what's true and believe that? Seems a rather strange sentiment to me. Might as well stop anything to do with science or religion.

Naah. Science and religion rarely, if ever, conflict. Religious dogma might conflict, just as scientific dogma may, but those are a symptom of insular and nescient people as opposed to the system of each. If you are looking for a method to understand the workings of the world and make useful predictions then you need science. If you are looking for spiritual or moral direction, science has nothing to say about that.

So with that in mind (and more in response to you) then science is about answering questions of how. How the universe works, how the beetles decide what to eat today, how black holes form, how light works, etc. Those things are fact, and are not dependent upon humanity... black holes will form regardless of people. No matter who you are or what you believe such answers are constant, and as such trying to answer them is a worthy goal. Religion is all about why. Why are we here, what is beauty, what is justice, is there a point to life? Such questions depend a lot upon the person asking them, and as such fall outside the realm of science altogether. It is pointless to try to form a single answer to any, and it is up to each and everyone to decide for themselves.

 

[Stakhanov]

This outta be interesting. First a couple of ground rules:
Deism says god(s) are understood through natural observance and logic. Basically I'm saying both methods are valid and calling belief in god(s) no matter method of understanding Theism.


Lao Tzu recognized a force in the universe. He called it "older than the gods." The gods he was referring to were the pantheons of China, the native traditional expressions of the world as they understood it. Many people the world over have felt a connection to the divine and I find it unlikely that they're all completely wrong.

I highlighted two p,oints that I wanted to comment on. The 'weak theist' position outlined at the start fails to survive Occams Razor. If natural law explains the universe why do we need to add any supernatural force that is definitively beyond our reach? It adds nothing to our understanding and undermines the rationality of our position.

Lao Tzu was a mystic who was not exposed to the scientific method. I like a lot of aspects of daoism too, I just don't find it a satisfactory guide for living. As to 'I find it unlikely that they're completely wrong,' thousands of people claim to have seen Elvis after his death, tens of thousands claim to have been abducted by aliens, tens of millions have, for one reason or another, hallucinated.
The mind is an extraordinary tool that can produce remarkable effects. The fact that many people claim to have had contact with an ineffable sky-fairy, beyond all powers of understanding, and that this sky-fairy LISTENS WHEN THEY TALK INSIDE THEIR OWN HEAD, doesn't constitute a compelling case.

As Bertrand Russell said: The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I highlighted two p,oints that I wanted to comment on. The 'weak theist' position outlined at the start fails to survive Occams Razor. If natural law explains the universe why do we need to add any supernatural force that is definitively beyond our reach? It adds nothing to our understanding and undermines the rationality of our position.

Lao Tzu was a mystic who was not exposed to the scientific method. I like a lot of aspects of daoism too, I just don't find it a satisfactory guide for living. As to 'I find it unlikely that they're completely wrong,' thousands of people claim to have seen Elvis after his death, tens of thousands claim to have been abducted by aliens, tens of millions have, for one reason or another, hallucinated.
The mind is an extraordinary tool that can produce remarkable effects. The fact that many people claim to have had contact with an ineffable sky-fairy, beyond all powers of understanding, and that this sky-fairy LISTENS WHEN THEY TALK INSIDE THEIR OWN HEAD, doesn't constitute a compelling case.

As Bertrand Russell said: The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

You're really coming in late to what is now a train wreck but oh well.

Some return points: Faith does not undermine rationality. It can, but so can a lot of things. I also don't recognize rationality as the highest faculty (unlike Plato). This has far less to do with believing in a higher power as to the place I put spiritual development in the scheme of things. More on that in a moment.

Occam's Razor cuts both ways. Western philosophy vs. Eastern summed up: West - everything comes from something East - everything comes from nothing. In both cases plenty of physicists have goggled at the options if there is no supernatural. It's not wrong to ask if there is something more behind the scenes.

Lao Tzu was a natural philosopher whose works can have be read both theistically and atheistically. Whether or not you find it a satisfactory guide for living does not change a few salient points. If more people did put it to use humanity would suffer less. The descriptive power of the Tao Te Jhing is impressive. A lot of folks don't get that out of it but it's important to remember that the Tao does not translate well into any language including the original Chinese it was written in. Getting the most out of the Tao requires working at it, not just a single read through.

Sky fairy? Really? Do I sense a prejudice here? I'm not talking about the god of Abraham or pagan Druids. I have assigned very few qualities. At heart I'm a Taoist and an animist but this topic was about the existence of a cosmic being that Lao Tzu would probably recognize.

Connection to the divine does not even imply the existence of God. Carl Sagan discussed the sublime in amazing terms and posited a universe with maybe infinite possibilities. Einstein's (prior to Zionism) leanings were even further towards the outright "mystical" in his beliefs regarding what is. Certainly the absurd abounds in human thought however what I'm referring to is the experience of the numinous in our world, an experience shared by crazed prophets and hard-working psychologically minded logicians alike.

This wasn't an attempt at a "compelling case." The Escapist forums aren't the place for the lengthy piece of work required for such. This was musings and conversation. You appear to have a prejudice that goes as far as to say (yes, I'm implying but I've seen this before) don't search there's nothing there and nothing worth searching for. Stick to the rational only. I say monkey crap on that rationality is as empty as blind faith humans need more. The Tao was worth searching for and finding ways to build philosophical bridges is worth searching for. Like many others you seem to view what I'm getting at through your own filters and miss much, if not all, of the heart of what I'm getting at.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I can prove god exists right now: The Platypus.
Yes. Yes. And yes. (I just preemptively answered all your questions in reverse order.)

Tee hee. A furry, scaled, duck-beaver that lays eggs. Where the hell did that come from? Sounds like something from the original Monster Manual.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The mind is an extraordinary tool that can produce remarkable effects. The fact that many people claim to have had contact with an ineffable sky-fairy, beyond all powers of understanding, and that this sky-fairy LISTENS WHEN THEY TALK INSIDE THEIR OWN HEAD, doesn't constitute a compelling case.

Just an interesting tangent - my experience of monotheistic religions is limited but do any of them really cite the sky as being home to their particular deity? As I understand it most religious beliefs seem to locate their particular worlds in other planes of existence no? Whether it is Heaven, Hell, Vanaheim, Underworld, Alysium, Mount Olympus, wherever?

The phrase "just some sky fairy" is a little like boiling the Big Bang down to "just some TNT", which invalidates the entire argument as it demonstrates the person using said argument is either not informed about the particulars of the case or is willfully misrepresenting them for his/her own purposes.

 

[Ago Iterum]

Better yet, people need to stop thinking they're better than one another when neither can prove anything at all. We all need a little respect for each others' beliefs.

Yeah, athiests 'we are better because we don't believe in things unless they're told to us by scientists' thing gets to me.

I personally am undecided, and I guess it will remain that way forever. There's many strong points on each side, and I believe if anything it's a mixture of the two. If science and the apparent universal laws of physics created all that we know today, what's to say a higher power didn't create these laws. Surely they can't've come from nowt.

 

[Ago Iterum]

I can prove god exists right now: The Platypus.
Yes. Yes. And yes. (I just preemptively answered all your questions in reverse order.)

Tee hee. A furry, scaled, duck-beaver that lays eggs. Where the hell did that come from? Sounds like something from the original Monster Manual.

Better yet, people need to stop thinking they're better than one another when neither can prove anything at all. We all need a little respect for each others' beliefs.

Yeah, athiests 'we are better because we don't believe in things unless they're told to us by scientists' thing gets to me.

I personally am undecided, and I guess it will remain that way forever. There's many strong points on each side, and I believe if anything it's a mixture of the two. If science and the apparent universal laws of physics created all that we know today, what's to say a higher power didn't create these laws. Surely they can't've come from nowt.

I can prove god exists right now: The Platypus.
Yes. Yes. And yes. (I just preemptively answered all your questions in reverse order.)

Tee hee. A furry, scaled, duck-beaver that lays eggs. Where the hell did that come from? Sounds like something from the original Monster Manual.

God's been taking ideas from Spore players again.

 

[AgentNein]

There are millions of people who are happier, have found a peace, have found the strength to get through the hardest of human trials all because of their faith in a God or gods. The fact that I or you may or do disagree with their ideas of God(s) is irrelevant to them. They are happy. They found peace.

And in a universe with no God, it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to find peace. Is that what you claim?

I'm sorry, I've got to jump in here for a quick second. I think you're misunderstanding his point. One can find peace in a world with no god, that's something I've been personally working on for awhile. Making peace with an absurd world is hardly an easy task, even for someone who's lived such a fortunate life as myself.

With that said, there are people out there who have lived harsh lives in a cruel world, and find some solace in the belief of a god. I'd just love for Dawkins (who is in at least in spirit the worlds most well known forum-troll) to flaunt his "there probably isn't a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life" banners to them. I'm sure they'd appreciate that.

Point being, it is my opinion that most atheists who look down on the religious probably haven't bothered to even try and come to terms with how the world works. Really look at it, in all it's horror and glory with an unblinking eye. If more did, then they'd be more likely to comprehend why one would turn to faith, possibly show some empathy. Maybe less "lol they talk to sky fairies".

 

[MaxFan]

So the goal of things is not to find out what's true and believe that? Seems a rather strange sentiment to me. Might as well stop anything to do with science or religion.

Naah. Science and religion rarely, if ever, conflict. Religious dogma might conflict, just as scientific dogma may, but those are a symptom of insular and nescient people as opposed to the system of each. If you are looking for a method to understand the workings of the world and make useful predictions then you need science. If you are looking for spiritual or moral direction, science has nothing to say about that.

So with that in mind (and more in response to you) then science is about answering questions of how. How the universe works, how the beetles decide what to eat today, how black holes form, how light works, etc. Those things are fact, and are not dependent upon humanity... black holes will form regardless of people. No matter who you are or what you believe such answers are constant, and as such trying to answer them is a worthy goal. Religion is all about why. Why are we here, what is beauty, what is justice, is there a point to life? Such questions depend a lot upon the person asking them, and as such fall outside the realm of science altogether. It is pointless to try to form a single answer to any, and it is up to each and everyone to decide for themselves.

Your are right that there is less disagreement between science and religion than some people would make out and with your statement that science and religion fundamentally deal with different sorts of questions. But I disagree with the idea that there is no such thing as a true answer to a why question, which your last statement about humans seeking answers seems to imply. Admittedly, they are much messier questions, so sometimes it can look like multiple things are true.

Take justice, for instance. Wouldn't it be good to have an answer to "what is justice?" as something you could point to and say "pretty much that". And it has been answered in many different ways, "I'll kill him for looking at me funny" "an eye for an eye" "if someone is stealing your coat, give him also your tunic" "they're a murderer, fry 'em". If this seems unresolved, that's because it is. But surely the word justice wouldn't exist unless it meant something?

I guess that's only half a thought, but I'm having trouble getting more out in a way that makes any sense.

 

[LewsTherin]

If God exists, nothing you can say will change the fact.

If there is no God, nothing you can say will make it more true, or less true.

We all end up equally dead either way, and we'll never really find out for sure what happens after that until we get there.

So please, all of you, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop your inane arguments and move on. In my ears this likens to "My dad can beat up your dad!" or even " LULZ you bought a PS3 u nubz lololol!". Really.

[/soapbox]

 

[Sparrow]

Better yet, people need to stop thinking they're better than one another when neither can prove anything at all. We all need a little respect for each others' beliefs.

I'm so quoting that whenever I begin to lose an argument.

 

[Stakhanov]

Point being, it is my opinion that most atheists who look down on the religious probably haven't bothered to even try and come to terms with how the world works. Really look at it, in all it's horror and glory with an unblinking eye. If more did, then they'd be more likely to comprehend why one would turn to faith, possibly show some empathy. Maybe less "lol they talk to sky fairies".

Well here I disagree completely. The idea that atheists have looked at the world less clearly than those who believe that a supernatural being is personally interested in their welfare is ridiculous. If there is one thing that rationalism values above all others, it is the ability to look clearly at the world.
Do I understand why people turn to religion? Yes. I understand why people like heroin too, that doesn't mean I approve or recommend it to others.

The 'sky-fairy' line seems to have got a strong response, as usual. Lets just take a a moment to visualise a being who is completely beyond the range of scientific detection, has the intellectual capacity to create all things in all possible worlds and can read minds (assuming you don't pray out loud). Does it make any sense that this individual would be interested in any aspect of human experience? This ultimate divine super-being actually cares when you have sex, or how long your beard is, or whether you're wearing a hat when you go outside, seriously?

Some return points: Faith does not undermine rationality. It can, but so can a lot of things. I also don't recognize rationality as the highest faculty (unlike Plato). This has far less to do with believing in a higher power as to the place I put spiritual development in the scheme of things. More on that in a moment.

Occam's Razor cuts both ways. Western philosophy vs. Eastern summed up: West - everything comes from something East - everything comes from nothing. In both cases plenty of physicists have goggled at the options if there is no supernatural. It's not wrong to ask if there is something more behind the scenes.

The descriptive power of the Tao Te Jhing is impressive. A lot of folks don't get that out of it but it's important to remember that the Tao does not translate well into any language including the original Chinese it was written in. Getting the most out of the Tao requires working at it, not just a single read through.

Sky fairy? Really? Do I sense a prejudice here? I'm not talking about the god of Abraham or pagan Druids. I have assigned very few qualities. At heart I'm a Taoist and an animist but this topic was about the existence of a cosmic being that Lao Tzu would probably recognize.

Connection to the divine does not even imply the existence of God. Carl Sagan discussed the sublime in amazing terms and posited a universe with maybe infinite possibilities. Einstein's (prior to Zionism) leanings were even further towards the outright "mystical" in his beliefs regarding what is. Certainly the absurd abounds in human thought however what I'm referring to is the experience of the numinous in our world, an experience shared by crazed prophets and hard-working psychologically minded logicians alike.

This wasn't an attempt at a "compelling case." The Escapist forums aren't the place for the lengthy piece of work required for such. This was musings and conversation. You appear to have a prejudice that goes as far as to say (yes, I'm implying but I've seen this before) don't search there's nothing there and nothing worth searching for. Stick to the rational only. I say monkey crap on that rationality is as empty as blind faith humans need more. The Tao was worth searching for and finding ways to build philosophical bridges is worth searching for. Like many others you seem to view what I'm getting at through your own filters and miss much, if not all, of the heart of what I'm getting at.

"Faith does not undermine rationality." Straight from the dictionary: Faith- belief that is not based on proof. Rationality- the reliance on proof and logic to justify ones ideas. Rationality demands that we question everything, faith demands that we don't.

" The descriptive power of the Tao Te Jhing is impressive." I've read it. It's not that impressive. Remember that daoism was allowed to exist in the Chinese empire because it was a folk religion that encouraged peasants not to be rebellious.

My problem with the weak deist position (there is a disinterested higher power, whose presence we can feel in nature or through meditation but who takes no action in human affairs) is that it offers no greater logical basis for supposing its existence, it just avoids some of the absurdities of the interventionist position.


Debating religion on a games forum? Train wreck's barely a strong enough term.

 

[hippo24]

There both based on nothing but perception of data, neither actually has any proof or credence that can prove the other is wrong or that they are right.

One man will look at a plant and say God created it uniquely and for a purpose in its environment and thats why it is what it is, the other will say that It was created through trial and error of different species to fulfill a purpose in its environment.
The end result is always the same, we still have a plant, it still does the same thing, its all a matter of what you view is viable.

Personally I'm the former, but Ill think no less of you if you lean toward the latter.