Legitimacy of believing

[freddy47]

Atheists use the "religion leads to violence" argument all the time. If atheists accuse religions of violence, why is a thought crime to accuse atheism of violence?

No one used the words thought crime its just a bullshit argument on your part. We are not going to throw you in jail for spouting nonsense but we are going to ridicule your position as is our right.

Hitler being a catholic is a myth. He was raised in a catholic home but then again Richard Dawkins was raised in an Anglican home. Does that mean that Dawkins is a Christian? Hitler was heavily influenced by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche.

That last sentence distorts the historical truth of the matter. Hitler took the idea of evolution and twisted it to a form that was no longer recognizable as the idea that Darwin first put forth. He also distorted Friedrich Nietzsche as well.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.



Hitler's Table Talk.. Oxford University Press


You believe it is your 'right to ridicule' people who believe in God? Thats interesting.

Sorry to butt in by the way ive got insomnia and am a bit bored.

 

[Portillo]

No one used the words thought crime its just a bullshit argument on your part. We are not going to throw you in jail for spouting nonsense but we are going to ridicule your position as is our right.

So its ok to accuse religion of violence?

 

[freddy47]

Also one can argue that Christianity (especially Lutherans) was a primary source of the antisemitism that ultimately led to the Holocaust. Martin Luther himself was an anti Semite writing such master works such as On the Jews and Their Lies which called for the burning of synagogues and Jewish schools as well as Jewish homes and the execution of Rabbis if they continued to preach. He also advised that the Jews should be used as slave labor for the Christians. Hmmm all this sounds awfully familiar. Oh right it sounds a lot like Hitlers final solution which had nothing to do with atheism and Darwin or Nietzsche but everything to do with deep seated and historical CHRISTIAN hatred for Jews. So it would be fair to say that Hitler was more influenced by Luther and Christianity than either atheism or Darwin or Friedrich.

It would be unfair however to blame Christianity as wholly responsible for the Holocaust just as much as it is unfair to blame atheism for Hitler and Stalin. It did however play a big role. As the document Dabru Ernet states "

"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity."

http://www.jcrelations.net/Dabru+Emet+-+A+Jewish+Statement+on+Christians+and+Christianity.2395.0.html?L=3

 

[freddy47]

You believe it is your 'right to ridicule' people who believe in God? Thats interesting.

Sorry to butt in by the way ive got insomnia and am a bit bored.

Umm yes. Just as much as it is your right to ridicule me for not believing in God. I'm kind of into the whole free speech thing being that its a cornerstone of any free society.

 

[freddy47]

So its ok to accuse religion of violence?

I don't think I said that at all. All I said was that your argument was false. But as long as we are on the subject yes it is ok to accuse religion of violence. Just if you do so provide evidence.

 

[freddy47]

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

I think the one thing we can both agree upon is that Hitler was a liar and an opportunist. He often took the side of an argument that most benefited him at the time. All I know is he had strong ties with the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII was also suspiciously silent during WWII and the Holocaust.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

So its ok to accuse religion of violence?

Why shouldn't it be okay?

What's the difference between religion and nationality? Both are arbitrary boundaries and a set of prescribed rules and behaviors, both are essentially imaginary, both are the source of man's gamut of negative actions. Believing in some form of a higher power has documented positive effects for a person, but when you try to talk about details to something make-believe, and force those arbitrary details on other people, then you cause problems.

 

[freddy47]

^Totally.

I have no problem with other people believing in God. Its when they say the rest of us are going to hell or try to shove their beliefs down our secular throats that bothers the hell out of me. For example if I ever have kids I certainly would not want them taught creationism in a science classroom. And yet so many parents in America view it as some sort of challenge to bring God into the science classroom.

I also hate it when people distort history to further their argument but that is another issue.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

With respect freddy the last couple of posts ive made to you have been in response to a distortion or scripture( in another thread) and then history re Hitler.

Your'e being hypocritical.

Your argument seems to be .. There are horrible Christians therefore God doesnt exist.

Yes there are fanatics, and nutters in the church but that kind of extreme behaviour has no likeness to the Holy spirit.
God is Love. Love isnt fanatical or aggressive.

 

[freddy47]

With respect freddy the last couple of posts ive made to you have been in response to a distortion or scripture( in another thread) and then history re Hitler.

Your'e being hypocritical.

Wow I love it when people veil disrespectful comments with the words "With respect" when they mean the exact opposite. As I recall I already apologized for that misquotation of Revelations on that other thread so why don't you follow your own religious beliefs and forgive me and let that go. That is unless of course my apology is no good to you or you didn't read it. In that case again I'm sorry for misquoting Revelations as I said I haven't read any of the Bible in a good long while for good reason. It was a mistake get over it.

Second what historical truth am I distorting? That quote from Hitler is not proof that he did not have strong ties with the Catholic Church (for he was indeed baptized a Catholic). The Vatican and Nazi Germany maintained diplomatic ties throughout WWII and Pope Pius XII did in fact adopt a stance of silence on the Holocaust, and many Catholics followed his example.(Note how I said many not all.) This is in the history books and cannot be disputed. (Unless of course you're a Holocaust denier which I don't think you are.)

It simply suggests that Hitler wanted to replace the Church with the state which he basically wanted to do with everything else that had the potential to challenge his claims to ultimate power. So if you wish to paint me a hypocrite so be it I don't really care but the way I see it I'm being honest and accurate to the historical record.

Your argument seems to be .. There are horrible Christians therefore God doesnt exist.

That is not and never has been my argument against the existence of God. My argument is that if God exists in the Christian form then he is malevolent and sadistic instead of the all loving God you'd like to portray him to be. I believe that if there is a God then he/she/it is not a personal God nor anthropomorphic nor some sort of all knowing creator God. I am an agnostic that leans heavily towards atheism but has pantheistic doubts. So please stop trying to tell me what I think for I know quite well my own thought process on the matter.

Yes there are fanatics, and nutters in the church but that kind of extreme behaviour has no likeness to the Holy spirit.
God is Love. Love isnt fanatical or aggressive.

God is love. But if you don't accept his infinite love you shall suffer everlasting damnation in hell. Gee Lord thanks for giving us all those options. I am truly thankful that you have given us such a wonderful ultimatum. Praise Jesus! But see the problem is Lord I don't see how your love can be infinite if people suffer just because they got some details wrong. Seems to me that is just a little bit irrational. But what do I know I'm just a dumb little mortal still paying for a sin I had no hand in. Thanks for showing us your infinite wisdom Lord, after all following your wisdom worked so well for the Jews.

 

[freddy47]

Yes there are fanatics, and nutters in the church but that kind of extreme behaviour has no likeness to the Holy spirit.
God is Love. Love isnt fanatical or aggressive.

From the book of I Corinthians chapter 12.

12For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

and...

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our less respectable parts have greater respect.

24For our more respectable parts have no need: but God has arranged the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked:

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26And whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

So by using Paul the Apostles own reasoning I argue that if one member of the church commits unspeakable acts of murder and genocide the whole of the Church should bear some of the weight of responsibility.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

The whole of the church being the body of christ you mean should bear some of the weight? Been done Freddy.

Heres a bit more from Adolf..

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278 Hitlers Table Talk Ox Press)

Do you concede the man was not a 'Devout Catholic' as you asserted in your earlier post?



Oh.. and I did want to be respectful.. its hard put that across online.

 

[freddy47]

Do you concede the man was not a 'Devout Catholic' as you asserted in your earlier post?

Perhaps perhaps not. I'm a man who believes actions speaks louder than words. By keeping strong ties with the Catholic church and maintaining that it was Gods will he was carrying out seems to me the actions of a man who was religiously devoted to something. Be that Christianity or his own warped view of it I don't think a few out of context quotes is gonna convince me in any direction. However I will concede that perhaps he wasn't the best Christian as far as what Christ himself would have thought a good Christian would be (for whatever that is worth). But his actions you have to admit were not all that different from what many Catholics and Lutherans before him had done. He just took it to a whole new level. Again I point out Martin Luther and his hatred of the Jews as well as the historical antisemitism of Catholicism.

"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." From Mein Kampf

The whole of the church being the body of christ you mean should bear some of the weight? Been done Freddy.

I mean the members of the Christian religion should stop trying to wash their hands of the atrocities that have been committed in Gods name for which I think all Christians bear some responsibility. From the Crusades to the role Christianity played in the Holocaust onward. I don't mean because supposedly Jesus died on the cross for your sins means all Christians are free to do whatever they please and then have the rest of Christendom deny that these other members are Christians at all therefore absolving them of any collective guilt that their ideology may have played some role in the deaths of millions. But this applies to all religions not just Christians. I think Muslims should bear the same responsibility for the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Allah just as much.

I'm not saying that all Christians are responsible for the crusades nor all muslims for 911. What I am saying is that you have to accept the fact that your ideology and belief system played a large role in leading these fanatics to carrying out horrendous acts of barbarism.

Oh.. and I did want to be respectful.. its hard put that across online.

I didn't take it personally no hard feelings? Although in the future if you want to come across as respectful it might be helpful not to call people hypocrites.

 

[freddy47]

Also it is not clear at all that Hitler completely swore off Christianity as this link shows.http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

 

[Lazyscience]

but how do you know what is right and what is wrong
no one is reality itself, we are all part of reality, everyone is as real as each other, but we are all experiencing reality from a different angle
so some people are wrong and some are right but thats only valid from one point of view and that point of view is relative

so when you say "the fact is" how did you came up with that fact ? does everybody agrees that its a fact ? why would some people disagree if it would be a fact ?

so are you saying that if you and a lot of other people have agreed that something is true then you can feel legitimate in doing arms to others who disagree because they are in a minority ?

if you base your model of reality on faith and revelation as religions do, then your chances of that model being wrong are as close to 100% as makes no difference. whereas, if your model is based on reason and evidence then you can gradually build up a totally accurate understanding of reality. thats how we know which reality is right and which is wrong. basically, it is extremely likely that all religions are wrong.

its kind of hard for me to justify why i said its a fact that there is only one reality. ill need to think about that. does anyone have some thoughts on that? maybe because the same laws of physics apply to everyone nomatter what their religion. its not like gravity is reversed for sikhs or that 2+2=5 for buddhists.

and all this talk about saying that religion or atheism is responsible for murders and wars. what does it matter? it still doesnt say anything about the actual legitamacy of believing in a religion. im sure there would be people at war whether we lived in a world with religion or not. and i hope all you religious folks know why religion is definitey not a good basis for your morals.

 

[freddy47]

its kind of hard for me to justify why i said its a fact that there is only one reality. ill need to think about that. does anyone have some thoughts on that? maybe because the same laws of physics apply to everyone nomatter what their religion. its not like gravity is reversed for sikhs or that 2+2=5 for buddhists.

That last bit made me lol. To me its irrelevant if there are other realities. Because this is the reality we are currently experiencing and therefore at the moment the only reality that matters. So it might as well be the only "right" reality. Who cares if in another reality 2 and 2 is 5? It wouldn't matter because we aren't experiencing that reality. We are in a reality where 2 and 2 will always be 4 and everything will always fall down not up so why even bother talking about realities at all? Btw I just typed reality over 9 times. But in some other reality I typed it 10 maybe 15 times. But does it matter? Not one tiny bit. See my point?

and all this talk about saying that religion or atheism is responsible for murders and wars. what does it matter? it still doesnt say anything about the actual legitamacy of believing in a religion. im sure there would be people at war whether we lived in a world with religion or not. and i hope all you religious folks know why religion is definitey not a good basis for your morals.

Totally agreed. People will always fight over stupid stuff for stupid reasons. Its just that religions seem to cause it a lot more.

 

[freddy47]

Also in furtherance of my idea of collective responsibility I don't think religions alone should be held accountable. For example I think all nuclear physicists should be aware of what Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project brought into this world and the responsibility they have in not creating more weapons just because they have the scientific knowledge to do so.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

I didn't take it personally no hard feelings? Although in the future if you want to come across as respectful it might be helpful not to call people hypocrites.

Freddy you twisted my words.. I said you were being hypocritical which you were. I didnt call you a hypocrite. Ok?
Theres a difference.

 

[freddy47]

^A small difference but whatevs. Regardless I found it somewhat insulting.

And no I wasn't being hypocritical. I was stating simple historical facts. Just because you don't believe in them does not make my statement hypocritical. Hitler did have ties with the Catholic church and Portillo was distorting the truth. He was also a baptized Catholic and said on multiple occasions that he was doing Gods work. Hitler was not purely influenced by atheism Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche alone as Portillo suggested. He was also influenced by Lutheran and Catholic antisemitism which is undeniably true and ultimately the point I was trying to make.

For me to have been hypocritical I would have had to say that Hitler was devout Catholic AND was purely influenced to do what he did all because of Jesus and the Bible which is not what I said at all. I also would have had to say that atheism and Darwin had no influence whatsoever which is also something I did not claim. So please stop misinterpreting what I say and taking what I say out of context. I have also stated that I was wrong about that whole Revelation thing on the other thread. But I stand by what I said on this thread and that I was not being hypocritical.

I will concede however that perhaps he wasn't as devout as he claimed. But I do still stand by the fact that he was a Catholic. But I think to let the matter rest it is best to say that Hitlers spiritual beliefs are controversial and is the subject of debate rather than go on arguing about a dead mans belief system.