#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Christians would you react like this if a Non-Christian had been staying at your
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns
UPDATE:Basically this was from a American reality TV show where the wives of two families get swapped for a week and get to decide how $50,000 will be spent on the other family. In this case a pious Christian woman got swapped with a wife from a non-religious New Age spiritual family who to the Christian woman's horror not only not christians but also practiced things such as Astrology and Tarot card readings and many other things that she deemed "Not Of God", "Tainted" and "Dark-sided" (pronounced "Dooark Sided"). This is her returning to her house and screaming at her family about her ordeal at the non-christian familes house and how the presence of an "Ungodly" and "Dark-sided" person at her house is so horrible for her and how she refuses to accept the money (although she accepts it later) because it is "tainted".
Yes, so Doark Sided!
Side Score: 39
|
 |
Nope:)
Side Score: 24
|
|
It seems like it might have been part of the show "Wife Swap." I haven't seen it, but I think they send a wife/mother from one family and have her live with another family and vice versa. Then film it and show on TV. Sounds like they found the combo they wanted. The debate description has been updated. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
|
1
point
1
point
This thread is a hasty generalization fallacy. One woman picked out for "reality" TV (presumably due to her proclivity for conflict) does not reflect upon the Christian population or the Christian faith. It would be as well if I were to ask all the atheists if they would exterminate 50M people if they were elected President. After all, Mao did it and he was an atheist. Side: Nope:)
2
points
But Mao didn't do what he did in the name of Atheism, he just was some one who did bad things who happened to be an atheist. Where as this woman is behaving in this way because she is a Christian. And this is considering this is one of the most minor bad things a Christian has done in the name of there religion when you compare it to there persecutions of Jews and other minorities, sacrilegious destruction and defacement of other faiths' places of worship, witch hunts, genocides and holy wars through out history. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
But Mao didn't do what he did in the name of Atheism Didn't he? The cultural revolution which killed tens of millions included the execution of massive numbers of Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents in order to "modernize" china. Remember that socialism requires atheism as part of its philosophy, so if you are exterminating the religious here, it is be default in the name of atheism. Mao was quite explicit in his attempts to wipe out religious followers or writers as part of his transformation. The ideology Mao was forcing upon China had socialist aspects to it and atheist belief aspects to it, so to argue it wasn't in the name of atheism is somewhat incoherent. Now, maybe we can argue that Mao wasn't representative of atheist thought. Perhaps that is valid, but the same argument can be made for the woman in the show offered. That is why I pointed out this was a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
And this is considering this is one of the most minor bad things a Christian has done in the name of there religion when you compare it to there persecutions of Jews and other minorities, sacrilegious destruction and defacement of other faiths' places of worship, witch hunts, genocides and holy wars through out history. All of which are massively trumped by the same actions taken by secular governments in the name of secular progress. The inquisition was terrible, but it only averaged about 14 deaths a year. Pol Pot averaged 750,000 a year, specifically in the name of atheism (Pol Pot specifically advocated a move towards agrarian socialism and away from local tradition and religion, those found practicing any religion were executed on the spot). Side: Nope:)
2
points
"Didn't he? The cultural revolution which killed tens of millions included the execution of massive numbers of Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents in order to "modernize" china. Remember that socialism requires atheism as part of its philosophy, so if you are exterminating the religious here, it is be default in the name of atheism." Well then it was in the name of Socialist Atheism not Atheism in general. Where as this woman did it "The inquisition was terrible, but it only averaged about 14 deaths a year." What about the Spanish invasion of the Americas which was done in the name of Christianity and caused the deaths of 8 million natives. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
Well then it was in the name of Socialist Atheism not Atheism in general. You missed my point. Atheism was a specific aspect of his ideology here. Socialism was another. When Mao had people sent to re-education camps and executed, it was because they were religious. His goal was specifically to institute an atheistic world view in China. Arguing that isn't in the name of atheism is akin to arguing that the Taliban aren't acting in the name of Islam. Of course they are. Now, maybe both are misguided, maybe they are drawing their ideas incorrectly from those philosophies, sure. But that isn't the argument you are making here. The same argument could be made of the woman in the show. What about the Spanish invasion of the Americas which was done in the name of Christianity and caused the deaths of 8 million natives. No, the disease the Spanish brought with them killed 8 Million native Americans. The spanish who came had no idea what disease was, how it was spread or what its impact would be. Accusing them of spreading it intentionally is inaccurate. To the extent that the Spanish did massacre native americans (and they did), this was never in the name of Christianity, they often killed the priest who accompanied them if they tried to intervene. The motives for those killings were political and economic control. The natives didn't pay tribute or didn't reveal locations of gold, not because of a failure to convert. Side: Nope:)
2
points
"To the extent that the Spanish did massacre native americans (and they did), this was never in the name of Christianity, they often killed the priest who accompanied them if they tried to intervene. The motives for those killings were political and economic control. The natives didn't pay tribute or didn't reveal locations of gold, not because of a failure to convert." Actually it is a widely accepted fact that all the natives in fact were forced to convert, that is why the Aztec and Incan Religions are extinct. And furthermore the Crusades are another fine example of Christianity's cruel nature. It may be fair that the Crusades were caused by the Muslims taking other the Holy Land first but Jews were also foully abused during them. When the Crusaders besieged Jerusalem the Jews retreated and took sanctuary in the Synagogue and the Crusaders burned it down while the Jews were trapped in it singing Christian songs. Also don't forget how violent Christians have been to each other. With the Crusaders terrorizing the Orthodox Christians when they sacked Constantinople and how Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other from the reformation in most of Europe onwards till very recently in Ireland. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
1
point
Actually it is a widely accepted fact that all the natives in fact were forced to convert, that is why the Aztec and Incan Religions are extinct. Actually, it is a widely held belief that that is the case. Which is why it is an appeal to popularity fallacy. The fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. While there were some forced conversions over several hundred years, these were relatively few and far between. More often locals came to accept Christianity either for legitimate reasons or because it was the religion of the most successful and facilitated access to those in positions of power. However disingenuous that might have been, it is isn't forced conversion. And furthermore the Crusades are another fine example of Christianity's cruel nature. This is a somewhat fair complaint. The Christians crusaders were often extremely cruel to Jews. As were the Muslims. However, unlike the Muslims Crusaders often defended Jews as well. During the first Crusade a large group of bandits descended upon the towns of the Rhineland and demanded the execution of all local Jews. A group of soldiers traveling to Italy (along with a set of Priests) to participate in the Crusade confronted the bandits and demanded they disperse. Importantly these bandits, who called themselves the "People's Crusade" never actually went to the Holy Land or participated in the activities at all. They were also condemned and excommunicated by the Catholic Church. It should also be pointed out that the specific example you are referencing is more urban myth than historical reality. Traditionally when a town held out against a siege it was burned to the ground and it was understood that most people would retreat to a church or synagogue to pray during this process. The same activity took place when the Muslims burned all churches and synagogues to the ground during the initial sacking of Jerusalem. Now, while it is popular for people to imagine today that the Jews were inside with the crusaders singing hymns, I cannot stress enough that there is 0 historical evidence for this claim. No account before a book in 1990 makes a reference to hymns and virtually all contemporary Muslim and Jewish sources note that there were no Jews in the synagogue when it was burned. (Kedar, Benjamin Z. "The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099 in the Western Historiography of the Crusades." The Crusades). Many Jews were killed during the sack of Jerusalem, but the reason wasn't a religious one, it was due to plundering. Many people held a common myth during that time was that all Jews horded gold, when it wasn't revealed they were killed and looted. Terrible, but not religiously motivated. It should be noted that multiple crusaders were hung from the walls of Jerusalem for this crime, specifically by the Count of Toulouse. "Also don't forget how violent Christians have been to each other. With the Crusaders terrorizing the Orthodox Christians when they sacked Constantinople and how Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other from the reformation in most of Europe onwards till very recently in Ireland." Ireland is of course a terrible example. The IRA killed Catholic priests for years. The fact that the Irish were mostly Catholic and the English mostly Protestant doesn't make this a religious conflict. It was a political conflict due to the English occupation of Ireland. Heck, most IRA members were socialists, hard to argue a religious motivation there. Side: Nope:)
1
point
What about these?: 1. Crusades 2.Spanish Inquisition 3. Witch hunts 4. Genocide of native americans 5. Enslavement of Africans 6. Holocaust (Hitler identified as catholic many times and in his speech at the Reichstag in 1936 he said: “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”) 7. Bombing of abortion clinics 8. Rwandan Genocide 9. Genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the Ygoslavic wars of the 90's 10. Ngo Diems perseccution of buddhists during his rule of South Vietnam 11. Destruction of Pagans Etc. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
1. Crusades Dealt with above. 2.Spanish Inquisition Dealt with above. We are talking about 14 deaths a year and more importantly, the motivation for the Inquisition (spanish) was political, not religious. While the actors called themselves priests and bishops, they were not acting within the veil of the Church (which never sanctioned such events, and insisted that the Roman Inquisition (which only executed about 12 people all of which were either murderers or pedophiles) was the only valid Inquisition). The Spanish Inquisition was established and overseen by the King and Queen of Spain, not by the Church. It was famously negligent in persecuting heretics, especially Jews, unless those Jews happened to be unwilling to loan the government money. They also killed quite a few Christians, who I guess, just happened to all be vocal critics of the royal family. 3. Witch hunts Similar to the above in that the scope has been largely overblown. Moreover, most witch hunts are believed to have started in conjunction with the growth of hallucinogenic molds on the Rye crops of Europe. Massive drug induced hallucinations are hardly a religious issue. 4. Genocide of native americans Pretty sure I already explained this too you. There was no directed genocide of Native Americans. Most Native Americans died of a series of plagues primarily related to Small Pox and Typhus to which they had no immunity. Since Europeans didn't understand a theory of disease until centuries later, it is an odd claim that holds them not only responsible, but knowingly so. 5. Enslavement of Africans I'll certainly grant this with an important caveat. Most cultures have had slavery (some still do). Slavery, even the horrific slavery of the Carribean, while primarily a business enterprise, was religiously justified for centuries as well. But it was tame when compared to the slavery imposed by the secular Russian government or the enslavement of Europeans in to Africa (which was as common as the middle passage in sheer numbers) or the enslavement into the Middle east of Africans. The brutality of which makes the middle passage seem like a day in the park. But that caveat aside, I will grant that Christians acted extremely poorly in the slave trade. I will note that at least it was Christians that ended it (the secular humanists of the time being somewhat agnostic on the idea). 6. Holocaust This is an argument that one could only make if they were profoundly ignorant of the history of Fascism and the Second World War. The quote you mention is actually from Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf, not from a speech to the Reichstag. Hitler also banned all religious education, locked up catholics in the concentration camps and famously railed that there was no God and that the catholics better say as he wished or they would find themselves next to the Jews. He was also famous for calling Jesus the "White Christ" a term the Danes invented as a derogatory one (meaning the dead god) during the Viking period. There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was most likely an atheist and the extent to which he had some religious belief it was of the Germanic gods of old, not the Christian variety. 7. Bombing of abortion clinics This goes to the same fallacy this thread starts under. It is a Hasty Generalization fallacy. There were only a few abortion clinic bombings (less than a dozen that could actually be tied to abortion reasons, about half of them are actually murders where the killer is using that hype of abortion clinics to disguise their crime) and those were horrible, but hardly a mainstream Christian activity. I could easily turn around the pro-life murders, which are more numerous, and point that to secularists. That hardly seems a convincing condemnation on your part. 8. Rwandan Genocide Absolutely not religious at all you realize right? That was an ethnic genocide brought about the terrible colonial oppression and a privileged ethnic group during that administration. I'm a bit surprised you referenced this atrocity since no one actually holds it to be religious in any manner or form. 9. Genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the Ygoslavic wars of the 90's You mean the famously secularized socialist Slavs? What about the predominately Christian NATO forces that stopped the genocide? That seems like a bit of cherry picking on your part. 10. Ngo Diems perseccution of buddhists during his rule of South Vietnam Which had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity right? The fact that Deim was Catholic is, at best, incidental. The majority of his cabinet were Buddhists and non-religious types. His arrest and assassination was a CIA plot run primarily by...an American Catholic! The motivation for the repression was not that they were buddhists, it was that they were protesting against his government and policies, a secular motivation. I would recommend doing some research in the future. 11. Destruction of Pagans Well, that isn't a broad and undefined term that could mean anything. Without any specifics this isn't a valid claim. Side: Nope:)
2
points
"Similar to the above in that the scope has been largely overblown. Moreover, most witch hunts are believed to have started in conjunction with the growth of hallucinogenic molds on the Rye crops of Europe. Massive drug induced hallucinations are hardly a religious issue." The reason why people feared Witchcraft so much was because of Christianity. "Well, that isn't a broad and undefined term that could mean anything. Without any specifics this isn't a valid claim." When the Romans converted to Christianity they ordered the pillaging and destruction of many Pagan temples and made it illegal to be a Pagan under the pain of death. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
The reason why people feared Witchcraft so much was because of Christianity. Well the fear of witchcraft predates Christianity. The celts were inordinately fearful of hexes and spells, etc. That is why Greek ships have that eye on them. The fear of magical curses are certainly not unique to Christianity. The specific incidents themselves were caused by a hallucinogenic compound in mold. The fact that they called them "witches" rather than "djinn" or "counter revolutionaries" or "republicans" is related to the specific culture. Around that same time in eastern Europe (also Christian) the fear was more concerning the rising of the undead and werewolf type characters. When the Romans converted to Christianity they ordered the pillaging and destruction of many Pagan temples and made it illegal to be a Pagan under the pain of death. Just as prior to that conversion they had ordered the pillaging and destruction of many churches and made it illegal to be a Christian under the pain of death. It would seem that the Romans are the common factor here, not the specific religious principles. Side: Nope:)
2
points
"Just as prior to that conversion they had ordered the pillaging and destruction of many churches and made it illegal to be a Christian under the pain of death. It would seem that the Romans are the common factor here, not the specific religious principles." Actually it is common Christian behaviour to demolish places of worship of other Religions, like how when the Norse Christians destroyed the buildings of the old pagan Nordic Religion and the very recent burnings of Buddhist temples in South Korea. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
2
points
Instructions to Kill non christians (as well as fellow christians) is in the bible: 1. Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God:
" Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) 2. Kill Followers of Other Religions:
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) 3. Kill People for Working on the Sabbath: The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) 4.Infidels and Gays Should Die: So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT) 5. Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests: Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) 6. Kill Nonbelievers: They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB) Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
"Actually it is common [human] behaviour [sic] to demolish places of worship of other Religions, like how when the [Soviets, Chinese, etc] destroyed the buildings of the old [religions after they came to power.]" You are assuming Christianity here is the common thread, when this type of behavior spans across religions and indeed across any group spectrum. Politics, nationality, race, etc. Any form of group identity humans adopt has examples of destruction of other groups not included in that identity. Side: Nope:)
1
point
Hitler was no atheist, he may have not been a 100% bible believing christian, but he was a theist of sorts; 1.the nazis had shut down many secular and atheistic organizations and demonized them by associating them with communists (something the nazi ideology was strongly opposed to) 2.german soldiers had the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" (German for God is with us)on thier uniforms 3. catholics were never interned in concentration camps because of their religionb(maybe a few were but they were due to being "ethnically jewish or criticizing the nazi movement) 4. Hitler had a strong interest in the occult (suggesting he believed in the supernatural) 5. The Catholic church never excommunicated hitler, in fact the pope remained silent throught the events of the holocaust 6. Give me a quote from hitler (with a reliable source) in which he denied the existance of God 7. What about these quotes?:
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 3] “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936] “I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.” [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pp. 239-40] “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. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. 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. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.” [Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990] “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 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.” [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152] “And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174] and many more... 8. Hitler strongly embraced the concept of "Positive Christianity", the Nazi approved interpretation of Christianity in which Jesus is depicted as an Aryan warrior whonfought against the Jews Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
Hitler was no atheist, he may have not been a 100% bible believing christian, but he was a theist of sorts; Which I stated in my last post, did you actually read it? I stated that Hitler was more than likely an atheist or at very most a passive follower of germanic religions and cults. 1.the nazis had shut down many secular and atheistic organizations and demonized them by associating them with communists (something the nazi ideology was strongly opposed to) If a catholic organization shut down a protestant group, would that mean they are atheists? Shutting down competing political groups is not a statement of religious belief. 2.german soldiers had the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" (German for God is with us)on thier uniforms Which predates Hitler (it dates back to the Roman empire in german units). Further, in Hitler's personal soldiers, the Waffen SS, that phrase was explicitly forbidden and replaced with "my duty is loyalty." 3. catholics were never interned in concentration camps because of their religionb(maybe a few were but they were due to being "ethnically jewish or criticizing the nazi movement) This is just a patently false statement, you really should consult Dr. Google before posting these: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/KZDachau/DachauLife3.html Catholic priests were locked up for refusing to teach that Germans were superior to other races and that God favored Arryans. 4. Hitler had a strong interest in the occult (suggesting he believed in the supernatural) Yep, said this above. But supernatural =/= thiest. Hitler's variety of supernatural beliefs were based upon the idea of the superman. That man had once been genetically pure and could return to that state and thereby gain access to powers not understood by modern day humans. None of these particular cults held for an afterlife, for example. 5. The Catholic church never excommunicated hitler, in fact the pope remained silent throught the events of the holocaust The fact that there were Wafen SS soldiers in the Vatican watching the Pope tends to be a good explanation of this. Further, the Pope's lack of action does not imply a belief system in Hitler, only his own disinclination for action. 6. Give me a quote from hitler (with a reliable source) in which he denied the existance of God I can point out that the Nazi goal to eradicate Christianity is extremely well established. http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/ In "World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1", p. 10, ABC-CLIO, 2006: “There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.” "Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich" on p. 240, "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church." The most definitive book on fascist germany: "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany" says, “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.” From "Germany: a modern history": “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.” Most relevantly, the only historian to actually know Hitler, Ian Kershaw, argued that Hitler was an atheist, he is quoted in "Hitler, a Study in Tyranny" as arguing that Hitler thought Christianity was a religion fit for slaves. It further points out that the official ideologist of the party was a fervently anti-christian neo-pagan and that Hitler gave explicit approval of noted atheists Himmler and Goebels to shut down religious institutions as they saw fit. “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936] You realize that I pointed out this source as not coming from a Rechstag speech, but from chapter two of Mein Kampf in my last post right? Whatever source you are taking this from couldn't apparently be bothered with quoting correctly. I should point out that political speeches are a bad place to find real politician's beliefs. The evidence of his actions and those closest to him portray a very different story than the speeches he used to come to power. I mean do you believe the statements of a politician trying to get elected? 8. Hitler strongly embraced the concept of "Positive Christianity", the Nazi approved interpretation of Christianity in which Jesus is depicted as an Aryan warrior whonfought against the Jews Yep, "positive Christianity" also included the removal of the Bible as a source of information and replaced with a newly constructed book by Nazi historians. In that book Jesus wasn't crucified, but rebelled. He was Aryan and was not born of Joseph, made virtually no moralistic speeches and didn't heal the weak. IE "positive Christianity" retains nothing of Christianity, but the name. It would be like calling yourself an atheist, but in your version of atheism you pray to Jesus, attend church and receive communion. Side: Nope:)
2
points
I think its time for me to jump in. Which I stated in my last post, did you actually read it? I stated that Hitler was more than likely an atheist or at very most a passive follower of germanic religions and cults. and? Before we even begin this, what if I grant you that hitler was an atheist (which he probably wasn't)? What then? You cant even begin to support a hypothesis that hitler did what he did FOR atheism. So lets keep the fact in mind throughout this that even if you "win" it means literally nothing. If a catholic organization shut down a protestant group, would that mean they are atheists? Shutting down competing political groups is not a statement of religious belief Where as I personally don't know where jackster got the information that hitler shut down atheistic and secular institutions, I cant agree with the above. If hitler shut down a political party (which he did) then it really doesn't say anything about his faith or lack therof. However, if he did infact shut down Atheist institutions and programs that promoted secularity then I think that does speak volumes about his beliefs. Of course, only if he shut them down because of their motives and not just political reasons. Either way doesn't matter. Which predates Hitler (it dates back to the Roman empire in german units). Further, in Hitler's personal soldiers, the Waffen SS, that phrase was explicitly forbidden and replaced with "my duty is loyalty Don't you think if hitler was such a die hard atheist that he would've gotten rid of it for EVERYONE? And I don't find it at all persuasive that he got rid of it for his most trusted and loyal troops. They are obviously high in the ranks so he changed a generic slogan to one that gives praise to him. The new slogan "my duty is loyalty" seems like exactly what any leader would want his highest troops and advisers to have to reinforce their loyalty to him. This doesn't speak volumes about his religious outlooks at all and actually the fact that he didn't do away with the old on altogether actually hurts your side. This is just a patently false statement, you really should consult Dr. Google before posting these: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/KZDachau/DachauLife3.html Catholic priests were locked up for refusing to teach that Germans were superior to other races and that God favored Arryans. So you just said it....they didn't imprison them for their beliefs, just for not teaching what they wanted. And if hitler was so hell-bent on destroying Christianity or all religion in Germany don't you think theyd just be killed and not allowed to teach at ALL? Yep, said this above. But supernatural =/= thiest. Hitler's variety of supernatural beliefs were based upon the idea of the superman. That man had once been genetically pure and could return to that state and thereby gain access to powers not understood by modern day humans. None of these particular cults held for an afterlife, for example. Agreed. However the interest in the occult to me signifies that it is likely he also held a theistic belief. It doesn't at all prove anything, but its nothing to shake your head at. The fact that there were Wafen SS soldiers in the Vatican watching the Pope tends to be a good explanation of this. Further, the Pope's lack of action does not imply a belief system in Hitler, only his own disinclination for action. Again, this information is unfamiliar to me but pretty much agreed. Though again, if he was determined to destroy theistic belief, wouldn't he just kill the pope? I can point out that the Nazi goal to eradicate Christianity is extremely well established. Hmmm...not quite. You know you really ought to read your own damn sources: "But there was a dilemma for Hitler. While conservatives, the Christian churches ''could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State.'' Given that these were the fundamental underpinnings of the Nazi regime, ''conflict was inevitable,'' He ran into conflict politically with a non-theistic part of Christianity's moral code. He planned to destroy Christianity because of this reason, NOT because they believed in god. Nowhere will you find anything stating this. Also, the fact "conflict was inevitable" shows that the destruction of Christianity wasn't a first priority or part of hitlers first plans, its one that developed over time. Don't you think that if he was persecuting them for their beliefs that he would have started right off the bat? That isn't an issue that has to develop. Theres no way you can prove he had any plans to destroy them because of their beliefs. This means nothing And then right after that you shoot yourself in the foot: "the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.” So hitler the atheist trying to spread atheism is going to institute early theistic paganism...hmmm.... So NOW I could even grant you that he WAS trying to destroy Christianity for their beliefs and STILL maintain my defense that he wasn't really an atheist. Not that im doing that. You realize that I pointed out this source as not coming from a Rechstag speech, but from chapter two of Mein Kampf in my last post right? Whatever source you are taking this from couldn't apparently be bothered with quoting correctly. I should point out that political speeches are a bad place to find real politician's beliefs. The evidence of his actions and those closest to him portray a very different story than the speeches he used to come to power. I mean do you believe the statements of a politician trying to get elected? Pretty much agreed. Yep, "positive Christianity" also included the removal of the Bible as a source of information and replaced with a newly constructed book by Nazi historians. In that book Jesus wasn't crucified, but rebelled. He was Aryan and was not born of Joseph, made virtually no moralistic speeches and didn't heal the weak. IE "positive Christianity" retains nothing of Christianity, but the name. It would be like calling yourself an atheist, but in your version of atheism you pray to Jesus, attend church and receive communion. Pretty much agreed but this act encourages theistic belief. It encourages not the destruction of theistic belief in Christianity but just a different take on it. If he was really a die hard atheist trying to destroy theistic belief isn't it far morel likely that he would've just done away with it all instead of going to all that trouble? So that's that. Honestly, I don't think we can even say for sure what hitlers beliefs were due to the gumbled up mix of information we have available. He was definitely two-faced in this area. Though, when we look back on everything it seems the only things that he did were for political reasons and did seem to favor religious thought and some religious beliefs even if they weren't Christian. Keep in mind, this issue is often viewed as a false dichotomy. Either he was a Christian or he was an atheist. Well that's just not the case. He might've been a pagan it seems, or maybe a deist, or maybe agnostic or sure,(that might be very likely) perhaps Christian or atheist. I don't think we can know for sure, however he seems to be leaning towards theism than atheism. BUT, lets circle back to the very beginning. suppose every argument I just made is totally wrong (I don't think they are). Suppose I grant you victory and hitler was an atheist. What then? The holocaust was all to spread atheism? or spreading it was even part of hitlers goal? Not likely. Not even close. And ill sum up with the clincher. Suppose AGAIN, that I grant you victory AND that I agree that hitler WAS atheist and WAS trying to spread atheism. What then? Does that mean all atheists share his views? No. Does that mean atheism is evil? No. Does that mean atheism is untrue? No. I could grant you everything and in the end you have nothing. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
You cant even begin to support a hypothesis that hitler did what he did FOR atheism. Hi Ave, welcome to the discussion. I believe I answered this objection earlier. The application of atheism to Hitler is the same as the application of Christianity to this woman. Hitler was undertaking the various actions he did in order to ensure his world view was triumphant. That world view was atheistic. Replace the names and ideologies here and you have the OP. If one is valid, the other is, by default, valid as well. I should note here, before we go down a rabbit hole, that I don't think either are valid. My point is that the logic applied here is fallacious (hasty generalization fallacy), and that same methodology would lead to a conclusion much more critical of atheism than theism if applied consistently. If hitler shut down a political party (which he did) then it really doesn't say anything about his faith or lack therof. I agree. I've often heard it said that ideological groups reserve their most vehement denunciations for those most like them (since they are competing for the same audience), but regardless, I don't think we can really infer much from that action either way. Don't you think if hitler was such a die hard atheist that he would've gotten rid of it for EVERYONE? Not necessarily, Hitler was a dictator, but he still lived in political reality. There were plenty of things that Hitler clearly planned on reforming, but didn't have the political capital or will or focus to deal with during a world war. Stronger price controls, racial purity tests for all citizens, the complete removal of unearned (interest and capital gains) income, etc. they didn't imprison them for their beliefs, just for not teaching what they wanted. That is an interesting way to read that. Lets say you were a teacher at a public school and I demanded that you teach Creationism. You refuse and so I fire you. Are you being fired for your beliefs? I think most people would say so. The position of Aryans as the master race is directly related to Catholic teachings (Jesus came for all men Gentile and Jew), their unwillingness to set aside that part of Catholic dogma in favor of Hitler's dogma is a direct conflict in belief sets. Agreed. However the interest in the occult to me signifies that it is likely he also held a theistic belief. It doesn't at all prove anything, but its nothing to shake your head at. I'm not sure, the occult is an odd mishmash of belief sets and ideologies. UFO hunters are usually held to be in the occult and many of them are atheists (some are also theists). I think the nature of Hitler's exact belief set is pretty relevant here. While, I certainly concede we cannot know his exact position, his actions and appointments and writings tend to indicate that he favored an occult position that a purified aryan race would have access to latent powers within this world left here by the last race of supermen, aryans. He viewed the Norse and germanic gods as aryan prototypes and mythical variations on actual human potential. Though again, if he was determined to destroy theistic belief, wouldn't he just kill the pope? I would again argue that Hitler lived in a real world where he couldn't instantaneously pursue all goals at once. I think it is pretty clear from a historical point of view that he wanted to remove Christianity at least from Germany at some point, but he needed to "lift" the German people above it first. Because he recognized real world constraints doesn't mean he didn't hold the viewpoint. He was pretty clearly a supporter of the final solution, but he also didn't advertise it overtly in German media. He ran into conflict politically with a non-theistic part of Christianity's moral code. He planned to destroy Christianity because of this reason, NOT because they believed in god First, I should point out that the moral code in Christianity can't be non-theistic, it all derives from the teachings and position of a deity. If Christ is not Christ then the idea of non-racism, etc is moot. Second, I think you should have read a bit more into the source you quoted. Literally the next paragraph after the one you quote says: According to Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German youth corps that would later be known as the Hitler Youth, ''the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement'' from the beginning, though ''considerations of expedience made it impossible'' for the movement to adopt this radical stance officially until it had consolidated power, the outline says. Attracted by the strategic value inherent in the churches' ''historic mission of conservative social discipline,'' the Nazis simply lied and made deals with the churches while planning a ''slow and cautious policy of gradual encroachment'' to eliminate Christianity. I think your second quote is best understood in light of the text above. Remember the that new paganism of fascism was explicitly atheist in tone and worshiping the State as the only greater being. The old paganism of germanic "gods" again represent real people who were "racially pure" and therefore able to perform feats greater than mortals. It is important to remember that the early germanic 'gods' are born, grow up and die or are killed. They do not rise to an afterlife (that was the "norse perversion" as Himmler called it). It encourages not the destruction of theistic belief in Christianity but just a different take on it. I disagree. If you replace the Jesus of the New Testament with a aryan superman akin to Beowulf, theism doesn't really follow along with it. A warrior king who can be killed and die, but represents a racial struggle is an odd form of theism to be charitable. Suppose AGAIN, that I grant you victory AND that I agree that hitler WAS atheist and WAS trying to spread atheism. What then? Does that mean all atheists share his views? No. Ding, ding, ding! Exactly! That is the point I made way back when I waded in here. That woman's actions are not necessarily reflective of either the content or the truth value of the underlying ideology. Side: Nope:)
1
point
1
point
And the state is not a religion right? Replacing secular with dogmatic is also simple sophistry. Of course it was dogmatic. The dogma was atheism and socialism. That term simply means that he was acting in accordance with a set of principles or tenants. He was, the tenants of socialism and atheism. Side: Nope:)
1
point
Atheism has no dogma, atheists can be liberal, conservative, meat eaters, vegetarians, etc. we have no fixed dogmatic system. Mao made himself out to be God in his country, as did Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, etc. They wanted to promote state worship, not free thinking secular humanism. Their version of Communism was in itself a religion. North Korea is basically the most religous country in the world, they believe the Kim family to be Gods. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
I think you misunderstand the definition of the word dogma. Atheists do have set of principles concerning faith. 1) There is no God. 2) The only rational knowledge set is defined as that which can be empirically tested. A relatively simple dogma, but a dogma none the less. The implications of that can be somewhat varied, but all the dictators you mentioned (minus Kim Il Sung, the N. Koreans aren't really socialists or atheists) derived their philosophies within the scope of that dogma. They began with the principle that there are no objective moral values or duties and that led to the conclusion that society could be ordered as befit its own best interests, free of any external constraints like religion. From there they largely took different paths, but that is a pretty dangerous starting point, imo, which is largely removed in a theist context. The theist starting point could also be bad (there are plenty that have been), but it could also be good (there are plenty that have been). Regardless, it offers a far, far tighter scope of societal organization and action than what most philosophers call the "unconstrained" vision of atheism. Side: Nope:)
1
point
0
points
Atheism isnt the assertion that there is no God, it is the REJECTION of the assertion that there is a God, some religions are atheistic, like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. they do not believe or worship a specific deity. This is inaccurate. This definition of atheism, as I pointed out before, is a psychological state, not a philosophic position. By it, we should also conclude that rocks and trees are atheists since they do not hold theistic beliefs. That is why in philosophy we do not define positions via belief states, but rather by claims associated. The position of atheist (rather than the state) is the holding of a claim that God does not exist. Side: Nope:)
2
points
Actually not holding Theistic beliefs do make you an Atheist but obviously inanimate objects and non-sentient organisms don't count. There is implicit Atheism and then there is Explicit Atheism. Implicit Atheism refers to the mere lack of belief in gods and Explicit is the conscious disbelief. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
Let me see if I can reframe this a bit. The fact of holding or not holding a belief is a psychological state. The terms used in psychology for this are Apatheism and Apoatheism. The argument that a position of existence/non-exigence is correct is a philosophic position. That position is defined in philosophy as Theist/Agnostic/Atheist. I hope that clarifies what I think is the confusion in what some of us are talking about. Side: Nope:)
2
points
Actually agnosticism isn't a position on belief at all, but knowledge. The vast majority of atheists and theists both are also agnostic. Agnostic is not some midway point on the belief spectrum between theist and atheist. Theist and atheist are opposite positions on belief, while agnosticism and gnosticism are opposite positions on knowledge. Atheism has no dogma and no beliefs in common. And since there are atheistic religions that shoots down the "testable" claim to atheist "beliefs". Not to mention that it is a common conflation fallacy to attach atheism to socialism- they are not integrally related. There have been theistic socialist systems, and in fact Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge based their non-standard version of socialism on tenets of Theravada Buddhism; which, by the way, is where Pol Pot's ACTUAL religious affiliation lay. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
0
points
Great post Skeptikitten, thank you for replying. Actually agnosticism isn't a position on belief at all, but knowledge. The vast majority of atheists and theists both are also agnostic. You are correct in that agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I think you err when you say that it is not a statement on position. The statement of knowledge is an underlying pre-requisite for a statement of position. Hence, there are no theistic agnostics or atheistic agnostics. IE, you cannot hold a positive claims (is or is not a God) if you hold that there is no knowledge. But you have to remember that these are more than just labels. They apply to people and their positions. Clearly people can be theists, they can be atheists, but what if they are neither? Just as with virtually any other question, the answer, imo, is agnostic. You can hold that we should go to Olive Garden, Steve can hold we should go to Hooters, I can be agnostic on the question. Atheism has no dogma and no beliefs in common. I disagree. All atheists, by definition, hold the belief that there is no God. Not to mention that it is a common conflation fallacy to attach atheism to socialism- they are not integrally related. There have been theistic socialist systems, and in fact Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge based their non-standard version of socialism on tenets of Theravada Buddhism; which, by the way, is where Pol Pot's ACTUAL religious affiliation lay. I think you are confusing communalism with communism/socialism. There were no examples of theistic socialism, but there are examples of theistic communalism. The two are similar in some respects, but differ in many ways when one considers other economic aspects. Theravada Buddhism isn't a theistic religion however. It does not hold a dogmatic view of an afterlife, does not hold Buddha as a deity or immortal. It is a philosophy of mental state, not a religion. I would also disagree that I am conflating socialism with atheism. I'm certainly not holding that all atheists must be socialists. Rather atheism is necessary for socialism's development. Socialism requires a moral relativism not found in theistic religion (since the theistic part implies an objective reality) as well as a focus upon the community, which removes a transcending entity as separate from the community. Side: Nope:)
1
point
1. For the 100th time, personal belief and declared knowledge are two different things. If someone told me that Bigfoot walked through their yard and I didn't believe them, that doesn't mean that I am making the declaration that Bigfoot did not walk through their yard, I am rejecting the assertion that bigfoot did walk through their yard, and will remain skeptical unless he/she can prove that bigfoot DID walk through their yard. This applies to God as well, I am personally an atheist because I find the evidence for God lacking, but I am agnostic in the sense that I am not saying with absolute certainty that there is no god, Until someone can give me proof that God exists, I will remain skeptical. There are also plenty of Agnostic theists out there that I personally know of that believe in their "heart" that God exists, but say they don't know with 100% certainty that there is a God. 2. Yes, all atheist don't believe in God, but thats the very definition of atheist. Atheism is not a dogmatic position, i.e. I don't believe in bigfoot, that doesnt mean I base the way I live based on my rejection of his existance. Btw you sir are an atheist as well, if you are a christian you are atheist toward all other Gods of other religions. Technically it shouldn't even be a word, there isn't a word for people who don't believe in Leprachauns, Unicorns, Alchemy, etc. 3. First off, socialism and communism are not absolute synonyms, communism is a political ideology branched from extreme socialism, kinda like how corporatism is the extreme form of capitalism. Also there are plenty of socialists and communists out there who are christians or some other religion, being a communist doesn't automatically make you an atheist and vice versa. Side: Yes, so Doark Sided!
1
point
1. For the 100th time, personal belief and declared knowledge are two different things. For the 99th time ;-) declared knowledge is a prerequisite for personal belief. I can't very well hold that there is no God if I also declare that knowledge of God's existence is impossible or at least unknown right? If someone told me that Bigfoot walked through their yard and I didn't believe them, that doesn't mean that I am making the declaration that Bigfoot did not walk through their yard, I am rejecting the assertion that bigfoot did walk through their yard, and will remain skeptical unless he/she can prove that bigfoot DID walk through their yard. Right, you are agnostic as to their claim. You are not holding the contrary position, that Bigfoot did not walk through their yard, you are simply not accepting their claim due to a lack of reliable evidence. In essence, you are saying "the evidence presented does not constitute sufficient warrant to hold the position that the claim is true, therefore I am not accepting that claim." This applies to God as well, I am personally an atheist because I find the evidence for God lacking, but I am agnostic in the sense that I am not saying with absolute certainty that there is no god, I think then that this goes back to my earlier distinction with cartman. Your philosophic position is agnostic (IE you do not hold a positive claim as to the existence of God). Your claim to atheism is only true if we consider atheism a psychological state (ie the lack of a belief in God). That isn't the common definition and it isn't really something I think you are claiming here since it isn't an argument from rationality, but from psychological position. To the extent that you are claiming to be of the group that does not hold a position that believes in God (IE "not theists") then you are an apatheist in philosophic terms. 3. First off, socialism and communism are not absolute synonyms,[/quote] This is correct. Communism is the govermentless ideal of socialistic transition. It occurs once a socialist society has developed sufficiently to distribute goods and services without oversight planners. Communism isn't an extreme version of socialism, it is designed to be the outcome of a socialistic transition. You are also incorrect that corporatism is an extreme version of capitalism. The extreme version of capitalism is an anarcho-capitalist society, where all inter personal reactions take place in absence of a government and in a market based manner. Corporatism is somewhere between a free market orientation and a socialist orientation. Corporatism is a situation where government and private enterprise are intertwined in such a way as to allow each to protect the other (in the words of those who support it). In reality it involves corporations influencing government to provide protectionist, non-market policies and regulations to limit competition. Finally, again, you are incorrect about the prerequisite for socialism not being an atheistic world view. As I pointed out in my last post, the only real religious groups that even come close to this are communalists, not socialists. Communalists involved a small society with no government where all property (or most of it) was held in common. Socialism, by definition, cannot have a competing, transcendent reality that is incumbent in a deity. Side: Nope:)
|
