Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[total relism]

This has started from a thread here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142771-Is-Islam-true/page2



So what I said over there was this, that atheist have no foundation for morals. Lets be clear, I am not saying atheist have no morals, or a purely atheistic society will not come up with morals.

So here it goes

morality read post 2 and 20 for misunderstandings on what is meant. and why atheist have no logical grounds for claiming there are and being moral, in fact as shown by hitler/Darwin, they are being inconstant with evolution atheism by trying to have christian morals..

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains. I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right. As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.




Second claim made was that hitler was a christian.

sad but true. So lets see what hitler has to say on it.


Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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.

13th December, 1941, midnight:



Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.


Hitler was all about evolution, atheism,natural selection, nature's law.

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003

Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)



As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958


And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983



‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982


‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….
Stein, G., Biological science and the roots of Nazism,#American Scientist#76(1):50–58, 1988


Hitler, as an evolutionist,‘consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’.
"If war be the progeny of evolution#—#and I am convinced that it is#—#then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life#—#which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad.’#
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946.


‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’
Whitehead, J,#The Stealing of America, Crossway Books, Westchester, IL, p. 15, 1983


‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile”#(Mein Kampf).’


talking of chirtianity hitler says
‘ … organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side#…#it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples …. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’
Hitler, A.,#Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.


Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society.#
Fest, J.C.,#The Face of the Third Reich,#Pantheon, NY, pp. 99–100, 1970.


“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003


“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003


# Hitler made it clear that he “hated Christianity” and was going to eliminate it when the war ended
#“it had crippled everything noble about humanity” (quoted in Kershaw, 2000, p. 936).
Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.

# Hitler was trying to use science — especially Darwinism — to create a utopia on Earth, and he made it absolutely clear that there would be “no place in this utopia for the Christian Churches” in his plans for the future of Germany.# He realized that this was a long term goal and “was prepared to put off long-term ideological goals in favor of short-term advantage”
p. 238 Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.


#For example, when Germany invaded Poland, around 200 executions a day occurred — all without trials — which included especially, the “nobility, clerics, and Jews,” all which were eventually to be exterminated (Kershaw, 2000, p. 243)


Hitler considered Christianity the “invention of the Jew Saul” (Azar, 1990, p. 154)
Azar, Larry. 1990.#Twentieth Century in Crisis.#Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.


“murdered by Hitler’s stormtroopers.# In an attempt to discredit the Church, monks were brought to trial on immorality charges.# In 1935 the Protestant churches were placed under state control.# Protesting ministers and priests were sent to concentration camps.# They had become ‘supervisives’ on a par with the Jews and communists.# Pope Pius XI, realizing the anti-Christian nature of Nazism, charged Hitler with ‘the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars ... which have no other aim than ... that of extermination.’# But the Nazi shouts of ‘Kill the Jews’ drowned out the warning voice of the Pope and the agonized cries of the tortured in the concentration camps” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).


“Hitler spoke of both Protestants and Catholics with contempt, convinced that all Christians would betray their God when they were forced to choose between the swastika and the Cross: ‘Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again?# Nonsense!# Never again.# That tale is finished.# No one will listen to it again.# But we can hasten matters.# The parsons will dig their own graves.# They will betray their God to us.# They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes’” (1995, p. 104).
Lutzer, Erwin W. 1995.#Hitler’s Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ was Used as a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda.#Chicago, IL: Moody Press.


physicist Albert Einstein
“lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.# Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.# I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.# I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly” (cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in#Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche#— Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p. 526. and Cochrane).


Altogether Hitler’s killing machine murdered 5 million Jews, and 7 million Christians — a little published fact that caused Jewish historian Max Dimont to declare that “the world blinded itself to the murder of Christians” by Nazi Germany (Dimont, 1994, pp. 391-392).# In Poland alone 881 Catholic priests were annihilated (Azar, 1990, p. 154).# In time many more priests would end up in concentration camps.


Dachau concentration camp held the largest number of Catholic priests — over 2,400 — in the Nazi camp system.# They came from about 24 nations, and included parish priests and prelates, monks and friars, teachers and missionaries.# Over one third of the priests in Dachau alone were killed (Lenz, 2004).# One Dachau survivor, Fr. Johannes Lenz, wrote an account of the Catholic holocaust.# He claimed that the Catholic Church was the only steadfast fighter against the Nazis.# Lenz tells the agony and martyrdom of the physical and mental tortures Dachau inmates experienced.# Men and women were murdered by the thousands in Dachau, and those who survived were considered “missionaries in Hell.”# The fact is, official Nazi works taught both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian doctrines:

“If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose.# Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).

More documents that prove Nazi’s planned to “eliminate Christianity and convert its followers to an Aryan philosophy” are now on the online version of#Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion#(Hotchkin, 2003, p. 3).# The church did much to fight Nazism, but not nearly enough.# Nonetheless, there is no way that they can they be held as the#cause#of Nazism.



‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946

[total relism]

Posted by sir moody

Hogwash - society already had law and a moral code long before Christianity was born - The Ancient Egyptians had them, the Babylonians hand them and I wouldn't be surprised to learn we had them even further back than that

Morals are a product of HUMANITY and can be found where ever Humans call home - no matter if Religion or lack of Religion hold sway

We as a society shape the Moral code - this is precisely why different societies have different Moral's



Again completely missed point again, I never said morals would not arise in a atheistic society [none of what you listed were]. I never said atheist are not moral, I said morals make no sense in a atheistic worldview, you are being inconstant claiming there is moral "right" and "wrongs" read OP slowly.




... please for the sake of your Sky Wizard would you please READ MY POSTS - Atheists don't believe morals or the law are derived from chemical impulses - and those very chemical impulses you keep brining up are NOT random at all

I agree 100% please read my post, I will post again.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.



your clearly misinformed then - I suggest you talk it over with someone who cares

oh and no I will keep posting in this thread - I would rather keep this garbage in one place so, when the Admins get around to closing it, it doesn't spread like a cancer through the backroom

Started to, your welcome to come try to prove me wrong here.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142777-Christianity-Religious-System-or-the-True-Natural-State-of-Man

Bring it here, to one place on topic.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&p=2053493625#post2053493625

or I will report you, once I find out how,lol.



Women are human beings - all human beings (White, Black, Men or Women) deserve to be treated as equals - it has nothing to do with a Sky Wizard or what ever image they were "made in" - it is Empathy pure and simple

The very fact women until very recently (in historical terms) didn't share the same rights as men is a product of the Christian and other churches - go re-read your bible its riddled with Woman being subjected

Why do they deserve to be treated good?that is just your opinion,your random chemicals in brain making you believe they have value if atheism is true.

As I pointed out before with darwin quotes, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,


again no proof just claims, I would think it has to do with atheist evolutionist like darwin.

You than claim that woman are not equal in bible somehow, I am not sure how at all. But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

For example why is darwin wrong in your eye?
Darwin listed the advantages of marrying, which included: ". . . constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house . . ." (Darwin, 1958:232,233).

Darwin reasoned that as a married man he would be a "poor slave, . . . worse than a Negro," but then reminisces that, "one cannot live the solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless ... and childless staring in one's face...." Darwin concludes his discussion on the philosophical note, "there is many a happy slave" and shortly thereafter, married (1958:234).


, "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that "women's brains were analogous to those of animals," which had "overdeveloped" sense organs "to the detriment of the brain" (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of "the conclusions of England's great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin," argued that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro" (1863:192). Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:

One reason nineteenth century biologists argued for women's inferiority was because Darwin believed that
[progressive idea woman rights] threatened to produce a perturbance of the races" and to "divert the orderly process of evolution" (Fee, 1979:415).


. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
Darwin, Charles. 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton and Company.





Hitler WAS Christian - he was born Catholic - he followed Catholic teachings - early on he actively encouraged his followers to be Christian - later after the German Church distanced itself from him and actively criticised him he "lost faith" in Christianity and actively blamed them for his failures - he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church

It is a historical fact he was Christian - accept it and move on - that doesn't mean Christianity bares the brunt blame for Hitler - that lies on the shoulders of Fascism

Now clearly you are a member of the "Christian Taliban" so I don't expect you to actually accept this and frankly I am done argueing with a brick wall - at least for tonight



Ok he was raised and maybe was early a christian, I dont disagree, but when he became nazi before germany takeover he was no longer a christian.

You claimed "he never stoped believing in god however and instead created his own church"
you will never be able to support this with any evidence at all.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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.

13th December, 1941, midnight:



Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.


If I was member of taliban would i not want hitler to be christian?.

[Sir Moody]

If I was member of taliban would i not want hitler to be christian?.

Funnily enough you cant even quote my insults correctly...

The Taliban believed that Islam was correct and everything else was wrong and so they enforced a strict policy of persecution against anything that disagreed with them - because Islam was always right and they represented Islam so they could never be wrong

The "Christian Taliban" is a slur aimed at fundamentalists like yourself - you and the Taliban are the same in ideology (you just replace Islam with Christianity) - you start every assumption with the knowledge you are right because God said so and thus anyone who disagrees is just wrong - and then you invent the reasons why they are wrong

Thankfully the "Christian Taliban" unlike the actual Taliban don't resort to violence - you just use Propaganda (like the stuff you are spewing all over your posts) and an ability to put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALALALA I cant hear you" when someone disagrees

honestly your will-full and blatant cherry picking of quotes and utter inability to Understand what others are telling you while you quote the same dogmatic drivel that has been force fed to you means any kind of debate is pointless

Hitler was Christian - live with it

If you want some Atheist Dictators you should go have a look at Stalin and Pol Pot - they were Atheists and also mass murderers - not believing in sky faeries doesn't magically make you a better person - funnily enough believing in sky faeries doesn't either - that is totally down to you

I am done with arguing with a "liar for Christ" - I hope you come to realise the hateful drivel you a peddling will do no good for anyone and that only by pulling together can we all get passed this stupidity

I highly recommend you go to http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ where there are plenty of Atheists with much greater tolerance for stupidity - they will be happy to show you just how wrong you are

[Kadagar_AV]

Why does it matter if Hitler was atheist or christian?

Is he representative for Christianity? Or for Atheism? Last I checked he was representative for a rather extreme form of national socialism. Has this changed?


Lots of christian leaders have been good, lots have been bad. Lots of atheist leaders have been good, lots have been bad. So the deciding factor seem to not be religion (or the lack of it).


To be able to compare the morality of christians vs atheists it would make more sense to, say, look at crime statistics.

Last I checked in the USA, Christians were over represented in the criminal statistics compared to atheists... So by that logic there seem to be something in Christianity making people less moral?

[Sir Moody]

Why does it matter if Hitler was atheist or christian?

Is he representative for Christianity? Or for Atheism? Last I checked he was representative for a rather extreme form of national socialism. Has this changed?


Lots of christian leaders have been good, lots have been bad. Lots of atheist leaders have been good, lots have been bad. So the deciding factor seem to not be religion (or the lack of it).

I'll admit I do get hung up on Christians who misrepresent Hitler's faith - it shows blatant disregard for History and that gets under my skin - in truth it doesn't matter at all - as I said not believing in sky faeries doesn't magically make you a better person - and neither does believing in them

[total relism]

Funnily enough you cant even quote my insults correctly...

The Taliban believed that Islam was correct and everything else was wrong and so they enforced a strict policy of persecution against anything that disagreed with them - because Islam was always right and they represented Islam so they could never be wrong

The "Christian Taliban" is a slur aimed at fundamentalists like yourself - you and the Taliban are the same in ideology (you just replace Islam with Christianity) - you start every assumption with the knowledge you are right because God said so and thus anyone who disagrees is just wrong - and then you invent the reasons why they are wrong

Thankfully the "Christian Taliban" unlike the actual Taliban don't resort to violence - you just use Propaganda (like the stuff you are spewing all over your posts) and an ability to put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALALALA I cant hear you" when someone disagrees

honestly your will-full and blatant cherry picking of quotes and utter inability to Understand what others are telling you while you quote the same dogmatic drivel that has been force fed to you means any kind of debate is pointless

Hitler was Christian - live with it

If you want some Atheist Dictators you should go have a look at Stalin and Pol Pot - they were Atheists and also mass murderers - not believing in sky faeries doesn't magically make you a better person - funnily enough believing in sky faeries doesn't either - that is totally down to you

I am done with arguing with a "liar for Christ" - I hope you come to realise the hateful drivel you a peddling will do no good for anyone and that only by pulling together can we all get passed this stupidity

I highly recommend you go to http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ where there are plenty of Atheists with much greater tolerance for stupidity - they will be happy to show you just how wrong you are

Well I could not find anything on topic here,besides the arbitrary claim that Hitler was christian, despite what he would say, and did say. It is weird to me, on Islam thread, you wish to talk on these subjects and wont let it go. Than I create a thread for it, you dont want to talk of it anymore. You did however commit many a logical fallacies. Such as being arbitrary,a few Question begging epithet when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks. lastly some ad hominem attack on person not argument. Usually this is the case when people run out of arguments or are losing a argument. I will let any viewer decide that. Thanks for link, I will likely sigh up. Oh snap, PZ meyer is on there, cant wait. I cant find anywhere to sigh up, could you link me. It just seems like a bunch of articles.

[total relism]

Why does it matter if Hitler was atheist or christian?

Is he representative for Christianity? Or for Atheism? Last I checked he was representative for a rather extreme form of national socialism. Has this changed?


Lots of christian leaders have been good, lots have been bad. Lots of atheist leaders have been good, lots have been bad. So the deciding factor seem to not be religion (or the lack of it).


To be able to compare the morality of christians vs atheists it would make more sense to, say, look at crime statistics.

Last I checked in the USA, Christians were over represented in the criminal statistics compared to atheists... So by that logic there seem to be something in Christianity making people less moral?

The point I made was, a atheist cant say what hitler did was wrong. But he was clearly atheist. Sir Moody wont be able to provide evidence otherwise, as far as when he grew up and was a nazi.

I would like to see stats, but matters not as you pointed out, its what worldview makes sense of morality, not who follows it or not.


I'll admit I do get hung up on Christians who misrepresent Hitler's faith - it shows blatant disregard for History and that gets under my skin - in truth it doesn't matter at all - as I said not believing in sky faeries doesn't magically make you a better person - and neither does believing in them

This coming from someone who claims hitler was a christian.Of course he wont be able to provide any his historical evidence. I show qoutes from his own book, and interview with him, but those must just be from the sky fairy lol.


just like this is not because of a atheistic evolutionary worldview, but must be a christian conspiracy.

evolutionary anthropology came to light this week as a group of skulls were returned to Namibia. The skulls were harvested in 1904 during colonial uprisings and sent to Germany. While this massacre of the colonial natives represents one of the first genocides of the 20th century, these skulls were sent to Germany to gain scientific support for European racial superiority. “At the time, they viewed the skulls not as human remains but as material with which to investigate and classify race,” explained a spokeswoman for the Charité Hospital where the skulls were returned to the Namibian delegation
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,788601,00.html

[Rhyfelwyr]

This thread is pointless, it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a Christian since what he did wasn't related to those beliefs.

He definitely believed in God, although he did take a negative view of mainstream Christianity which he considered to be essentially a Jewish faith. At the same time Hitler invented 'Positive Christianity' where Jesus was some sort of Aryan messiah.

It just depends on whether or not you want to call that Christian.

[spankythehippo]

Hitler was Jewish and part African.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938

[Strike For The South]

I disagree with the OP.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Christians don't kill children.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Christians don't kill children.

True Scotsman fallacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True Scotsman fallacy.

Does not apply - to the True Scotsman, or anything else.

The fallacy in question concerns the redefinition of a a type - the "Scotsman" example used is actually fallacious, because Scots are initially claimed to never be racists, automatically placing all rapists outside the "Scotsman" category.

The violent Aberdeenian rapist is, per definition, not a Scotsman.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely when the initial claim that "No Scotsman would do that" is made, that is not an attempt at defining something inherent in Scottishness though. It's not a logical statement or an axiom (or whatever, too many strange words for this Scotsman...). He just believes that a Scotsman (as it is traditionally understood - ie someone from Scotland) would not commit rape. Hence when he hears of the next rape, he is being fallacious by acknowledging the person is in some sense Scottish according to any common definition of the term, but throws in the disclaimer that he is not a "true" Scot.

If we were to treat it as you are suggesting and absolutely accept the initial claim that all Scots are not rapists, then the guy should have simply said the rapist was obviously "not a Scotsman", as opposed to saying he was "not a true Scotsman".

[total relism]

This thread is pointless, it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a Christian since what he did wasn't related to those beliefs.

He definitely believed in God, although he did take a negative view of mainstream Christianity which he considered to be essentially a Jewish faith. At the same time Hitler invented 'Positive Christianity' where Jesus was some sort of Aryan messiah.

It just depends on whether or not you want to call that Christian.


It is just on was he christian or not, he clearly was not. But some claim falsely he was. I did not bring it up, sir moody did on another thread. Please tell me were you think he believed in god? I will show you his god in bold.


Hitler was all about evolution, atheism,natural selection, nature's law.

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003

Notice in the above quote he gives god like attributes to "mother nature" as many do today.She has a mind and opinion "wishes" she tries to influence life "her efforts" she is creator "higher level of evolution"

Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)



Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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.

13th December, 1941, midnight:



Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.




Hitler was Jewish and part African.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938

Interesting

[Kadagar_AV]

Total relism, I think I would find your posts more interesting if you analyzed more, and spent less time copying and pasting.

About Christians being over represented in crimes, I recommend you to read Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". He covers the topic there and source it quite well. That book might do you good to read regardless actually, as I think it would enhance your understanding for the atheist view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surely when the initial claim that "No Scotsman would do that" is made, that is not an attempt at defining something inherent in Scottishness though. It's not a logical statement or an axiom (or whatever, too many strange words for this Scotsman...). He just believes that a Scotsman (as it is traditionally understood - ie someone from Scotland) would not commit rape. Hence when he hears of the next rape, he is being fallacious by acknowledging the person is in some sense Scottish according to any common definition of the term, but throws in the disclaimer that he is not a "true" Scot.

If we were to treat it as you are suggesting and absolutely accept the initial claim that all Scots are not rapists, then the guy should have simply said the rapist was obviously "not a Scotsman", as opposed to saying he was "not a true Scotsman".

The important thing to understand is that the man making the "No True Scotsman" claim has been duped into thinking that claim needs qualification - it doesn't.

He defined Scotsmen as men who do not rape, that is an axiomatic statement, his interlocutor is defining Scotsmen geographically, which is a materialistic statement. The issue arises because the first man gives credence to his interlocutor, not because his initial statement was logically flawed.

[total relism]

Total relism, I think I would find your posts more interesting if you analyzed more, and spent less time copying and pasting.

About Christians being over represented in crimes, I recommend you to read Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". He covers the topic there and source it quite well. That book might do you good to read regardless actually, as I think it would enhance your understanding for the atheist view.

Thank you for reference,I have not read, I did however watch the debate, he did not fair well at all.
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29642582

Also thank you for the suggestions, I fully understand the "majority" atheist view, it is inconstant with atheism is all I have been saying. Please read what I wrote on OP here

"So what I said over there was this, that atheist have no foundation for morals. Lets be clear, I am not saying atheist have no morals, or a purely atheistic society will not come up with morals."

[Kadagar_AV]

Thank you for reference,I have not read, I did however watch the debate, he did not fair well at all.
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29642582

Also thank you for the suggestions, I fully understand the "majority" atheist view, it is inconstant with atheism is all I have been saying. Please read what I wrote on OP here

"So what I said over there was this, that atheist have no foundation for morals. Lets be clear, I am not saying atheist have no morals, or a purely atheistic society will not come up with morals."


But what is your point?

A) Every society has come up with morals. EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY. Looking at history, it is rather clear that religion, once again, isn't the deciding factor if a society is moral or not.

B) In the US, Christians are over represented in criminal statistics. The conclusions to draw from this would be that Christianity have a negative impact on moral in society, no?

C) Hitler was vegan. Is that what made him do the things he did? He also had a mustache, could that be the reason? Or is it the mustache coupled with him being vegan that is the more important factor?

:dizzy2:

EDIT: Rather one-sided debate from the bible belt where Dawkins rarely get the opportunity to refute what the other guy say. It gets more and more clear that he gets frustrated.

You can do better than that dude, if you want facts, read the books. Not just watch highly moderated debates from the bible belt.

[total relism]

But what is your point?

A) Every society has come up with morals. EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY. Looking at history, it is rather clear that religion, once again, isn't the deciding factor if a society is moral or not.

B) In the US, Christians are over represented in criminal statistics. The conclusions to draw from this would be that Christianity have a negative impact on moral in society, no?

C) Hitler was vegan. Is that what made him do the things he did? He also had a mustache, could that be the reason? Or is it the mustache coupled with him being vegan that is the more important factor?

:dizzy2:

EDIT: Rather one-sided debate from the bible belt where Dawkins rarely get the opportunity to refute what the other guy say. It gets more and more clear that he gets frustrated.

You can do better than that dude, if you want facts, read the books. Not just watch highly moderated debates from the bible belt.

I have no idea how people are missing this. Please read my OP and tell me were you get these ideas.

A] Because we are moral people, created by a moral god, we now there is right and wrong, we have sense of justice etc. Every society has had gods, but that is beside the point. Atheist have no grounds for morality, no right if atheism is true to claim such things as right and wrong, as there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are being inconstant with there worldview. Please read my Op that exspalines it further.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

also please read my first response in its entirety on this thread.



B] Not at all as has been pointed out, even if all atheist were moral 100% and all "christian" bad 100%. that does not matter to what we are disusing.There is no such thing as morals in a atheistic worldview, there is reason to be moral in a christian worldview. You are being inconstant with your beliefs by claiming and being moral as a atheist.Read my first response. Read your own post 4 that refutes what you claim here. you contradict yourself.




I will give you some parts of response.

Again completely missed point again, I never said morals would not arise in a atheistic society [none of what you listed were]. I never said atheist are not moral, I said morals make no sense in a atheistic worldview, you are being inconstant claiming there is moral "right" and "wrongs" read OP slowly.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.


Why do they deserve to be treated good?that is just your opinion,your random chemicals in brain making you believe they have value if atheism is true.

As I pointed out before with darwin quotes, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

But as atheist, why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.


so the question is, on what grounds as atheist can you say Hitler and Darwin are wrong? they are drawing the logical conclusion of atheism/evolution.The point is you cannot, you have no authority or grounds to claim your morality on.


C] No idea what your saying here, I do not believe in determination, atheist do if they are constant with evolution.atheism.. As dawkins said that you recommended, we are just dancing to the beat of our genes.

Good escuse for debate. I find often that claims unchallenged may sound good, but can often be false, that is why I like debates.


why is a event like this wrong if evolution/atheism is true?

evolutionary anthropology came to light this week as a group of skulls were returned to Namibia. The skulls were harvested in 1904 during colonial uprisings and sent to Germany. While this massacre of the colonial natives represents one of the first genocides of the 20th century, these skulls were sent to Germany to gain scientific support for European racial superiority. “At the time, they viewed the skulls not as human remains but as material with which to investigate and classify race,” explained a spokeswoman for the Charité Hospital where the skulls were returned to the Namibian delegation
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...788601,00.html

[Ironside]

Fun fact of the day: King David were not allowed into the assembly of the Lord, according to the Bible. And Jesus was the decendant of a daughter raping her father. :laugh4:
Ruth and Deuteronomy 23:1-3 are hints.

I will not stay long on that subject except noticing that condemning homosexuality is in the OT, which is a lovely can of worms and contradictions. So to decide which parts of the OT to keep is in the hands of human interpretations, a fun subject. God is horrible on the standard of good btw, unless you count genocide (many times), generational punishments, mind controlling people and then punish them for what they say during said mind control, etc, etc as good. That said, Christianisty is nicer than most religions, but not really thanks to God in the OT.

Anyway, to give an evolutionary example on morals, who are not absolute, but have a significant natural bias. That bias can in turn be overridden by say religion for example. First thing to remember is that morals can only be formed by interactions. If you're the only living being, there is no such things as morals, since the only one you can interact with are yourself and good and evil is irrelevant at that point (gives an interesting but heretical viewpoint on God learning morals with time btw).
So lets focus on interactions.
Murder: Outside the obvious factor of sexual reproduction, there's also the matter of survival. To kill a competitor (for the food or mates) about your own size is hard. Even harder is getting away fresh enough to survive the next day (notice that this still promotes some aggression). So even for solitary species, there's an evolutionary advantage to not kill member of their own specie, even if they're the same gender. For a cooperative specie like humans, this is significantly stronger. So strong that it's never the sole reason and most of the time not a factor at all, for murders.
You can do similar analyses on a lot of moral factors and also see why a behavior can be generally abhored, yet still remain.

But really, good and bad are defined what a group of people agreed on together. That's why for example the opinion of slavery has varied throughout the Christian world and its history, even despite that it should've been absolute according to you total realism. God has eternal slavery as an "appropiate" punishment for example.


Edit: on the point B) The fun stuff about your "atheism is sexist" is that it goes a much longer way to explain the historical sexism (although a lot of it has to do with inheiritence) than your claim that the Bible isn't sexist does it?
Anyway. The denial for a female to select thier natural partner can't be considered good for the female, ergo rape will always be considered bad for the female. Now, who's the fittest? The man who spends time and resources to feed and control his female slaves or the man cooperating with the females, so that the females will feed and sustain themselves? He also got good odds of converting the first man's females and ursup the first man. Ergo, cooperation with females are treated genetically favourly.

Mixing together Darwin with Hitler is also false. They did not belive the same. Also noting that social darwinism (that certainly didn't come from Darwin) has the fundamental flaw (and that's not counting the ethical aspects) of mixing up fittest with strongest. Competing alpha males ("strong") will lose badly to cooperating beta males ("weak") for example.

[Kadagar_AV]

A) The basis for atheist morals are very simple: "What would happen if everyone would do it?"

You seem to base your argument around it being a God and that this God have given us morals. Remove God from the equation and what are you left with? You also seem to have exclusively read propaganda trying to explain how Atheists struggles with morals. I would recommend you to read some atheistic texts explaining atheistic morals.

B) What are you arguing for then? I have showed you that christians are less moral atheists. Then how oh how can you go on about atheists having no base for their morals? Try and look at society as it IS instead of how you want it to be.

Fact: Christians are less moral than atheists.
Logical conclusion: A atheist society will be more moral than a christian one.

What in this line of argument is it that you argue against?

And to answer your last bold bit: Easy... Hitler was wrong because if every race would try and conquer and exterminate the other races we would have a rather unpleasant world.


C) I have often seen Christians using the "Hitler was atheist" argument, and it's just stupid. Rhyf already explained why if you didn't get me.

This thread is pointless, it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a Christian since what he did wasn't related to those beliefs.

[total relism]

Fun fact of the day: King David were not allowed into the assembly of the Lord, according to the Bible. And Jesus was the decendant of a daughter raping her father. :laugh4:
Ruth and Deuteronomy 23:1-3 are hints.

I will not stay long on that subject except noticing that condemning homosexuality is in the OT, which is a lovely can of worms and contradictions. So to decide which parts of the OT to keep is in the hands of human interpretations, a fun subject. God is horrible on the standard of good btw, unless you count genocide (many times), generational punishments, mind controlling people and then punish them for what they say during said mind control, etc, etc as good. That said, Christianisty is nicer than most religions, but not really thanks to God in the OT.

Anyway, to give an evolutionary example on morals, who are not absolute, but have a significant natural bias. That bias can in turn be overridden by say religion for example. First thing to remember is that morals can only be formed by interactions. If you're the only living being, there is no such things as morals, since the only one you can interact with are yourself and good and evil is irrelevant at that point (gives an interesting but heretical viewpoint on God learning morals with time btw).
So lets focus on interactions.
Murder: Outside the obvious factor of sexual reproduction, there's also the matter of survival. To kill a competitor (for the food or mates) about your own size is hard. Even harder is getting away fresh enough to survive the next day (notice that this still promotes some aggression). So even for solitary species, there's an evolutionary advantage to not kill member of their own specie, even if they're the same gender. For a cooperative specie like humans, this is significantly stronger. So strong that it's never the sole reason and most of the time not a factor at all, for murders.
You can do similar analyses on a lot of moral factors and also see why a behavior can be generally abhored, yet still remain.

But really, good and bad are defined what a group of people agreed on together. That's why for example the opinion of slavery has varied throughout the Christian world and its history, even despite that it should've been absolute according to you total realism. God has eternal slavery as an "appropiate" punishment for example.


Edit: on the point B) The fun stuff about your "atheism is sexist" is that it goes a much longer way to explain the historical sexism (although a lot of it has to do with inheiritence) than your claim that the Bible isn't sexist does it?
Anyway. The denial for a female to select thier natural partner can't be considered good for the female, ergo rape will always be considered bad for the female. Now, who's the fittest? The man who spends time and resources to feed and control his female slaves or the man cooperating with the females, so that the females will feed and sustain themselves? He also got good odds of converting the first man's females and ursup the first man. Ergo, cooperation with females are treated genetically favourly.

King David, what I think your referring to is he could not build the temple, as he had to much blood on his hands.

1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon: "My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'


Jesus
Not sure what if true would have to do with anything? I studies Ruth I have no idea what your talking about, neither does Deuteronomy passages say anything on it.

Homosexuality is condemned in OT, i agree 100%, not sure why that is a "contradiction" in any way. I keep 100% of OT, but I think you misunderstand alittle here and would be glad to clarify. Much of OT applies only for time,space,certain peoples. Just one example, when god told noah to build a big boat, that does not mean me as a believer should today.

God is horible
Genocide, generational punishments,mind control, etc. I would love to disuse these all with you, you bring up all the topics of a atheist book. I will ask you hold on the "genocide" conquest of cannan. That being my favorite, I wish to do a thread of its own, as i do with twc and other forums.That is my favorite, because atheist are so sure of what they have been told and the few passages they quotes that certainly seem to support there claim. That filling in the rest really lets them down, I love that part. The other two bring up exsaples I would love to tell you from bible what is meant, and exspalin the passages for you.

Hell I will answer now
Generational curse This applies if the following generation continues in the sin of the fathers, saying they too will be punished, when they dont, they are not punished.
Harden heart
For example pharaoh harded his heart many times first, than later god "streghtend" or "harden" his heart. He gave him strength to do what his heart wanted, lateer he did same thing again chasing after isreal himself.


The bible is against slavery [punsiable by death in OT]. But overall I agree with your atheist morality, majority opinion as I said on OP. The reason in part slavery was so popular was because darwin taught people that blacks were not fully human, so its not slavery.

But notice you reject god because you think he is immoral [I disagree fully, though if I thought of him as you do i would agree genocide etc] yet realize there is no such thing as morality or absolute morals. No such thing as murder being wrong or rape etc just what some decide on. That makes your argument baseless against god, as it demands certain things to be absolutely wrong [genocide].

[spankythehippo]

In my life, I have not been guided by religion. I have learnt morals from others, and by my own trials and errors. That isn't to say that I killed someone, then felt bad afterwards. I can empathise, as an atheist. And to be honest, most morals implemented society can trace their lineage to an ecclesiastic order.

Darwinism and morality are completely different facets on life. Darwinism states the way nature has bred organisms to be. Morality guides those who have a conscious decision of right and wrong.

Does that make atheists immoral?

[total relism]

A) The basis for atheist morals are very simple: "What would happen if everyone would do it?"

You seem to base your argument around it being a God and that this God have given us morals. Remove God from the equation and what are you left with? You also seem to have exclusively read propaganda trying to explain how Atheists struggles with morals. I would recommend you to read some atheistic texts explaining atheistic morals.

B) What are you arguing for then? I have showed you that christians are less moral atheists. Then how oh how can you go on about atheists having no base for their morals? Try and look at society as it IS instead of how you want it to be.

Fact: Christians are less moral than atheists.
Logical conclusion: A atheist society will be more moral than a christian one.

What in this line of argument is it that you argue against?

And to answer your last bold bit: Easy... Hitler was wrong because if every race would try and conquer and exterminate the other races we would have a rather unpleasant world.


C) I have often seen Christians using the "Hitler was atheist" argument, and it's just stupid. Rhyf already explained why if you didn't get me.

This thread is pointless, it doesn't matter if Hitler was an atheist or a Christian since what he did wasn't related to those beliefs.



A] does not reply to anything I have posted,I understand you are having alot of trouble understanding. I get the feeling your not reading my replies.Please do so slowly. If you do, you will see none of A applies at all.


B] I will respond the same way as last time you said this, please read carefully.

Not at all as has been pointed out, even if all atheist were moral 100% and all "christian" bad 100%. that does not matter to what we are disusing.There is no such thing as morals in a atheistic worldview, there is reason to be moral in a christian worldview. You are being inconstant with your beliefs by claiming and being moral as a atheist.Read my first response. Read your own post 4 that refutes what you claim here. you contradict yourself.


I will give you some parts of response.

Again completely missed point again, I never said morals would not arise in a atheistic society [none of what you listed were]. I never said atheist are not moral, I said morals make no sense in a atheistic worldview, you are being inconstant claiming there is moral "right" and "wrongs" read OP slowly.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.


Why do they deserve to be treated good?that is just your opinion,your random chemicals in brain making you believe they have value if atheism is true.

As I pointed out before with darwin quotes, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

But as atheist, why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

so the question is, on what grounds as atheist can you say Hitler and Darwin are wrong? they are drawing the logical conclusion of atheism/evolution.The point is you cannot, you have no authority or grounds to claim your morality on.



Fact
Please provide evidence, also there are "christian" and true christian.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
james 2.18
Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
luke 6.46
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
matt 7 15-16


Conclusion
Even if true, does not matter at all, read op and every post I have made since than.


Line of argument
read every post on subject I have made, read OP.


You said
" Hitler was wrong because if every race would try and conquer and exterminate the other races we would have a rather unpleasant world."


according to whom? not hitler, he was speeding up evolution, survival of the fittest. He was creating a better world in his mind, killing off handicap people lower less intelligent races, crazy people who believe in god. are not you liberal ones the one that say the earth is overpopulated?.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

Why do they deserve to be treated good?that is just your opinion,your random chemicals in brain making you believe they have value if atheism is true.

so the question is, on what grounds as atheist can you say Hitler and Darwin are wrong? they are drawing the logical conclusion of atheism/evolution.The point is you cannot, you have no authority or grounds to claim your morality on.


C] I agree it does not apply to what we are talking about, so why do you say christian are worse than non christian? it does not apply. What matters is worldview, hitlers atheistic/evolutionary and darwins worldview is inconstant with morals. Christian worldview is constant, you are being christian claiming there are morals and right and wrongs even though you are atheist. You are being inconstant.


Also I dont think you want to compare total crimes of atheist vs christian in history, that would not go well for you.

[total relism]

In my life, I have not been guided by religion. I have learnt morals from others, and by my own trials and errors. That isn't to say that I killed someone, then felt bad afterwards. I can empathise, as an atheist. And to be honest, most morals implemented society can trace their lineage to an ecclesiastic order.

Darwinism and morality are completely different facets on life. Darwinism states the way nature has bred organisms to be. Morality guides those who have a conscious decision of right and wrong.

Does that make atheists immoral?

I think you missed the point, if you would, my first line says this is not at all what this thread is on. Please read OP.

[Kadagar_AV]

My oh my...

I don't think much progress will be made here.

[spankythehippo]

I think you missed the point, if you would, my first line says this is not at all what this thread is on. Please read OP.

I think you missed the point, my post says nothing in regard to the OP. Please be mindful that the OP is not the benchmark for a discussion. It merely gets the ball rolling. Imagine living a life where you had to adhere to the same style of thinking for 2000 years. Gah, I shudder at the thought. Exactly what you are doing with every post, alluding to the OP.

Also, I'm pretty sure we had an excellent discussion about pubic hair on a thread about Nazi's. Goes to show the dynamic nature of the Backroom.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you missed the point, my post says nothing in regard to the OP. Please be mindful that the OP is not the benchmark for a discussion. It merely gets the ball rolling. Imagine living a life where you had to adhere to the same style of thinking for 2000 years. Gah, I shudder at the thought. Exactly what you are doing with every post, alluding to the OP.

Also, I'm pretty sure we had an excellent discussion about pubic hair on a thread about Nazi's. Goes to show the dynamic nature of the Backroom.

You don't get it... You need to counter his arguments with the other sides arguments as he has presented them in the OP. Doh!

Because that is how debates work. :wall:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree with Kadagar that there is a foundation for morals in an atheist society. Human beings, religious or not, naturally empathize with others. And even morals could be based on a society's need to survive and compete, in evolutionary terms. I.e. do not harm others, work together, etc.

Having said that...


B) In the US, Christians are over represented in criminal statistics. The conclusions to draw from this would be that Christianity have a negative impact on moral in society, no?

Only if you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation, an elementary statistical analysis concept.

Also, there's probably better books to read on atheist morality than Dawkin's, who's a jerk.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't get it... You need to counter his arguments with the other sides arguments as he has presented them in the OP. Doh!

Because that is how debates work. :wall:

The two of you are talking at cross purposes - I've skimmed your posts but I already know the whole argument because we've had it so many times here.

total realism - you are not original, you have not made some earth shattering philosophical discovery, go read Plato.

Kadagar - go have a beer and don't worry about it. Aftr the beer, it may make more sense.

[Kadagar_AV]

I agree with Kadagar that there is a foundation for morals in an atheist society. Human beings, religious or not, naturally empathize with others. And even morals could be based on a society's need to survive and compete, in evolutionary terms. I.e. do not harm others, work together, etc.

Having said that...



Only if you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation, an elementary statistical analysis concept.

Also, there's probably better books to read on atheist morality than Dawkin's, who's a jerk.

CR

Of course it's a rubbish argument. I just tried to meet the OP on a more level playing field.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The two of you are talking at cross purposes - I've skimmed your posts but I already know the whole argument because we've had it so many times here.

I'm not going to read TR's walls of copypasta, but from what I can gather...

I think Kadagar is talking more on the practical side - that atheists generally are moral people. Whereas TR is trying to say that in doing so atheists are being logically inconsistent, as in his own less eloquent fashion he is referring to your argument that absolute morals can't exist without a universial arbiter ie God.

Although TR is frustrated because he thinks Kadagar can't see this (he may or may not), the real problem is that TR is not open to the idea of any other concepts of morality - for example that morals might not be absolute, and may just be the result of evolution. He might not regard such an idea of morality as meaningful, but it is a commonly accepted explanation for what we observe as morality. He has to accept it is a valid (if not correct) explanation.

Otherwise everyone will continue to be at cross purposes.


total realism - you are not original, you have not made some earth shattering philosophical discovery, go read Plato.

This, srsly the "Hitler was an atheist" and "Darwin an a racist sexist therefore so are all evolutionists" lines or argument are the most boring and easily refutable out there.

I'm wondering if TR is maybe a fairly recent convert, and is currently in the sort of 'cage stage' mentality. With the internet he's been exposed to a lot of ideas that seem new to be really new and exciting but in fact to us it's flogging a horse that died long ago. I think I went through the same process myself. Sorry to sound condescending, and I could be miles off, but that's what it feels like...

[Ironside]

King David, what I think your referring to is he could not build the temple, as he had to much blood on his hands.

Jesus
Not sure what if true would have to do with anything? I studies Ruth I have no idea what your talking about, neither does Deuteronomy passages say anything on it.

Great granny Ruth (to David) was a Moabite and it's less than 10 generations in between. Jesus is supposed to be a decendant from David. Moab was the child/grandchild of Lot. Since there's quite a few generations between and God is lacking a bit of people (due to wiping them out from time to time) it's mostly for fun.


Homosexuality is condemned in OT, i agree 100%, not sure why that is a "contradiction" in any way. I keep 100% of OT, but I think you misunderstand alittle here and would be glad to clarify. Much of OT applies only for time,space,certain peoples. Just one example, when god told noah to build a big boat, that does not mean me as a believer should today.

Yes, and the interpretations on this aren't absolute. That is a bit of problem when talking about moral absolutes.


God is horible
Genocide, generational punishments,mind control, etc. I would love to disuse these all with you, you bring up all the topics of a atheist book. I will ask you hold on the "genocide" conquest of cannan. That being my favorite, I wish to do a thread of its own, as i do with twc and other forums.That is my favorite, because atheist are so sure of what they have been told and the few passages they quotes that certainly seem to support there claim. That filling in the rest really lets them down, I love that part. The other two bring up exsaples I would love to tell you from bible what is meant, and exspalin the passages for you.

The atheist book you mentioned I've read is called the Bible. I'm guessing you're familiar with that one. Notions of genocide: The flood, (duh), Sodom and Gomorra, active threat (plague) on the Jews for deviation of faith (Jews saved by active murder showing devotion to God) and the following retaliation which Moses ups (to cultural genocide, only virgins left) from what the original commanders did (and they were quite brutal).


Hell I will answer now
Generational curse This applies if the following generation continues in the sin of the fathers, saying they too will be punished, when they dont, they are not punished.

Deut 23:1 is specific in that the punishment are on the children and their decendants and not the sinning parents. God took a very long time to forgive the original sin so it's not like it's a unique occurence. Besides, that's a quite suspect interpretation (as in: don't like the original one, let's make up one that sounds better, but is much less based on what's written). Unless there was some bizarre idea that is your parents sinned, you're immune to that sin (say that your father was a thief leads to that you can steal without any problem), there's no need to specify that it only applies if they continue the sins of thier ancestors.

The 10 generations are a nice show that the person isn't familiar to population demographics. The 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, etc. gives 2^10-1=1023 couples that might have cheated. With 1% cheating ratio (that's a very low count), only about 3 out of 100.000 fullfills that demand.


Harden heart
For example pharaoh harded his heart many times first, than later god "streghtend" or "harden" his heart. He gave him strength to do what his heart wanted, lateer he did same thing again chasing after isreal himself.

The Bible never states the original opinion of the Pharao. Besides, even with this interpretation, God still actively searches a confrontation which will result in the punishment of the Egyptians. That is cruel and a show off display of destructive powers.


The bible is against slavery [punsiable by death in OT]. But overall I agree with your atheist morality, majority opinion as I said on OP. The reason in part slavery was so popular was because darwin taught people that blacks were not fully human, so its not slavery.

The origin of species came out 1859, the US civil war started 1861 (a definite stop to slave import in the US). No, slavery was not popular because of the idea of evolution. Examples of justifications of slavery were that they were decendants of Ham, making it Gods (well Noahs) will to have those in eternal slavery. Alternativly God created man several times before he got it right.


But notice you reject god because you think he is immoral [I disagree fully, though if I thought of him as you do i would agree genocide etc] yet realize there is no such thing as morality or absolute morals. No such thing as murder being wrong or rape etc just what some decide on. That makes your argument baseless against god, as it demands certain things to be absolutely wrong [genocide].

There are no absolute morals. Now, Christianity haven't been very big on it (rather the opposite), but human sacrifice are an example on where murder become virtous, through religion. I'm not knowing any examples, but I'm quite certain that rape has been sanctified in the same way more than once.

Morality on the other hand exists. Even if it is "only" impulses in our brains and an agreement between a group of people. Now such an agreement is quite powerful, since it contains enforcement and the abillity to reject those who doesn't agree. The club is society so to speak. That is a stronger motivator than an arbiter for absolute moralities.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyf, :2thumbsup:


TR, can you respect a world view where morals are not absolute?

Can you also respect a world view looking at the Christian writings, thinking they are horribly amoral?

On rape:
“So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
“The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.” – Judges 21:10-24
—————————————-
“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.” – Numbers 31:7-18
—————————————-
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.” - Deuteronomy 20:10-14
—————————————-
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
—————————————-
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” - Deuteronomy 22:23-24
—————————————-
“Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” - 2 Samuel 12:11-14
—————————————-
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”- Deuteronomy 21:10-14
—————————————-
“They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.” Judges 5:30
—————————————-
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” - Exodus 21:7-11
—————————————-
“Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. - Zechariah 14:1-2



On slavery:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” - Leviticus 25:44-46
—————————————-
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” - Exodus 21:2-6
—————————————-
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11
—————————————-
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” - Exodus 21:20-21
—————————————-
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” - Ephesians 6:5
—————————————-
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” - 1 Timothy 6:1-2
—————————————-
“The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” - Luke 12:47-48
—————————————-
“Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” – 1 Timothy 6:1
—————————————-
“Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.” – Titus 2:9-10
—————————————-
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” – 1 Peter 2:18


I took the examples from a webpage that also held this wonderful little tidbit of thinking:

"Here’s a clue that should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70: If you have to spend any time explaining why the horrible stuff stated in plain and clear terms in your holy book is wrong by re-explaining it in complicated and enigmatic ways before you can get to the ‘good stuff,’ your holy book needs to be scrapped because, in the wrong hands, it can be lethal. It often is."




EDIT: PVC, I actually stopped drinking completely for the time being... After a otherwise great summer I can use my liver to check my pulse, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Am soon moving back to the alps again, will be tricky there. Oh well, at least SFTS will be happy being able to condescend me for being ski instructor again ;)

[Brenus]

C'mom, guys: We speak of the morality of a God asking a father to kill his son. And I still don't know who is the worst: The God asking or the father ready to do it?
So, "Total Realism", your Monotheistic moral, you can keep it.
And Hitler was a Christian as he was baptised. He never said he wasn't. His soldiers were it on their buckles (God is with Us), and swear an oath to him (difficult for atheists). And, funny enough, even if he wasn't not, his soldiers who executed his orders were (can't blame the Jews on this one).

[Ronin]

C'mom, guys: We speak of the morality of a God asking a father to kill his son. And I still don't know who is the worst: The God asking or the father ready to do it?
So, "Total Realism", your Monotheistic moral, you can keep it.
And Hitler was a Christian as he was baptised. He never said he wasn't. His soldiers were it on their buckles (God is with Us), and swear an oath to him (difficult for atheists). And, funny enough, even if he wasn't not, his soldiers who executed his orders were (can't blame the Jews on this one).

where I´m from we have a name for people that hear voices telling them to kill people...

and the "Hitler was a atheist!!!" is an usual straw man argument the religious people try to bring up in arguments with atheists....it's false and this is easily provable.
but even if he was an atheist, this would only be a "mirror" for religious atrocity if his crimes had been done in the name of atheism, like so many have done for religion over the years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This, srsly the "Hitler was an atheist" and "Darwin an a racist sexist therefore so are all evolutionists" lines or argument are the most boring and easily refutable out there.

I'm wondering if TR is maybe a fairly recent convert, and is currently in the sort of 'cage stage' mentality. With the internet he's been exposed to a lot of ideas that seem new to be really new and exciting but in fact to us it's flogging a horse that died long ago. I think I went through the same process myself. Sorry to sound condescending, and I could be miles off, but that's what it feels like...

I feel old.

Also - yes I think all converts to any religion take a while to mellow and appreciate that not everybody wants to hear about their religion all the time.

[HoreTore]

I feel old.

Also - yes I think all converts to any religion take a while to mellow and appreciate that not everybody wants to hear about their religion all the time.

That's true of most things people find to give their lives meaning, though. Religion, politics, a new hobby, job or relationship etc. We have a tendency to go all fanatical in the beginning.

[Ironside]

C'mom, guys: We speak of the morality of a God asking a father to kill his son. And I still don't know who is the worst: The God asking or the father ready to do it?

To be fair, that story can be red as rejecting the notion of human sacrifices.

It still counts as evil, just not Evil.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's true of most things people find to give their lives meaning, though. Religion, politics, a new hobby, job or relationship etc. We have a tendency to go all fanatical in the beginning.


Oh, no doubt, but my God is what gives my life meaning (lacking a wife etc.), I have to remember he's awesome, but not "AWESOME!"

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, no doubt, but my God is what gives my life meaning (lacking a wife etc.), I have to remember he's awesome, but not "AWESOME!"

There we go, you just need a hobby.

"Skiing saved me from God"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There we go, you just need a hobby.

"Skiing saved me from God"

I can already fence, ride, shoot a bow, a rifle, and play Chess.

They all seem lifeless and boring these last few years.

Before you ask - no I'm not that good at Chess, but I'm a fair shot and a reasonable horseman.

[Kadagar_AV]

I can already fence, ride, shoot a bow, a rifle, and play Chess.

They all seem lifeless and boring these last few years.

Before you ask - no I'm not that good at Chess, but I'm a fair shot and a reasonable horseman.

So, we need to get you off the girlie activities and into manly stuff, then...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, we need to get you off the girlie activities and into manly stuff, then...

You mean like knife throwing?

Or are we talking really manly... axe throwing?

[Kadagar_AV]

You mean like knife throwing?

Or are we talking really manly... axe throwing?

Just joking, those activities actually seem very well rounded, and generally part of a classic education. However, if you look at it, there is no big adrenaline kicks in any of them... So IF you are actually tired of it, why don't you do something with an element of danger in it (horse riding seems like the most "dangerous" thing on that list).

Throwing yourself out of a plane,as an example, is bound to take some time before it gets boring.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just joking, those activities actually seem very well rounded, and generally part of a classic education. However, if you look at it, there is no big adrenaline kicks in any of them... So IF you are actually tired of it, why don't you do something with an element of danger in it (horse riding seems like the most "dangerous" thing on that list).

Throwing yourself out of a plane,as an example, is bound to take some time before it gets boring.

Various things have stopped or deterred me from all three.

The fencing - bad ankle, I can't bounce on it and damage to my back hip has taken a lot of the explosive power out of my lunge, my bladework on foil is limited by the difficulties with footwork

Horseriding - I'm allergic to the mites in the hay and also to a lesser extent in the horses coats - so anti-hystermines are essential now, which puts a damper on just enjoying it.

Shooting - bad eyes, need new glasses.

That last one I can actually fix, and I'm working on general fitness to try to improve the hip and ankle so I can maybe fence recreationally.

Oh, yeah, I'm also a strong swimmer (looking for a pool in Exeter right now to get back into that) and I can handle a boat.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm passably good (or at least unembarrassing) at quite a few things.

Skiing has actually always appealed, but that's courting death a bit too much - between the dodgy depth perception, the lopsidedness, and the bad ankle I'm pretty sure I'd fall off the mountain rather than whiz down it.

You know what gets to me though - climbing is a real in thing right now, especially among young women, and it has always engendered crippling terror in me.

That really gets to me, it really does.

[Rhyfelwyr]

PVC you sound like you are 75, I thought I was bad! :laugh4:

Having said that I'm still having to kneel as I type this (gah!).

But yeah, I think you guys might be onto something, can't say anything else gives my life meaning besides God.

Only hobby I've got is lifting, which I can't do right now. Although at least there is some adrenaline-inducing danger in my life, that comes from walking up my street.

[Kadagar_AV]

Various things have stopped or deterred me from all three.

The fencing - bad ankle, I can't bounce on it and damage to my back hip has taken a lot of the explosive power out of my lunge, my bladework on foil is limited by the difficulties with footwork

Horseriding - I'm allergic to the mites in the hay and also to a lesser extent in the horses coats - so anti-hystermines are essential now, which puts a damper on just enjoying it.

Shooting - bad eyes, need new glasses.

That last one I can actually fix, and I'm working on general fitness to try to improve the hip and ankle so I can maybe fence recreationally.

Oh, yeah, I'm also a strong swimmer (looking for a pool in Exeter right now to get back into that) and I can handle a boat.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm passably good (or at least unembarrassing) at quite a few things.

Skiing has actually always appealed, but that's courting death a bit too much - between the dodgy depth perception, the lopsidedness, and the bad ankle I'm pretty sure I'd fall off the mountain rather than whiz down it.

You know what gets to me though - climbing is a real in thing right now, especially among young women, and it has always engendered crippling terror in me.

That really gets to me, it really does.

So give it a shot!

Climbing is great, specially since you REALLY can climb things on your own level these days. Back when I started there were no cool indoor training halls and stuff... Just a mountain and if my dad had his back turned a good rope.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So give it a shot!

Climbing is great, specially since you REALLY can climb things on your own level these days. Back when I started there were no cool indoor training halls and stuff... Just a mountain and if my dad had his back turned a good rope.

I gave it a shot several times as a teenager, when I say "crippling fear" I bloody well mean it.

I once had to be almost pried off the training wall.

Can't afford those fancy new training halls anyway.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Christians don't kill children.

Funny you should say that... (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/transcript)



Kathy Stuart
So she takes this little bit of arsenic. But apparently it was enough to make her violently ill, and for a week, every time she ate, she vomited. But it wasn't enough to make her think that she was now going to die.

Ira Glass
So she never goes to the priest. Figuring out the proper dosage, she testifies later, is just a vexing problem that she doesn't know how to solve. And she gives up that plan, which brings her to a much more disturbing plan. She decides to do something that, to us, to our modern sensibility, is so much worse than killing yourself. From our point of view, she decides to do one of the worst things a person could possibly do.

Kathy Stuart
She decides, I'm going to murder a child.

Ira Glass
That's right. She's going to murder a child to help herself get into Heaven. And incredibly, Kathy Stuart says this was a common strategy around that time for people who wanted to kill themselves. She came across a case like this and then went looking for others like it. And now she has found around 300, most of them women.

Kathy Stuart
These people don't want to go to Hell. So the option that they choose is to commit a capital crime. Immediately upon committing the crime, they run to the court. They confess what they have done, and they essentially demand their own execution.

Ira Glass
So they demand execution knowing that before they go to the gallows, they will have a chance to confess. And if they're truly repentant, they'll go to Heaven. And why kill a child?

Kathy Stuart
They kill a child because the child is seen as being in a state of innocence. So you might possibly be doing the child a favor, because the child will also go to Heaven. You will go to Heaven. It's kind of a win-win situation. There's a happy ending for all.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

Funny you should say that... (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/transcript)



CR

Yes CR, but they can't have been REAL Christians, because real Christians don't murder children.



This goes back to what I wrote about the Bible though.... The problem isn't that there isn't good stuff in it, there is. The problem is that you need quite some mental wriggling to skip by the less pleasant episodes of the Bible. And when writing a holy book, you should bear in mind that it WILL in the end be interpreted by some guy, living in a basement, eating road kills, having the Bible and Guns & Ammo as only literature around.



PVC, afraid of heights or was it something else? How about mountainbiking?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And when writing a holy book, you should bear in mind that it WILL in the end be interpreted by some guy, living in a basement, eating road kills, having the Bible and Guns & Ammo as only literature around.

Looks like I have an online stalker...

[Ironside]

Funny you should say that... (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/473/transcript)

CR

Thought about that, but couldn't find any sources.

Another example is when adultery (and its out of wedlock child) was brutally punished in public (as the rules of the OT demands), peaking in the late seventeenth century in Sweden. That's the origin for the lesser punishments for mothers doing infanticide, at least here.

[total relism]

My oh my...

I don't think much progress will be made here.

I agree, until you realize what the Op is about, no progress can be made.


I think you missed the point, my post says nothing in regard to the OP. Please be mindful that the OP is not the benchmark for a discussion. It merely gets the ball rolling. Imagine living a life where you had to adhere to the same style of thinking for 2000 years. Gah, I shudder at the thought. Exactly what you are doing with every post, alluding to the OP.

Also, I'm pretty sure we had an excellent discussion about pubic hair on a thread about Nazi's. Goes to show the dynamic nature of the Backroom.


I am sorry, I figured it was a response to op. Many have missed what I am saying in op, and understood it as what your seemed response was. I guess I have diffident opinions on what op should be, I thought discussion should be based on op. Than if someone want new discussion, they should start new thread. Imagine living in a time were morality has no base to stand on, such as atheistic morality. There is no god, yet we have to follow certain rules. Dont rape, dont kill, dont steal etc why follow any of them? because other evolved animals,evolved dirt that have no right to control me decide I should. But of course its ok to kill millions of innocent babies through abortion, ancient child sacrifice anyone?. But also, the government tells me one morality, Hollywood another,media another,teachers another, parents another,church another. Who is right? I say no one. why listen to random chemical reactions [peoples brains. evolved dirt] tell me what is "right" and "wrong". No I agree with jefery dahmer on this one.

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

Imagine that world.




You don't get it... You need to counter his arguments with the other sides arguments as he has presented them in the OP. Doh!

Because that is how debates work. :wall:

Is it not, so you have not been responding to op on purpose?. That exspalins alot.That is all I care to talk on, I dont care what morals or reasons for morals atheist have. I only care to show how inconstant,.baseless,illogical it is, for them to have morals.



I agree with Kadagar that there is a foundation for morals in an atheist society. Human beings, religious or not, naturally empathize with others. And even morals could be based on a society's need to survive and compete, in evolutionary terms. I.e. do not harm others, work together, etc.



What foundation than? survival of the fittest? Than you cannot reject hitlers morality,darwins, or my own favorite.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

Hitler was going for survival of fittest, killing off weaker races people. He was helping evolution and survival of the fittest. If you do no harm to others, than you allow weak to survive.





total realism - you are not original, you have not made some earth shattering philosophical discovery, go read Plato.

Kadagar - go have a beer and don't worry about it. Aftr the beer, it may make more sense.

I never claimed to be original. this has been pointed out for decades in america in debate etc. If it goes back to plato, than I guess much longer.



Of course it's a rubbish argument. I just tried to meet the OP on a more level playing field.

The argument is not rubbish at all, you have misunderstood it, so no surprise you see it as rubbish. My playing field is the point I made the thread on my OP. You want to create a new field [are atheist moral, why do they have morals etc] create a new field [thread]. As other posters are saying, you have missed the point.

[HoreTore]

Children are killed all over the world. Christians make up a hefty percentage of the world. Thus, it's unaviodable that christians also kill children.

Saying that christians kill children because of their religion, however, is quite a stretch. Even the example above should probably be explained by mental disorders. That the killer was christian gave the murder a christian flavour, but that does not equal christianity being the cause of the murder.

Anyhoo, back to the interesting stuff: what gives life meaning? I find that drinking gives life plenty of meaning. Because of this saturday, I have a forehead covered in blood and cuts with a bump worthy of Donald Duck. I can't wait for the lunchtime storytelling today!

Now that's meaningful.

[total relism]

I'm not going to read TR's walls of copypasta, but from what I can gather...

I think Kadagar is talking more on the practical side - that atheists generally are moral people. Whereas TR is trying to say that in doing so atheists are being logically inconsistent, as in his own less eloquent fashion he is referring to your argument that absolute morals can't exist without a universial arbiter ie God.

Although TR is frustrated because he thinks Kadagar can't see this (he may or may not), the real problem is that TR is not open to the idea of any other concepts of morality - for example that morals might not be absolute, and may just be the result of evolution. He might not regard such an idea of morality as meaningful, but it is a commonly accepted explanation for what we observe as morality. He has to accept it is a valid (if not correct) explanation.

Otherwise everyone will continue to be at cross purposes.



This, srsly the "Hitler was an atheist" and "Darwin an a racist sexist therefore so are all evolutionists" lines or argument are the most boring and easily refutable out there.

I'm wondering if TR is maybe a fairly recent convert, and is currently in the sort of 'cage stage' mentality. With the internet he's been exposed to a lot of ideas that seem new to be really new and exciting but in fact to us it's flogging a horse that died long ago. I think I went through the same process myself. Sorry to sound condescending, and I could be miles off, but that's what it feels like...


Thank you for first part, that hits it perfect. As I said first line, I am not saying that atheist are not moral or have no morals, I am saying that if they claim there are such things as moral or "right" and "wrong" killing is "bad" rape is "bad" etc They are being inconstant with atheism. They have no right to say what hitler did was "bad". I am fully aware that some believe morals are the result of evolution, that is what have my post have been on. That is what I have been using showing that when they claim absolute morals, something is "wrong" rape,murder etc they are being inconstant. For example.

I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.

and my Op spells out atheistic morality.

I do not need to accept atheistic morality, I never would. Just because you think I should because others do is a moral argument itself,baseless.But it shows perfectly that the only morals atheist can have is based on majority opinion. So hitler was morally correct in germany in the early 1940's. That was the majority opinion, so therefore correct. Why would I ever accept, some random chemicals evolve dirt, telling me what I can and cant do. the government tells me one morality, Hollywood another,media another,teachers another, parents another,church another. Who is right? I say no one. why listen to random chemical reactions [peoples brains. evolved dirt] tell me what is "right" and "wrong". No I agree with jefery dahmer on this one.

"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within

So if I decide that murdering millions of innocent children [abortion] is ok than we can. Or caging woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me is also ok if I like it.


Hitler
I have no idea what your saying here, showing clearly you did not read about hitler, what I said was, as hitlers quotes show, he was following evolution, it was because atheism/evolution he did what he did. No athist has any right to say what he did was wrong. After all in germany in 1940's as you said
"but it is a commonly accepted explanation for what we observe as morality. He has to accept it is a valid" so therefore it must be accepted by your own grounds. Showing the absurdity of atheistic morality based on majority opinion, just what you admitted to and are proposing.

I like your asumtions on my "new" faith or debating online. I assure you ask my name on twc all the atheist will know me. I have debated years over there, many thread, in fact have no less than 4 other debate thread going on outside of the org right now. The fact you misunderstand me and guess these things, makes me think you jump the gun a little pit.



Great granny Ruth (to David) was a Moabite and it's less than 10 generations in between. Jesus is supposed to be a decendant from David. Moab was the child/grandchild of Lot. Since there's quite a few generations between and God is lacking a bit of people (due to wiping them out from time to time) it's mostly for fun.



Yes, and the interpretations on this aren't absolute. That is a bit of problem when talking about moral absolutes.



The atheist book you mentioned I've read is called the Bible. I'm guessing you're familiar with that one. Notions of genocide: The flood, (duh), Sodom and Gomorra, active threat (plague) on the Jews for deviation of faith (Jews saved by active murder showing devotion to God) and the following retaliation which Moses ups (to cultural genocide, only virgins left) from what the original commanders did (and they were quite brutal).



Deut 23:1 is specific in that the punishment are on the children and their decendants and not the sinning parents. God took a very long time to forgive the original sin so it's not like it's a unique occurence. Besides, that's a quite suspect interpretation (as in: don't like the original one, let's make up one that sounds better, but is much less based on what's written). Unless there was some bizarre idea that is your parents sinned, you're immune to that sin (say that your father was a thief leads to that you can steal without any problem), there's no need to specify that it only applies if they continue the sins of thier ancestors.

The 10 generations are a nice show that the person isn't familiar to population demographics. The 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, etc. gives 2^10-1=1023 couples that might have cheated. With 1% cheating ratio (that's a very low count), only about 3 out of 100.000 fullfills that demand.



The Bible never states the original opinion of the Pharao. Besides, even with this interpretation, God still actively searches a confrontation which will result in the punishment of the Egyptians. That is cruel and a show off display of destructive powers.



The origin of species came out 1859, the US civil war started 1861 (a definite stop to slave import in the US). No, slavery was not popular because of the idea of evolution. Examples of justifications of slavery were that they were decendants of Ham, making it Gods (well Noahs) will to have those in eternal slavery. Alternativly God created man several times before he got it right.



There are no absolute morals. Now, Christianity haven't been very big on it (rather the opposite), but human sacrifice are an example on where murder become virtous, through religion. I'm not knowing any examples, but I'm quite certain that rape has been sanctified in the same way more than once.

Morality on the other hand exists. Even if it is "only" impulses in our brains and an agreement between a group of people. Now such an agreement is quite powerful, since it contains enforcement and the abillity to reject those who doesn't agree. The club is society so to speak. That is a stronger motivator than an arbiter for absolute moralities.



First part I have no idea what your saying, why do you believe that, what ever your trying to say is a problem for the bible?. Does it have to do with the 10 generations? moabites cant enter?

Moabites cant enter assembly of god?
Ruth was moabite book of ruth.

God loves the foreign resident and Israel is commanded to do the same
Deuteronomy 10.18-19
It is not based on ethnicity,but religion. moab was cananite.


I disagree fully, homosexuality is clearly wrong, according to the bible.


lol nice, I was just saying all the athiet usually bring up in order the ones you did. I agree though god judges, please bring all these up with genocide/plagues. You truly are bringing up all my favs, though the golden calf is very hard to understand. But the claims of genocide are false, and the circumstances around these show them not to be evil, but loving. Sounds crazy, wait for post. You just need to read entire bible. In fact I would reject a god that did not do what he did., time will show. I guess i will have to do a major objections to bible as I did on twc, plagues,conquest of canon,how can god send people to hell etc. But great topic's, now im all existed.


I am not seeing it here at all, also this does not mean they cant worship etc, they just cant go in temple [few could] only levites could.
[a]No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.
v1 23

This has to do with no defects etc, it is teaching of sinless of messiah, without defect, as all temple worship was.
God forgives sin right away all the time, he did forgive adam and eve, he promised messiah right there gen 3.15. It took awhile for the messiah to carry out the full forgiveness. Notice god provided there coverings after gen 3.21. But are you claiming than no one was forgiven in OT?.
I am sorry but had you read the bible, you would now that it is clearly if the child follows in sins of father.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

A key to understanding this business is a concept called vicarious punishment that is found in the law codes of the ANE. Greenberg [Chr.SPPS, 295] offers these examples:

A creditor who has maltreated the distrained sin of his debtor that he dies, must lose his own son. If a man struck the pregnant daughter of another so that she miscarried and died, his own daughter must be put to death. A seducer must deliver his wife to the seduced girl's father for prostitution. In another class are penalties which involve the substitution of a dependent for the offerer -- the Hittite laws compelling a slayer to deliver so many persons to the kinsmen of the slain, or prescribing that a man who has pushed another into a fire must give over his son...
Now it is precisely this kind of punishment, which was prescribed in every law code in the Near East, that Deut. 24:16 is intended to forbid. The verse is not a universal motto, but a time-specific law intended as a direct counter to the practices listed above. "The proper understanding of this requires...that it be recognized as a judicial provision, not a theological dictum." [Chr.SPPS, 296, 298]
This does not mean sins of a father will not effect his children.


You claim to have read bible, but I gota say, your theology and claims, fit the bill of a atheist book not the bible.

15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.
exodus 8.15
31 and the Lord did what Moses asked. The flies left Pharaoh and his officials and his people; not a fly remained. 32 But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.
exodus 8.31
7 Pharaoh investigated and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go
evodus 9.7
Ex 9:11-12 “And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils were on the magicians and on all the Egyptians. But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh; and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and we are also told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (4 times). Both statements are true and do not contradict each other. There was no hope of convincing or converting Pharaoh so his heart would be hardened by God (6 times, 10 times in all). God did not allow him to change his mind and was given no room to do anything else but what his own sinful heart dictated.

Notice that in a very real sense, all four of the following statements are true: (1) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (2) Moses hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (3) the words that Moses spoke hardened Pharaoh’s heart; (4) Pharaoh hardened his own heart. All four of these observations are accurate, depicting the same truth from different perspectives. In this sense, God is responsible for everything in the Universe, i.e., He has provided the occasion, the circumstances, and the environment in which all things (including people) operate. But He is not guilty of wrong in so doing. From a quick look at a simple Hebrew idiom, it is clear that God did not unjustly or directly harden Pharaoh’s heart. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), He does not act unjustly (Psalms 33:5), and He has always allowed humans to exercise their free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19). God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious sinners to further His causes (Isaiah 10:5-11). In the case of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, God can be charged with no injustice, and the Bible can be charged with no contradiction. Humans were created with free moral agency and are culpable for their own actions.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205



God uses pharaohs heart, to show egypt and pharaoh that he was the one true god, that the nile,cows,flies etc were not gods, but he alone. It worked to, as many egptians left and joined isreal.

"Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed multitude went up with them also."
exodus 12 37-38.

they were grafted into isreal.



I have no idea were you get this from? eternal slavery idea. Or the idea god created men at diffident times. Please with your great knowledge of bible you have shown, provide evidence from bible.



I have no idea what your saying, first you claim there are no moral absolutes, I have to ask are you absolutely sure?
than if there are no moral absolutes, how can you say child sacrifice is wrong?. Or it is ok to kill them?. Than something about rape being ok to the bible? The bible says rape is oviusly wrong, could be punished with death in OT.

Than claim morality does exist, do you not see how many times you contradict yourself in a few sentences?. So you cant object to god as being bad, also please bring your thoughts over here. I just put in long response to this same claim on majority opinion and morality.
well above a few posts.

[HoreTore]

I just love how "atheism" is given a set of attributes, and the notion that one "has to do x" because of "atheist beliefs"(now that's a contradicting term!).

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, if you spent as much time taking in what people answer you, as you do surfing christian webpages, I think you would reach much further mentally.


You seem to repeat your own line of thinking no matter what arguments you are met by, that is what I meant when I wrote that I see no chance for progress here.

There are two sides of a debate. You are supposed to make your case, you do a great job at that BTW mate. However, you are also supposed to really try and understand what the people around you say and why.

I am afraid that your way of arguing comes off as rather childish at this point. Kind of like a child with a megaphone, putting his hands to his ears going "lalala" while catching his breath between his tirades.

[total relism]

I feel old.

Also - yes I think all converts to any religion take a while to mellow and appreciate that not everybody wants to hear about their religion all the time.

why do people think I am new? I now people dont like what I say, wait till I do creation vs evolution. But you guys have been pretty nice,mature etc compared to most I debate with. When people hate me dont want to hear what I am saying, I think I am on to something good.

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
john 15 18-19

also what makes you think christian want to hear your opinion on new christian converts?



where I´m from we have a name for people that hear voices telling them to kill people...

and the "Hitler was a atheist!!!" is an usual straw man argument the religious people try to bring up in arguments with atheists....it's false and this is easily provable.
but even if he was an atheist, this would only be a "mirror" for religious atrocity if his crimes had been done in the name of atheism, like so many have done for religion over the years.

Please prove, read this very post hitler says he was atheist, no one said atheist must be like hitler, just they cant say what he did was "wrong".


‘Crimes of religion’?
Many atheists point to the Crusades, Inquisition and witch hunts to argue that Christianity is an evil religion. D’Souza takes on these allegations one by one. He argues that the Muslims were the aggressors; conquering the previously predominately Christian Middle East. They went on to conquer parts of Africa, Asia, part of Italy and most of Spain. All the while, they forced conversions at sword-point. Finally, more than two hundred years later Christians attempted to take back the land that was conquered by the Muslims. The First Crusade was a success, resulting in Jerusalem being in Christian possession for nearly a century. Subsequent crusades failed, but without the crusades, D’Souza argues
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’
(p. 206).

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
#
#
#
the Salem which trial was stopped by 2 priest that said what they were doing was unbiblical
http://tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html inquisitions


how did the Muslims get into Israel anyways?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/islam-and-crusades-warped-perspective.html

Muslim Turks made passage to holy lands for Christians very dangerous years before crusade.


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).



‘The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 [collective] centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. …
‘Modern science has only been around for the last 350 years, if we date the scientific method back to the man known as the Father of Science, Galileo Galilei. One could push the date back considerably, if one wished, to Aristotle and Archimedes, or forward to Newton and the Age of Enlightenment, but regardless, the dire threat to Mankind described by [“New Atheist” Sam] Harris only dates back to the middle of the twentieth century. In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering, explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.
‘So, in only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era.2



C'mom, guys: We speak of the morality of a God asking a father to kill his son. And I still don't know who is the worst: The God asking or the father ready to do it?
So, "Total Realism", your Monotheistic moral, you can keep it.
And Hitler was a Christian as he was baptised. He never said he wasn't. His soldiers were it on their buckles (God is with Us), and swear an oath to him (difficult for atheists). And, funny enough, even if he wasn't not, his soldiers who executed his orders were (can't blame the Jews on this one).

Abraham? you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct? oh the atheist did not tell you that one. Question as athsit, on what grounds would you say child sacrifice is wrong?.
Hitler, not sure if your aware, hitler hated christianity, as did all nazies, they were not compatible as Hitler said. So neither hitler or his men were christian. swearing oath to hitler? what does that have to do with being christian? Please provide evidence for god is with us on his belt buckle. i am sure you are telling truth on this one, no i am just kidding.

look who blames stuff on the jew, hitler blames christian on the jew.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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.

13th December, 1941, midnight:



Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.


Hitler was all about evolution, atheism,natural selection, nature's law.

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003

Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)


As I pointed out before with darwin quotes my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong" in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,


That's true of most things people find to give their lives meaning, though. Religion, politics, a new hobby, job or relationship etc. We have a tendency to go all fanatical in the beginning.


why do people think I am new? I now people dont like what I say, wait till I do creation vs evolution. But you guys have been pretty nice,mature etc compared to most I debate with. When people hate me dont want to hear what I am saying, I think I am on to something good.

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
john 15 18-19

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes CR, but they can't have been REAL Christians, because real Christians don't murder children.

Well - if a Christian is one who keeps faith with Christ, then someone who kills children isn't keeping faith. Is he?


This goes back to what I wrote about the Bible though.... The problem isn't that there isn't good stuff in it, there is. The problem is that you need quite some mental wriggling to skip by the less pleasant episodes of the Bible. And when writing a holy book, you should bear in mind that it WILL in the end be interpreted by some guy, living in a basement, eating road kills, having the Bible and Guns & Ammo as only literature around.

You must have been reading my posts - I've been saying basically this for years.


PVC, afraid of heights or was it something else? How about mountainbiking?

I have quite bad balance, I favour my left side very strongly - I'm actually diagnosed with "Minimal Cerebral Palsy" - I even have the dent in the right side of my skull. Anyway - bike riding doesn't work well, I managed to get to grips with it a bit, but it's not remotely fun, I think I could ride a bike if I needed to, but I'd always rather walk.

The climbing thing - absolute terror, it's the urge to jump, or in this case undo the straps and plummet. It's difficult to explain, it's not a rational fear you can master - it's like when you're a small child and you're utterly terrified. That's not something you want to go through in a public climbing hall, especially since it only kicks in at about 8-10 feet up, then I'm frozen.

[total relism]

Rhyf, :2thumbsup:


TR, can you respect a world view where morals are not absolute?

Can you also respect a world view looking at the Christian writings, thinking they are horribly amoral?

On rape:
“So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
“The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.” – Judges 21:10-24
—————————————-
“They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.” – Numbers 31:7-18
—————————————-
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.” - Deuteronomy 20:10-14
—————————————-
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
—————————————-
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” - Deuteronomy 22:23-24
—————————————-
“Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” - 2 Samuel 12:11-14
—————————————-
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”- Deuteronomy 21:10-14
—————————————-
“They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.” Judges 5:30
—————————————-
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” - Exodus 21:7-11
—————————————-
“Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. - Zechariah 14:1-2



On slavery:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” - Leviticus 25:44-46
—————————————-
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” - Exodus 21:2-6
—————————————-
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11
—————————————-
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” - Exodus 21:20-21
—————————————-
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” - Ephesians 6:5
—————————————-
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” - 1 Timothy 6:1-2
—————————————-
“The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” - Luke 12:47-48
—————————————-
“Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” – 1 Timothy 6:1
—————————————-
“Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.” – Titus 2:9-10
—————————————-
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” – 1 Peter 2:18


I took the examples from a webpage that also held this wonderful little tidbit of thinking:

"Here’s a clue that should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70: If you have to spend any time explaining why the horrible stuff stated in plain and clear terms in your holy book is wrong by re-explaining it in complicated and enigmatic ways before you can get to the ‘good stuff,’ your holy book needs to be scrapped because, in the wrong hands, it can be lethal. It often is."



I can respect a worldview that has morals that cant base them on anything. People are inconstant with there beliefs all the time.

Now I bolded the most important stuff, before I respond I have to ask, why would rape slavery be wrong? it makes no sense in your own worldview. As I have pointed out many times. I want you to anwser, if evolution is true and atheim than

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not? as men are stronger, lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

this would be both rape and slavery, yet you cannot give a logical answer assuming evolution is true that these are "wrong".


I was saying that the belief or feeling that atheist get [if atheism is true] that murder,rape,sexism etc are wrong, is nothing more than random chemical reactions in there brain. They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

As I pointed out before with darwin quotes, my point was why not be racist sexist if evolution is true? You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

But as atheist why would you allow woman to have rights? what makes you think they deserve them? they are just random matter, why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?. You act like they have value and right etc but this only comes if they are given these right or have unalienable right, such as if they were created in the image of god.



So in the bolded part, it said if you have to do exspling than the bible is dangerous. Besides me seeing hitlers/darwins worldview as dangerous, as rape slavery are not "bad" in that view. Well what if I was to say you have to read the whole bible to understand. Or exspalin it in context, atheist also falsely assume that if something is in bible that means god approves of it. This is 100% false assumption,made clear by bible. That one of the passages comes from judges proves my point of this. the whole book is what happens when there is no rule, government lae,king,god etc. For exsample, look here in a 1v1 debate I have going
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=527050
he brings up much of what you do, probably same site. He and his site are very clever, to say the bible support rape, they record were kidnapped rape has happend in judges 24, yet leave out context and very last verse of chapter. As I had to point out to him.

amazing, look at your very first verse judges 24 leaves out last verse.

Let me say now, all these are taken out of context and falsely applied by your website. I would love to go through any of them with you rape/slavery. both are punishable by death in OT.so lets say you chose your top 2 from each I will respond. . One thing about the atheist he is predictable, you guys all use same passages etc that have been responded to in books like.

Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751
God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260





So slavery first
What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10

If the Those people who were very financially irresponsible, and had accumulated so much debt that they could not possibly pay it off, could request to become the slave of a wealthy individual (Leviticus 25:39; Genesis 47:19).if the wealthy individual agreed, he would pay off all the person’s debts and provide for him, and then the servant would work for the individual for some period of time apparently proportional to the amount of debt (Leviticus 25:50) but not to exceed seven years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12). When the period of time had expired, the servant was set free, and the wealthy person was required to give him enough start up supplies so that he could begin his own business (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The Israelite slave was to be treated respectfully (Leviticus 25:43) and was immediately granted freedom if mistreated (Exodus 21:26–27).
It’s really a very generous system. Help a financially irresponsible person to become responsible by (1) paying off his debts and providing for him, (2) training him by having him work for a period of time, (3) giving him sufficient startup capital to start his own business. It’s not quite what most people think, is it? I would suggest that the biblical system is far superior to our modern welfare system.
http://jasonlisle.com/2012/01/23/gods-law-too-harsh/


exodus 21. 5-6 says “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

This is not at all what we think of in America as slavery, Jesus is refereed to as a slave as is the apostle paul, if anyone has a job they work under someone else and for them and can be considered a slave.

A great book in the bible of what OT slavery/servanthood was like read the book of ruth. How servant were treated etc. For example, boaz marries his slave/ ruth who asked him to marry.


Contrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The bible tells owners to take care of “slaves” so they will be as sons, sounds like adoption almost.
21 He who pampers his servant from childhood
######Will have him as a son in the end.
Proverbs 29.21

slaves were to be treated as being hired from year to year,and were not to be ruled over ruthlessly lev 25 53-54

many laws existed to prevent this from happening,many laws to help the poor in lev ex Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 15 1-18 shows slavery and poverty were to be battled against and not preferred institutions.
all slaves were to be realsed after 6 years and could be bought back at any time if they had the money
people chose to enter into slavery
The OT laws are not gods perfect plan,but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture.Matt 19.8
we cannot apply todays western standards to OT near eastern jews. ot law is not the way god wants, its a way for ancient Israel to live by in a fallen world.
many of the laws are case laws, such as if a man sells his daughter in slavery if two man quarrel etc these are working with infierer conditions in ancient near east.
In dueternomy 15 13-14 it says when a slave is realesed, the more money and wealth the former owner gives to the slave, the more god will bless them dueternomy 15.18.

job 31 13-15 shows servants and masters are no different from each other.
Courts were to rule rightly with jew or gentile Deuteronomy 1 16-17
no physical harm was to be done to a slave or they would be let go ex 21 26-27
if a master kills a slave he is to be put to death ex 21.20
1 chronicles 2 34-35 sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant jarha.
Israel was commanded to offer safe havens for foreigners run away slaves
Deuteronomy 23 15-16

1/2 to 2/3 of white immigrants to America in colonial times served as indentured servants or biblical slavery.


Rape

Rape was punsiable by death
Ex 22 10-17 Deuteronomy 22 23-29 2013-14 21 10-14 and page 118-121 is god a moral mosnter paul copan.
rape was punishable by death Deuteronomy 22 25-27

[total relism]

I just love how "atheism" is given a set of attributes, and the notion that one "has to do x" because of "atheist beliefs"(now that's a contradicting term!).

never said that, in fact my whole argument show atheist being inconsistent with atheism..


TR, if you spent as much time taking in what people answer you, as you do surfing christian webpages, I think you would reach much further mentally.


You seem to repeat your own line of thinking no matter what arguments you are met by, that is what I meant when I wrote that I see no chance for progress here.

There are two sides of a debate. You are supposed to make your case, you do a great job at that BTW mate. However, you are also supposed to really try and understand what the people around you say and why.

I am afraid that your way of arguing comes off as rather childish at this point. Kind of like a child with a megaphone, putting his hands to his ears going "lalala" while catching his breath between his tirades.

I love first part, as it fits you great, stop using atheist websites that lie to you. Read my op that you still seem not to be able to grasp.


I agree, as me and others have said, you still dont get the argument I am making. So that is why I must try to repeat, as your responses dont answer what I am saying.


I do fully understand what your saying in all things, I dont disagree with what you say. The only point I care to make is my OP argument.

I can see why you would think that, but it is just I care not to argue the points you make, just my original OP.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR,
You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not? as men are stronger, lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

this would be both rape and slavery, yet you cannot give a logical answer assuming evolution is true that these are "wrong".

Please bear in mind, that just because you havent bothered to look, or havent understood it, it doesnt mean I havent answered it.

So here we go again: Atheist morals in the case of slavery is easy. If everyone tried to enslave everyone else it would be a horrible world.

Rape is wrong because if everyone went around and tried to rape it would be a horrible world.

Remember when I said the basis of atheist morals are: "What would happen if everyone did it?" Well, there you go. Maybe THIS time that message sinks in... Will I be met with a wall of quotes again? Or will you do some thinking on your own?


EDIT: That was directed to your first post. You are aware you can multi-quote, so you don't have to make a new post for each reply?

I understand your OP, I just dont agree on the fundaments your line of reasoning is based on.

[HoreTore]

never said that, in fact my whole argument show atheist being inconsistent with atheism..

And that's the funny part, since you can't be "inconsistent with atheism"... Atheism is nothing, you can't be "inconsistent with nothing".

[Ronin]

Please prove, read this very post hitler says he was atheist, no one said atheist must be like hitler, just they cant say what he did was "wrong".
Hitler talks in Mein Kampf about his religious faith.
he also signed a concordat with the Catholic Church that included the provisioning that his birthday should be celebrated by decree in the German churches every year......his SS troops had religious saying in their equipment...etc..etc....these are not the acts of an atheist.

[HoreTore]

Hitler talks in Mein Kampf about his religious faith.
he also signed a concordat with the Catholic Church that included the provisioning that his birthday should be celebrated by decree in the German churches every year......his SS troops had religious saying in their equipment...etc..etc....these are not the acts of an atheist.

No, but they are the acts of a pragmatic dictator living in a christian cuntry who feels that all means are justified by the end...

[Kadagar_AV]

No, but they are the acts of a pragmatic dictator living in a christian cuntry who feels that all means are justified by the end...

The Nazis IMHO tried to build up a mythology of their own. The Christian influence in this can be argued back and forth forever, and is generally seen as a time sink.

Can the christian church swear itself free completely of Nazi Germany? No, of course not! Plenty of evidence in the other direction.

Can the christian church be accused of the doings of Nazi Germany? No, of course not! Plenty of evidence in the other direction.

So the discussion will always boil down to where on the slippery grey scale you want to place Christianity in Nazi Germany, and that always have more to do with prior political and religious adherence than anything else.

[Kralizec]

"Thou shalt not murder" is not a (uniquely) biblical concept, every society throughout history has had this rule. I would have thought that would be obvious. The Babylonians had written laws against it before the jews even existed. Maybe there were societies that didn't have it, but they would have crumbled so quickly that there wouldn't be historical record of them.

I do not understand why you're bothering with slavery at all in your argument. Yes, slavery in ancient times was different from the kind practiced by Europeans and Americans in early modern times. I don't think anybody here said otherwise, in fact I think that it's more or less common knowledge on this forum. It's still slavery regardless.
As for the "atheists don't have any basis on which they can condemn slavery" argument - I'll get to that later, but now I'll just point out that christians have used their religion to both justify and later on condemn it. Of course you might respond by saying that the christians who held African slaves were bad christians who didn't follow God's will or whatever. Which sort of makes an objective moral standard like "Will of God" kind of useless, because evidently the content is a matter of subjective opinion.

Various European philosophers have put forward their ideas of the "social contract" which gives a plausible explanation as to why people have rules and bother following them. Hobbes is my personal favourite, but there's also Locke, Rousseau etc.

And there's the evolutionary aspect - like you said, atheists generally see thoughts and emotions as nothing more than complicated electrochemical reactions. Even in the total absence of religion people would still follow social rules and their "conscience" because humans are built like that. Some christians, like you, think that atheists can turn into killers overnight because they have no rational reason to follow the dictates of their consicence. But it doesn't work like that - knowing that empathy and conscience are biological functions doesn't make them any less potent. Sure, there are sociopaths, but that's a condition not caused by voluntary choice.

[HoreTore]

The Nazis IMHO tried to build up a mythology of their own. The Christian influence in this can be argued back and forth forever, and is generally seen as a time sink.

There was the völkisch movement, with the Thule Society closest to the nazi party, but that was way back in the early days of Hitler and it probably had zero real influence. Then you had Himmlers attempt to build an Odin-cult, which Hitler strongly opposed, denounced and ridiculed.

[Kadagar_AV]

There was the völkisch movement, with the Thule Society closest to the nazi party, but that was way back in the early days of Hitler and it probably had zero real influence. Then you had Himmlers attempt to build an Odin-cult, which Hitler strongly opposed, denounced and ridiculed.

I think the Odin cult was frikkin awesome!! Historical comedy value extraordinaire....

[HoreTore]

I think the Odin cult was frikkin awesome!! Historical comedy value extraordinaire....

Then you should definitely read up on the völkisch movement. It has everything, really: jewhate, racial superiority, aliens, master races living beneath Himalaya, magical monks, the list goes on!

Terje Emberland is a norwegian academic who has written a few books on the subject(and related subjects). He has also contributed to a few anthologies and such, I'm sure you can find some with either him or related authors in Sweden too..

[Ronin]

No, but they are the acts of a pragmatic dictator living in a christian cuntry who feels that all means are justified by the end...

if your point is that he was only using Christianity as a way to attain and maintain power........that's kinda like saying water is wet........that's what religions do.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think I prefer to live in an atheistic moral world, than a Christian moral world.

First of all, as other posters also have pointed out, the "absolute" morals of Christianity are absolute, but what absolutes these consist of change from person to person, church to church, time to time.

However, someone having an ABSOLUTE morale to rely on can more easily be duped into really horrible actions against other humans, as the "others", by not adhering to the same morals, by definition are ABSOLUTEly wrong / corrupt. Just makes demonizing other human categories that much easier.



I prefer to live in a world where morals are not set. I believe it's wrong to kill, but it doesn't mean I have never killed, or will never kill. Absolutely NONE of my morals are absolute.

Sure, some things I would have to draw up absolutely ridiculous-over-the-top-Hollywood-scenarious to justify.... rape as an example...

I see it very hard imagining a situation where I would deem it morally OK to rape another person... Buuuuut... Say a sinister disease killed all of humanity except me and two girls. One of these girls have terrible mental issues from all that has happened, and absolutely refuses giving birth...

Would I rape her and force a birth to try and save the human race? Hard to say as I haven't been in that situation, and I don't see the need to speculate about it as I probably wont ever get there either.

However, it goes to show that my morals on rape or anything else aren't absolute by any means.

[rvg]

Don't have much to add to this thread other than to say that the Ignore list is a great feature.

[HoreTore]

if your point is that he was only using Christianity as a way to attain and maintain power........that's kinda like saying water is wet........that's what religions do.

No, that's not quite what I'm saying.

What I was saying is more along the lines of "Germany contained a bunch of christians, mass converting them away from christianity would be impossible within the timeframe, so he had to make do".

[Kadagar_AV]

No, that's not quite what I'm saying.

What I was saying is more along the lines of "Germany contained a bunch of christians, mass converting them away from christianity would be impossible within the timeframe, so he had to make do".

Sums it up quite nicely.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't have much to add to this thread other than to say that the Ignore list is a great feature.

But then you would miss out on all the fun.

Has anybody actually checked the link (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=527050) TR gave of himself in another debate.

I've only glanced at it but it appears to be discussion of whether radical Christians or radical environmentalists are more likely to attept to genocide humanity.

Who is the biggest danger in this very serious and relevant topic? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out...

[HoreTore]

But then you would miss out on all the fun.

Has anybody actually checked the link (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=527050) TR gave of himself in another debate.

I've only glanced at it but it appears to be discussion of whether radical Christians or radical environmentalists are more likely to attept to genocide humanity.

Who is the biggest danger in this very serious and relevant topic? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out...

I have always been extremely fascinated by the right-wing christian islamophobia, it's way more fun than the hooligan islamophobia of edl, for example.

The only problem is that such sites tend to be riddled with bible verses, of which I have neither knowledge nor any intent of reading. They may be more fun for you than me, Rhy. I have seen some non-bible heavy sites though, and they've been a blast.

Edit: dang it, I misread you Rhy, I thought you were referring to the links he gave in his OP...

Edit2: checked out the twc-link. Stopped reading after seeing the second posters nick was "Justicar". That's just soooo July 2011....

[total relism]

And that's the funny part, since you can't be "inconsistent with atheism"... Atheism is nothing, you can't be "inconsistent with nothing".

really, so say if a atheist were to believe in god? or that human have value, things like right to life, killing is bad etc etc, as hitler and darwin point out, these things are inconstant with evolution/atheism. I have shown over and over on this thread.


Hitler talks in Mein Kampf about his religious faith.
he also signed a concordat with the Catholic Church that included the provisioning that his birthday should be celebrated by decree in the German churches every year......his SS troops had religious saying in their equipment...etc..etc....these are not the acts of an atheist.


Here is hitler in mein kampf

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)


14th October, 1941, midday:

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)


hitler and the church were opposed to each other. His words, and common sense.

Please provide evidence of the ss using christian sayings etc.

I do not doubt,that hitler forced his b-day to be celebrated in churches,what does this have to do with christianity or the bible?.

Hitler had to convice germany of his beliefs he did so throgh propaganda, the leading opnents of his beliefs was the church in germany so he changed the bible and took over the church to fit his beliefs.

Heschel, S., The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton University press, USA, 2008


Liberal German theologians had taught since the early 1900s that Galilee was supposedly populated by racially Aryan Gentiles in the 8th century BC following the Assyrian conquest of Israel, thereby opposing Jesus’ identity as a Jew (p. 57).
In his own book, Jesus the Galilean, Grundmann advocated that Mary was not a Jew, and Jesus had an illegitimate father: a Roman soldier named Panther (or Panthera) (p. 155). Ironically, this is an ancient libel from Celsus and anti-Christian Jews attacking Jesus’ legitimacy (“ben Panthera/Pandera”). However, the Gospel was clearly presented in Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, especially in John 3:16.
By the end of 1941, 200,000 copies of Die Botschaft Gottes had been sold or distributed to members of the German Christians movement, including soldiers (p. 111). Some pastors and scholars in the Confessing Church wrote pamphlets or spoke against it. After the War, most copies were destroyed, with only two or three still known to exist.
A catechism for the times

In 1941, the Institute was involved in producing Germans with God: a German Catechism.5 “It omitted traditional doctrinal positions regarding miracles, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and so forth, in favor of positioning Jesus as a human being who struggled on behalf of God and died not only as a martyr, but also a ‘victor’ on the cross, despite being a victim of the Jews” (pp. 126–27).

It (not the ‘Nazi Bible’, as has been reported) contained 12 revised Commandments in place of the OT ten:
1. Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly.
2. Seek out the peace of God.
3. Avoid all hypocrisy.
4. Holy is your health and life.
5. Holy is your well-being and honor.
6. Holy is your truth and fidelity.
7. Honor your father and mother—your children are your aid and your example.
8. Keep the blood pure and the marriage holy.
9. Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers.
10. Be ready to help and forgive.
11. Honor your Führer and master.
12. Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice.
The Institute’s perverse attempt to marry Christianity to Nazism was not reciprocated by the Nazis.

Perhaps divine prohibitions of murder, theft, and covetousness were deemed inappropriate for a ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ ideology that was instrumental in the then ongoing pillage of Europe.



The Nazis IMHO tried to build up a mythology of their own. The Christian influence in this can be argued back and forth forever, and is generally seen as a time sink.

Can the christian church swear itself free completely of Nazi Germany? No, of course not! Plenty of evidence in the other direction.

Can the christian church be accused of the doings of Nazi Germany? No, of course not! Plenty of evidence in the other direction.

So the discussion will always boil down to where on the slippery grey scale you want to place Christianity in Nazi Germany, and that always have more to do with prior political and religious adherence than anything else.


I want to respond to bolded, please read all my post and the above. Hitler was against the church/ the church was against hitler.


before the jews even existed. Maybe there were societies that didn't have it, but they would have crumbled so quickly that there wouldn't be historical record of them.

I do not understand why you're bothering with slavery at all in your argument. Yes, slavery in ancient times was different from the kind practiced by Europeans and Americans in early modern times. I don't think anybody here said otherwise, in fact I think that it's more or less common knowledge on this forum. It's still slavery regardless.


christians have used their religion to both justify and later on condemn it. Of course you might respond by saying that the christians who held African slaves were bad christians who didn't follow God's will or whatever. Which sort of makes an objective moral standard like "Will of God" kind of useless, because evidently the content is a matter of subjective opinion.


And there's the evolutionary aspect - like you said, atheists generally see thoughts and emotions as nothing more than complicated electrochemical reactions. Even in the total absence of religion people would still follow social rules and their "conscience" because humans are built like that. Some christians, like you, think that atheists can turn into killers overnight because they have no rational reason to follow the dictates of their consicence. But it doesn't work like that - knowing that empathy and conscience are biological functions doesn't make them any less potent. Sure, there are sociopaths, but that's a condition not caused by voluntary choice.


if your point is that he was only using Christianity as a way to attain and maintain power........that's kinda like saying water is wet........that's what religions do.

I never said any society never had morals, we were all created by a moral god as moral beings, I said atheist are being inconstant saying there is such a thing as absolute morals. Few societies have been based on atheism, all recent. Hitler,stalin,pol pot etc all murdered millions.


In fact a atheist brought it up as if the bible condoned slavery. I showed very diffident.


Not at all, christian doing what bible says, is constant with bible. Bible never says anything about justifying what americans/europeans/and all other races who enslave people. By the way, first real slave in america, guess who, a black man enslaving another black man.


Thank you for recanizing the delima of atheist morality. You in the end call some
"Sure, there are sociopaths, but that's a condition not caused by voluntary choice"

but what makes them "sociopaths"? how do you now your not the "sociopaths".

In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.


You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

[Kadagar_AV]

Wrote stuff

I think you are more interested in a monologue than a dialogue... You are very good at copying and pasting, you have already showed us that.

Could you now show us you have the mental ability to understand those things you copied and pasted? We have yet to see you write much / anything of your own, you always run away and hide behind a wall of text.

Stand up for what you believe in, and express it mate. You wont get any respect parroting others. In fact, you will only be met with ridicule.

If on top of it you would show that you have understood some of OUR arguments as well, it would be absolutely golden.



EDIT: The opening statement of your last post though:


really, so say if a atheist were to believe in god?

... kind of makes me go :wall:
... and :bow: out

[total relism]

if your point is that he was only using Christianity as a way to attain and maintain power........that's kinda like saying water is wet........that's what religions do.

I thought that was the governments position, in fact they like to control religion, keep it in the church walls.



I think I prefer to live in an atheistic moral world, than a Christian moral world.

First of all, as other posters also have pointed out, the "absolute" morals of Christianity are absolute, but what absolutes these consist of change from person to person, church to church, time to time.

However, someone having an ABSOLUTE morale to rely on can more easily be duped into really horrible actions against other humans, as the "others", by not adhering to the same morals, by definition are ABSOLUTEly wrong / corrupt. Just makes demonizing other human categories that much easier.



I prefer to live in a world where morals are not set. I believe it's wrong to kill, but it doesn't mean I have never killed, or will never kill. Absolutely NONE of my morals are absolute.

Sure, some things I would have to draw up absolutely ridiculous-over-the-top-Hollywood-scenarious to justify.... rape as an example...

I see it very hard imagining a situation where I would deem it morally OK to rape another person... Buuuuut... Say a sinister disease killed all of humanity except me and two girls. One of these girls have terrible mental issues from all that has happened, and absolutely refuses giving birth...

Would I rape her and force a birth to try and save the human race? Hard to say as I haven't been in that situation, and I don't see the need to speculate about it as I probably wont ever get there either.

However, it goes to show that my morals on rape or anything else aren't absolute by any means.


I agree in alot of parts, party all the time sex whenever you want, multiple partners etc who wants to be "good". That look at a woman lustfully is same as adultery just does not work for me well. But than again its not a dream world it is reality. Course if I was a jew in a oven i might want a moral society based on morals to live in.



I would say what is absolute is bible, not what someone says, or what some church says.


How contradictory, you say first, that Christians could do horrible things because of absolute morals like thou shall not kill. Than say as a atheist without absolute morals "really horrible actions against other humans". This demands that "bad" actions murder rape etc are absolutely wrong.. Meanwhile, if there are no absolute morals as hitler/darwin point out, than there is no reason to commit such crimes in the first place.



I have always been extremely fascinated by the right-wing christian islamophobia, it's way more fun than the hooligan islamophobia of edl, for example.

The only problem is that such sites tend to be riddled with bible verses, of which I have neither knowledge nor any intent of reading. They may be more fun for you than me, Rhy. I have seen some non-bible heavy sites though, and they've been a blast.

Edit: dang it, I misread you Rhy, I thought you were referring to the links he gave in his OP...

Edit2: checked out the twc-link. Stopped reading after seeing the second posters nick was "Justicar". That's just soooo July 2011....

I am always fascinated by liberal anti christian, politically correct, anti conservatives. They all seem to be on total war forums lol. I fully am concerned with islam spreading, fully admit to it. Would you car to join we in a thread, should westerners be concerned with the spread of islam.? I would love to hear your point of view on why we should not fear that.

Who is the bias one? scared of bible verse?.

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.#
john 15 18-19

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1.18

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
1 Corinthians 2 .14

[total relism]

I think you are more interested in a monologue than a dialogue... You are very good at copying and pasting, you have already showed us that.

Could you now show us you have the mental ability to understand those things you copied and pasted? We have yet to see you write much / anything of your own, you always run away and hide behind a wall of text.

Stand up for what you believe in, and express it mate. You wont get any respect parroting others. In fact, you will only be met with ridicule.

If on top of it you would show that you have understood some of OUR arguments as well, it would be absolutely golden.


As shown, you have not understood my argument for many pages. When I quote hitler to back up hitlers beliefs. I care not you see that as copy paste.It to me is better than what all others are doing, making claims with no support. i have written everything on my own, besides quotes or facts or references.Do you care to back up any claim you make with anything besides what you believe to be true.? So when people claim hitler was christian, I dont exspalin why I think he wasn't I let him, meanwhile those that claim he was, give no support for it. As far as my other point, I have typed about a dozen diffident ways. Are you not also the one who copied a wall of text of a atheist website.

[HoreTore]

really, so say if a atheist were to believe in god? or that human have value, things like right to life, killing is bad etc etc, as hitler and darwin point out, these things are inconstant with evolution/atheism. I have shown over and over on this thread.

"Atheism" simply means the denial of the existence of a divine being. There is absolutely nothing more to it. There's no way to base anything at all on atheism, since it doesn't contain anything.

There are, however, an abundance of philosophies one can be, and will be, influenced by, from both religious and non-religious philosophers. Social darwinism is one such philosophy, but it is not one I subscribe to, obviously. And I believe you are confusing "darwinism", which is simply an explanation of what has happened in nature during the past few million years, and "social darwinism", which is the idea that the former is a good model for society to follow(most famously used by the nazis of course).

You have "shown" a grand total of absolutely nothing in this thread, I might add. All you have done is post long, ranting and quite frankly utterly boring copy/pasted text. Are you seriously expecting anyone to read posts that repeats rubbish text like "The Jeffrey Dahmer DVD Documentary" over and over?

Put your thoughts in proper form, then someone might be interested in reading them. Heck, someone might even bother engaging you in a discussion!


Who is the bias one? scared of bible verse?

Scared of bible verses...? That makes no sense whatsoever. I am unfamiliar with the bible, and I'm generally completely uninterested in what it says. It also does not hold any water as an argument to me, given that I am an non-believer.

I guess it would be comparable to a market-liberal reading a wall of text full of quotes from The Capital.

But in no way do I attempt to downplay the fact that I believe the right-wing christian resistance to Islam to be utter garbage, completely devoid of logic and generally unintelligent. That, however, also means that it has a great potential for being humerous to people like me!

[Kadagar_AV]

As shown, you have not understood my argument for many pages. When I quote hitler to back up hitlers beliefs. I care not you see that as copy paste.It to me is better than what all others are doing, making claims with no support. i have written everything on my own, besides quotes or facts or references.Do you care to back up any claim you make with anything besides what you believe to be true.? So when people claim hitler was christian, I dont exspalin why I think he wasn't I let him, meanwhile those that claim he was, give no support for it. As far as my other point, I have typed about a dozen diffident ways. Are you not also the one who copied a wall of text of a atheist website.

I have read your cherry picked quotes on Hitler, yes.

I have also based a university C-thesis on him when I read history. All in all I have read maybe 10 or so books solely about him, and another 100 or so books about Nazi Germany at large. Aside from that I subscribe to not one but two historical magazines, and tend to watch historical documentaries more than anything else. This aside, I am Austrian, and have had a vested interest in Museums, so I think I have been to most of the bigger ones in Europe.

So no, your cherry picked quotes just aren't very impressive. Actually, some of the ones you use to "strenghten" your case makes me wonder about your reading comprehension. Or maybe you are just lazy and throw them in from a ready list of: "Debate atheists for dummies".

[Strike For The South]

All these Hitler quotes are so much more applicable to the cause celebre of the time, Eugenics

It's not some type of atheism bible

Dhamer is a severely mentally ill person. EMPHASIS ON ILL

[ajaxfetish]

As shown, you have not understood my argument for many pages. As claimed. Claiming is not the same thing as showing.


really, so say if a atheist were to believe in god? or that human have value, things like right to life, killing is bad etc etc, as hitler and darwin point out, these things are inconstant with evolution/atheism. I have shown over and over on this thread.HoreTore overstated his position. Atheism is not 'nothing.' There is one definite element to it, which is not believing in God. So the first point (an atheist believing in God) is indeed inconsistent with atheism. Thinking humans have value, or a right to life, or that killing is bad, etc. are not inconsistent with atheism, however, as atheism per se has nothing to say about them.

Ajax

[total relism]

"Atheism" simply means the denial of the existence of a divine being. There is absolutely nothing more to it. There's no way to base anything at all on atheism, since it doesn't contain anything.

There are, however, an abundance of philosophies one can be, and will be, influenced by, from both religious and non-religious philosophers. Social darwinism is one such philosophy, but it is not one I subscribe to, obviously. And I believe you are confusing "darwinism", which is simply an explanation of what has happened in nature during the past few million years, and "social darwinism", which is the idea that the former is a good model for society to follow(most famously used by the nazis of course).

You have "shown" a grand total of absolutely nothing in this thread, I might add. All you have done is post long, ranting and quite frankly utterly boring copy/pasted text. Are you seriously expecting anyone to read posts that repeats rubbish text like "The Jeffrey Dahmer DVD Documentary" over and over?

Put your thoughts in proper form, then someone might be interested in reading them. Heck, someone might even bother engaging you in a discussion!


Scared of bible verses...? That makes no sense whatsoever. I am unfamiliar with the bible, and I'm generally completely uninterested in what it says. It also does not hold any water as an argument to me, given that I am an non-believer.

I guess it would be comparable to a market-liberal reading a wall of text full of quotes from The Capital.

But in no way do I attempt to downplay the fact that I believe the right-wing christian resistance to Islam to be utter garbage, completely devoid of logic and generally unintelligent. That, however, also means that it has a great potential for being humerous to people like me!

It contains belief in no god, so no absolute right and wrong, no absolute moral right and wrongs. It does say we are random chemicals in our brain, evolved from dirt. I dont care to engage with someone who wont take time to read what i wrote. Please read OP that is not that long, than we can talk deal.


As far as the highlighted part, is there a fight club in the org? or are you on twc? I would love a 1v1 with you on this subject. Maybe titled, should non Muslims fear the spread of Islam. If not to either, I do have a back up plan, I feel political correctness has led you astray. As I am sure you believe "right wing" christians have led me astray. Would you agree to a 1v1 with me? If you are not on twc, you should, they have great debate section.



I have read your cherry picked quotes on Hitler, yes.

I have also based a university C-thesis on him when I read history. All in all I have read maybe 10 or so books solely about him, and another 100 or so books about Nazi Germany at large. Aside from that I subscribe to not one but two historical magazines, and tend to watch historical documentaries more than anything else. This aside, I am Austrian, and have had a vested interest in Museums, so I think I have been to most of the bigger ones in Europe.

So no, your cherry picked quotes just aren't very impressive. Actually, some of the ones you use to "strenghten" your case makes me wonder about your reading comprehension. Or maybe you are just lazy and throw them in from a ready list of: "Debate atheists for dummies".

So I will take that as what I said all along, noone will be able to support the claim hitler was a christian.

This is a logical fallacie your trying here. Argument from authority I believe it is.




As claimed. Claiming is not the same thing as showing.

HoreTore overstated his position. Atheism is not 'nothing.' There is one definite element to it, which is not believing in God. So the first point (an atheist believing in God) is indeed inconsistent with atheism. Thinking humans have value, or a right to life, or that killing is bad, etc. are not inconsistent with atheism, however, as atheism per se has nothing to say about them.

Ajax

You misunderstanding and replying to something I say on first post, that I am not trying to argue, counts as misunderstanding.

Second part, ok but as far as morals for atheist go it very much disregards moral absolutes. As I said, you cant say what hitler did is morally wrong, you may feel that way, but you have no grounds or authority to base it on.

[HoreTore]

It contains belief in no god,

I'm stopping you here, because this is the only part of post which is somewhat correct.

Atheism "contains"(a better word would be "describes") a belief in no god for some. For others, it "contains"(describes) a simple lack of belief in anything. Those two sentences may seem similar, but one is active and one is passive, which is quite a big difference.



so no absolute right and wrong, no absolute moral right and wrongs. It does say we are random chemicals in our brain, evolved from dirt. I dont care to engage with someone who wont take time to read what i wrote. Please read OP that is not that long, than we can talk deal.

....and this part of your post is just nonsense.

[total relism]

read OP than we can talk.

[Kralizec]

I never said any society never had morals, we were all created by a moral god as moral beings, I said atheist are being inconstant saying there is such a thing as absolute morals. Few societies have been based on atheism, all recent. Hitler,stalin,pol pot etc all murdered millions.

I don't think morals are necessarily "absolute". There are, however, a few basic rules that are universally used across history because a functioning society would be unthinkable without them. A ban on arbitrary killing, i.e. murder being one of them.

I'm not convinced that Hitler was an atheist. Stalin and his buddies definitely were; but it's not atheism as such that inspired them to do the killing.


In fact a atheist brought it up as if the bible condoned slavery. I showed very diffident.

I've not read all your posts (too much, too long, sorry) but from what I know the old testament placed restrictions on it, i.e. regulated it and therefore condoned it.


Thank you for recanizing the delima of atheist morality. You in the end call some
"Sure, there are sociopaths, but that's a condition not caused by voluntary choice"

but what makes them "sociopaths"? how do you now your not the "sociopaths".

Short answer: sociopathy, or rather anti-social personality disorder is a psychiatic condition with specific traits. AFAIK the diagnostic criteria include that the subject has already displayed cruel behaviour from his early puberty and further.


]In fact you only feel ,murder,rape etc are wrong because the random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way. Not because it truly is right or wrong.

There's no distinction. You're arguing from the premise that there must be something beyond the mundane, biological explanations of brain functions for anything to be meaninful. As an atheist I disagree - I'm perfectly happy knowing that my thoughts and emotions are "chemical reactions".


I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.,

Atheists do not have a compulsion to "follow evolution" in our daily lives. I think caging up women for reproduction would be counter-effective in any case as far as the viability of your offspring is concerned, so that's moot.

If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.

Also the idea that "unalienable rights" (as in, rights that human individuals always have) are part of the biblical tradition is a pretty huge stretch - seeing as how they're from the Enlightenment era.

[Ironside]

What foundation than? survival of the fittest? Than you cannot reject hitlers morality,darwins, or my own favorite.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

Hitler was going for survival of fittest, killing off weaker races people. He was helping evolution and survival of the fittest. If you do no harm to others, than you allow weak to survive.

An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.


I disagree fully, homosexuality is clearly wrong, according to the bible.

I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.



lol nice, I was just saying all the athiet usually bring up in order the ones you did. I agree though god judges, please bring all these up with genocide/plagues. You truly are bringing up all my favs, though the golden calf is very hard to understand. But the claims of genocide are false, and the circumstances around these show them not to be evil, but loving. Sounds crazy, wait for post. You just need to read entire bible. In fact I would reject a god that did not do what he did., time will show. I guess i will have to do a major objections to bible as I did on twc, plagues,conquest of canon,how can god send people to hell etc. But great topic's, now im all existed.

I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.
7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.


Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?


I am sorry but had you read the bible, you would now that it is clearly if the child follows in sins of father.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.


You claim to have read bible, but I gota say, your theology and claims, fit the bill of a atheist book not the bible.

You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.


God uses pharaohs heart, to show egypt and pharaoh that he was the one true god, that the nile,cows,flies etc were not gods, but he alone. It worked to, as many egptians left and joined isreal.

"Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed multitude went up with them also."
exodus 12 37-38.

Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?



I have no idea were you get this from? eternal slavery idea. Or the idea god created men at diffident times. Please with your great knowledge of bible you have shown, provide evidence from bible.

Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”



I have no idea what your saying, first you claim there are no moral absolutes, I have to ask are you absolutely sure?
than if there are no moral absolutes, how can you say child sacrifice is wrong?. Or it is ok to kill them?. Than something about rape being ok to the bible? The bible says rape is oviusly wrong, could be punished with death in OT.

Than claim morality does exist, do you not see how many times you contradict yourself in a few sentences?. So you cant object to god as being bad, also please bring your thoughts over here. I just put in long response to this same claim on majority opinion and morality.
well above a few posts.

Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.


Many atheists point to the Crusades, Inquisition and witch hunts to argue that Christianity is an evil religion. D’Souza takes on these allegations one by one. He argues that the Muslims were the aggressors; conquering the previously predominately Christian Middle East. They went on to conquer parts of Africa, Asia, part of Italy and most of Spain. All the while, they forced conversions at sword-point. Finally, more than two hundred years later Christians attempted to take back the land that was conquered by the Muslims. The First Crusade was a success, resulting in Jerusalem being in Christian possession for nearly a century. Subsequent crusades failed, but without the crusades, D’Souza argues
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’
(p. 206).

A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.


‘The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 [collective] centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. …
‘Modern science has only been around for the last 350 years, if we date the scientific method back to the man known as the Father of Science, Galileo Galilei. One could push the date back considerably, if one wished, to Aristotle and Archimedes, or forward to Newton and the Age of Enlightenment, but regardless, the dire threat to Mankind described by [“New Atheist” Sam] Harris only dates back to the middle of the twentieth century. In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering, explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.
‘So, in only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era.2

And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.


Abraham? you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct? oh the atheist did not tell you that one.
See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.


why do people think I am new? I now people dont like what I say, wait till I do creation vs evolution. But you guys have been pretty nice,mature etc compared to most I debate with. When people hate me dont want to hear what I am saying, I think I am on to something good.


You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.

[HoreTore]

read OP than we can talk.

I have, and it contains a grand total of zero valid points.

Try again.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

[Brenus]

“you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct?” So what was the point of this cruel joke? What a traumatism to the poor kid, prepared on the table, daddy coming with the knife, and hop, big hand came out of nowhere, big laugh, “hey Junior, that was a joke!” So, Muslim, Jews and Christian celebrate a joke… I KNEW it….
It probably where comes the idea to kill the father to become an adult.

“on what grounds would you say child sacrifice is wrong?” Good point. So I agree that Christianity never told that killing children is wrong. I apologise.

“Please provide evidence for god is with us on his belt buckle” Just go on a book of German Uniform during WW2. That should do the deal.

By the way, atheist don’t tell people. You want to believe in fairies, trolls and orcs, fine with me. Or in the big flying Spagetti… I don’t. You can try to recite all the Bible, it is a irrelevant for me than the Contes de Perault stories. Cindarela didn’t exist and it is not because there is a book about her story that it proves she did…
7645

[HoreTore]

TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

Discussion and debating is a method of learning, whoever came up with the idea that you can "win a debate" deserves to be shot.

[Kadagar_AV]

Discussion and debating is a method of learning, whoever came up with the idea that you can "win a debate" deserves to be shot.

Agreed. Doesn't mean we can't debate and learn that way though.

[spankythehippo]

OK. Why is there a need for a heated discussion? Why do people get so worked up about religion? Why can't people just get along, regardless of what they believe in? Is it because people don't like being told they're wrong? Is it so, in the event of their being a god and all that crap, people can be saved from hell? Why can't people just focus on being a good person?

I am an atheist because I have no power in deducing whether there is a higher power or not. It's not possible to do so either. So what do I do? I don't worry about it, since finding an actual god is impossible. I live my life free of religious nonsense, although my morals can be traced to morals purported by religions.

I think Ross Noble summed it up pretty well. "Be nice to people. Love thy neighbour. Shut the **** up."

[Quid]

Ah, so this is the continuation of the utter tripe suggested in the other thread.

Still won't bother. It's not worth it.

Quid

[total relism]

I don't think morals are necessarily "absolute". There are, however, a few basic rules that are universally used across history because a functioning society would be unthinkable without them. A ban on arbitrary killing, i.e. murder being one of them.

I'm not convinced that Hitler was an atheist. Stalin and his buddies definitely were; but it's not atheism as such that inspired them to do the killing.


I agree with above, but hitler stalin etc there world view, led them to beliefs of what they did. Jews were less evolved hurting society human race etc, extermination them. As hitler said anyone who does not follow evolution natural law of survival of fittest, is a coward. But as you said, morals are not absolute, so what hitler did was not a morally "wrong" thing to do.



I've not read all your posts (too much, too long, sorry) but from what I know the old testament placed restrictions on it, i.e. regulated it and therefore condoned it.


NP, I will try to shorten them. If your interested read this link. Fought aginst it in fact.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142777-Christianity-Religious-System-or-the-True-Natural-State-of-Man





Short answer: sociopathy, or rather anti-social personality disorder is a psychiatic condition with specific traits. AFAIK the diagnostic criteria include that the subject has already displayed cruel behaviour from his early puberty and further.


I believe you entirely missed the point, you just used the words "cruel behavior", so what is this kind of behavior? what makes it cruel?.



There's no distinction. You're arguing from the premise that there must be something beyond the mundane, biological explanations of brain functions for anything to be meaninful. As an atheist I disagree - I'm perfectly happy knowing that my thoughts and emotions are "chemical reactions".


I agree fully with you, I was just saying,any atheist who say rape,murder is wrong, only feels that way, not that it really is a moral wrong, as there is no such thing.



Atheists do not have a compulsion to "follow evolution" in our daily lives. I think caging up women for reproduction would be counter-effective in any case as far as the viability of your offspring is concerned, so that's moot.
If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.
If anything the atheists who overanalyze the workings beyond the human mind and ponder their existence too much would be apathic nihilists, not fanatics who hold evolution as their idol. In the case of Hitler I imagine (allthough I wouldn't know for a fact) that his nationalism and hatred of jews were beliefs he held before he came up with his racial theories to rationalize them.



I would let the kids out, but you miss point,I will retype again, please try to think deeper.As in reasons why we believe what we do.

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

But they got the ideas in the enlightenment from the bible,In america.

[total relism]

Holy crap iron you have been busy.



An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.


I fully understand you think i am ignoring, but I am trying to get you to think deeper, those "morals" assuming came about by survival of the fittest. Are not real morals, but just chemical reactions in your brain making you think they are morals. So by me caging up woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me than killing them. Is not a moral "wrong" as there are none. Your chemicals may very well make you feel they are wrong, but my chemicals [I evolved slightly diffident] and my knowledge of the selfish gene and survival of fittest, tell me to do it. In fact i am just acting of my chemical reactions in my brain making me do it.

Moral absolute is true if it is enforced or not. child sacrifice I believe is a moral wrong, regardless of if someone does it.






I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.


I use many translations, witch do you believe says homosexuality is a good thing.The angel of the lord is the one who kills firstborn, who is uriel? is that swedish for something?.



I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.
7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.


Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?




all humans sin. We are just not as lucky as the ones in bible that have there recorded.


You really are making it very hard for me, I love these types of questions. As I said before, I will be doing post on cannan and any other questions against the bible. I have 7 thread going on 4 forums right now. So when I have more time I will do post. I have debated these verses before and love to do so. All I will say now is your missing the mark.




I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.


Or as I explained last post to you.



You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.



fair enough, sorry for assuming.




Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?


Good question, first he harded pharaohs heart as I explained, to do what pharaoh wanted in his heart already, from 4th plague on I think. God was showing his power,who he is to all Egyptians as they worshiped cows,lice,frongs,nile and thought of Pharaoh as god and firstborn. So god was showing there gods were useless.

sometimes a movie can help make it more real. They can help better picture real life. A movie i think that would accurately depict gods use of plagues in bible would be
http://www.amazon.com/The-Reaping-Blu-ray-Hilary-Swank/dp/B000U7169W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1352232922&sr=8-3&keywords=the+reaping

After the first 6 plagues I think it was, any Egyptian who believed god was spared of remaing plagues. anyone who put the blood of the lahm [jesus] on the doorpost was Passover and did not receive judgment. Many egptians did put the blood on the doorpost and were saved, and left with isreal. The people had no reason not to believe, so those that did die, were in rebellion on purpose. Also the bible says that egypt were being judged as well,for 400 years of slavery and killing babies Israelite.They had chance to repent many times, [many did.]

So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born[c] you shall cast into the river
exodus 1.22a
“When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live
exodus 1.16

God was willing and wanting to relent from sending the plagues at any time ex 10 13-14,19 10 16-19 other verses as well. If pharaoh asked god stopped the plagues 8.15 8.29-32. God was relenting from more severe punishment and was using plagues to show he is god

Firstborn
firstborns, anyone who put the blood of the lahm on there doorpost was spared and did not see judgment.
god killed firstborns in Egypt witch would go to haven.
The bible says all are born into sin we are all sinful and all babies are sinners and will grow up like the rest of us and be sinners .
However the plagues were not sent because of babies. God did not kill them but pharaohs sin against god and the Egyptians. Had the babies kids of Egypt grown up in Egypt worshiping pharaoh they may have missed out on eternity,look at numbers 14 28-33 for this with isreal,kids indirectly suffer for the sins of the parents. When an abusive father kills his child in a fit of rage, the child dies BECAUSE of the SINS of the FATHER, but the child is not being PUNISHED by being killed. When a child dies of an illness caused by neglect of a parent, they die BECAUSE (somewhat, at least) of the SINS of the parent, but their death would not be considered as a PUNISHMENT on the child for the neglect of the parent. It would be a CONSEQUENCE of the sin, but not a ‘punishment’ per se.
The Exodus story involves a corporate or national punishment, and in these cases—including the famines and plagues that later came upon Biblical Israel for their evil—both innocent and guilty suffer. Similarly, when a nation or group is blessed by God for goodness of values and action and direction, both deserving and undeserving benefit.
http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

Also the babies were being taken away from A evil world and A evil culture.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
Isa. 57:1

So while we may view death as always bad, god in certain circumstances may not
when believers die it is precious in the lords sight,because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation
psalm 116.15

God sees the heart of man, Hitler was once a baby and would look innocent, though god would know his heart and know he would grow up to become a monster.
7 For the LORD does not see as man sees for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
1 Samuel 16.7

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
genisis 8 20-21

I like a point a friend of mine made about this. One Skeptic asked why God simply did not kill Hitler as a baby. Yet if "baby Hitler" had died, the Skeptic would ask why God did not prevent the death of this innocent baby. This shows that a far more critical view is needed than "argument by outrage." Indeed, "argument by outrage" often assumes a form of omniscience by the critic.




Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”



I have no idea what this would have to do with endorsing slavery, this is a angry statement by someone who was molested in his sleep/prophecy about what would happen, not endorsing at all.As his descendants after noahs death, did became slave for a time. Notice it says in v25 cannan will be cursed, not because of what just happened. It is a angery/hungover noah v21.Noah dies in v29.





Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.


Just because someone does not follow a universal law does not mean its not there. Killing is wrong in us, but people do it.

But again your saying morals are not absolute, that proves my entire thread, well OP thank you. If atheism is true than there are no moral absolutes.

I am not saying you dont feel that it is absolutely wrong, i am saying there is no base to claim something is wrong in first place.

On god, agreed, the bible says all he does is good, he is love, cant do evil etc. assuming that is true, than anything he does will be constant with that, weather we may feel diffident about it or not [golden calf, .].




A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.


I agree with first part, but point was Byzantine was underatack from expanding Muslims, as all christian were in Europe, until crusades. Everyone starts there, instead of going back to see what got there in first place.

You said
"many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor."

Not at all from what I have herd, there were 2-3 places at most were christian matineded worship, lived in peace under Muslims, the rest forced conversion, killed, pilgrims to the holy lands constanley attack/killed etc.

last highlighted part
How does he not have a case? he is sating the reason for the origin of the crusades.

read these with me, I have not yet. Than well discus,for fun maybe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html

Please inform me of the 30 years war and the christian implications, what war? that is how much I now.



And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.


agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
#
#
the Salem which trial was stopped by 2 priest that said what they were doing was unbiblical
http://tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html inquisitions




See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.


Why not? I have kids I ask they things just to see if they will, to see if they love me etc.It is not torture, Abraham new all along, he trusted god.





You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.


I see. thanks. good talking with you, I am enjoying this. I like you, but not so much the bible would call it a sin lol.

[total relism]

I have, and it contains a grand total of zero valid points.

Try again.

Zero that you have understood, try reading Op again with deeper thought, such as why do I believe so and so, what is it based on, is there reason to base it on anything. Is it valid given my beliefs etc.


TR, I can take you on in a 1vs1 on this forum.

Topic: Atheism vs Christianity.

Thay have fight club? awesome. 2 conditions,first we would have to do first what I asked for, should we in the west be worried about the spread of islam?. You made some great claims about me as right wing etc for thinking so. So that is what I want the debate about first, than atheism vs christianity. Or, I want you to admit to me,that you were wrong, or you lack knowledge for a opinion on subject, of if we should fear isalm spreading. I would like a apology as well. So either of those first and I am game.


“you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct?” So what was the point of this cruel joke? What a traumatism to the poor kid, prepared on the table, daddy coming with the knife, and hop, big hand came out of nowhere, big laugh, “hey Junior, that was a joke!” So, Muslim, Jews and Christian celebrate a joke… I KNEW it….
It probably where comes the idea to kill the father to become an adult.

“on what grounds would you say child sacrifice is wrong?” Good point. So I agree that Christianity never told that killing children is wrong. I apologise.

“Please provide evidence for god is with us on his belt buckle” Just go on a book of German Uniform during WW2. That should do the deal.

By the way, atheist don’t tell people. You want to believe in fairies, trolls and orcs, fine with me. Or in the big flying Spagetti… I don’t. You can try to recite all the Bible, it is a irrelevant for me than the Contes de Perault stories. Cindarela didn’t exist and it is not because there is a book about her story that it proves she did…
7645

To show both of them [and believers today] that a sacrifice is needed, and god will provide the sacrifice. We dont need to sacrifice our sons, god will his. Abraham saw god would provide the sacrifice, just as john 8 56-59 says. It goes much deeper, need to do a study on it, but that should exspalin alittle hopefully for you.


I believe you have you missed point, I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?. They will challenge you for food/mates later in life.

well this is not a evidence for christian thread, but I dont believe in "missing links" mysterious "mother earth creating" life from no life, or a unobserved "big bang" out of thin air etc etc. these will be discussed in upcoming thread.

I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to.



OK. Why is there a need for a heated discussion? Why do people get so worked up about religion? Why can't people just get along, regardless of what they believe in? Is it because people don't like being told they're wrong? Is it so, in the event of their being a god and all that crap, people can be saved from hell? Why can't people just focus on being a good person?

I am an atheist because I have no power in deducing whether there is a higher power or not. It's not possible to do so either. So what do I do? I don't worry about it, since finding an actual god is impossible. I live my life free of religious nonsense, although my morals can be traced to morals purported by religions.

I think Ross Noble summed it up pretty well. "Be nice to people. Love thy neighbour. Shut the **** up."

I disagree with above, but since it is off topic, i will just say the bible says not deciding is a desition.

[HoreTore]

I agree fully with you, I was just saying,any atheist who say rape,murder is wrong, only feels that way, not that it really is a moral wrong, as there is no such thing

This has been repeated, in more words or less, enough times in this thread that I believe this is the basis of your argument. So, I will respond to this.

First, I will say that this is a classic case of why the form someone writes in is so important. Written as a question, this statement would've made you appear curious, interested and as a good and honest debater. Written as a conclusion, as you have done, it makes you look like an unintelligent dick, completely uninterested in what anyone else has to say because you know best. Pardon my french. I look forward to more threads, as always, but do keep that in mind for your next threads. And I might add that I've had more or less the same debate with PVC before, a thread which spread into several pages of very worthy debate, of which at least I(can't speak for pvc of course) learned a lot, so it's not the subject that is the problem here.

So, on to the actual statement, question form or not:

As I have already explained, "atheism" does not contain anything but the disbelief in the divine. There is nothing more to us that "we" all share. Instead, we subscribe to a wealth of vastly different philosophies. Religious people do the same, of course, what seperates an atheist from a religious man is that the philosophies does not contain a divine authority.

At least two such philosophies has been mentioned in this thread already, so I will deal with those two first, then move on to a few others:

First, the philosophy you brought forth, which you called "evolution/darwin/hitler", which I guess is your attempt to describe what we call Social Darwinism. This is a formely popular, but now massively discredited philosophy. It was of course the philosophy which formed parts of the foundation of National Socialism.

A small digression is in order here: the roots of national socialism did not begin with darwinism. Rather, the movement which eventually culminated in the modern german state on one hand, and national socialism on the other hand, started roughly a century prior to The Origin of Species. That movements aim was to create a common state for the fractured germanosphere. A tired saying is that the French had a state, but needed a people, while the Germans had a people, but needed a state. Anyway, as this movement went on, it branched out, branched in again, picked up new ideas, discarded old ideas, etc. This is quite standard for movements which spans a long time period(including your christianity, might I add). One of its branches became known as National Socialism, and it was this branch which picked up Social Darwinism(to the largest degree).

Back to Social Darwinism. This is the belief that the natural way our species has been formed should be used as both an authority and an ideal for society. There's not really any point to add more to it than that, other than to say that there are very few people, religious or atheist, who subscribe to it today. It's been relegated to the looniebin, and with good cause.

The second philosophy brought up in this thread was by Kadagar, when he stated "what if everyone else behaved like me?" This philosophy can be called(avoid weird names) "generalized self-interest". You stated that if I feel like raping someone, lacking a god, I should do it. No. With self-interest as an ideal and authority, even if you feel like raping someone, it's still not right to do so. If you choose to rape someone, you are creating a society where rape is okay. In a society where rape is okay, you get raped yourself. That's not in your self-interest. As such, the authority(self-interest) states that rape is wrong. With a generalized self-interest in mind, you must consider not only the effects an action has directly on yourself, but also the effects it has on others, since those effects will eventually effect you yourself.

Now on to other sources of authority and ideals. "The common good" is a common one. "Maximized happiness" is one. "The Circle of Life" is common among tree-huggers and other smelly hippies. A simple "that which makes the world progress" another.

All of these are authorities of the exact same level as your god. And just like your god does, we feel like it's okay to "force" these authorities upon the rest of society, regardless of majority opinion of it. "The common good" becomes no less potent even if just a minority believes in it, just like your god's message and authority does not diminish when only a minority in society believes in him. We who do not believe in a divine authority will always have at least one like these that we base our outlook upon. And of course - just like a religious man can convert from one religion to another, so will atheists pick or discard these moral authorities. Your claim that atheists cannot have moral absolutes because we do not have any authorities to pin them on is therefore clearly false: we do have authorities of the same magnitude as the christian god, and we are fully capable of having moral absolutes.

If you find all of this hard to understand and/or strange, try thinking of it as an "atheist religion", that might help your understanding.

Edit:

The belt buckle in Brenus' picture says "Gott Mit Uns", german for "God is with us". The christian god, that is. That Nazi soldiers had Gott Mit Uns written on their belt buckles is honestly common knowledge among anyone with at least some knowledge of Nazi Germany. Which makes me wonder just how much you honestly understand and know about the various quotes you have given in this thread....

In math terms, this is like failing simple fractions while giving a lecture on integration.

[Sir Moody]

I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to.


here is a hint - the word GOTT on the left of the buckle translates to GOD, MITT translates to WITH and the UNS is us - the buckle reads GOD WITH US


believe you have you missed point, I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?. They will challenge you for food/mates later in life.

are you asking for the Evolutionary reason or the Moral reason? I know you have trouble with this but they aren't the same thing

Evolution requires genes to be passed on to the next generation - if you are sacrificing the next generation you are stunting evolutionary growth which is a very sub optimal strategy - comparing two societies - one sacrificing some of their young and another not the society which doesn't sacrifice its young will have a larger gene pool and thus will be in a stronger evolutionary position

The only time this wouldn't be true would be in cases of SEVERE overpopulation - and even then it would be more optimal to sacrifice the OLD first

[Kadagar_AV]

2 conditions,first we would have to do first what I asked for, should we in the west be worried about the spread of islam?. You made some great claims about me as right wing etc for thinking so. So that is what I want the debate about first, than atheism vs christianity. Or, I want you to admit to me,that you were wrong, or you lack knowledge for a opinion on subject, of if we should fear isalm spreading. I would like a apology as well. So either of those first and I am game.

Having conditions are we? Well, never mind then. It has already been explained to you why you will find it hard debating spread of Islam on these boards.

Also, I did do say what huh? Sure you got the right person there?

[Sir Moody]

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

Ok lets try this again

Morals are born out of a social contract with the other members of your community - this is also how we determine who is "moral" or "immoral" since the "moral" will obey the contract while the "immoral" will not - any one individual is only a "cog in the machine" and their individual thoughts cannot alter the moral code of the community without backing from other "cogs"

One individual who believes Murder is fine will not effect the moral views of the entire community unless he can persuade many others to his thinking - he will be considered immoral by the society as a whole and will be ostracised (like we do with Racist groups or criminals)


You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

Ok lets break out evolutionary theory again - why is locking the women in basements sub optimal?

Evolution is about furthering your genes - this requires children and more importantly healthy children - with 50% of the society (the women) chained in the basement only the men are left to care for the young, produce the food required to raise them and educate them - this doesn't leave much room for error - the society which doesn't chain its women in a basement has 50% MORE human resources with which to raise the children which is clearly the optimal strategy

and that isn't even bringing in the fact that the women would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of health issues which would make child bearing difficult

there is a reason the family unit pre-dates known history - it is by far the most optimal way of passing on your genes and producing a strong and healthy ospring

[Kralizec]

Humans are social creatures. We're born with certain ingrain traits like empathy and compassion because it increases the survival of the group. Knowing that this is a result of evolution does not negate the effect as you claim.

To put it in simple terms: you're arguing that an atheist could come to the conclusion that since he's just a biological machine, and his existence will end with his physical death, there's nothing keeping him from acting as selfishly as possible. I disagree and say that men have evolved as social creatures and are slaves of their natural conscience.

Sociopaths are without empathy and compassion, but it's a psychiatric disorder that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or the lack thereof. It's controversial among psychiatrists wether it's caused by nature or nurture, but the anti-social behaviour manifests itself at an early age, certainly before people seriously start philosophise about the meaning of life and whatnot.


I would let the kids out, but you miss point,I will retype again, please try to think deeper.As in reasons why we believe what we do.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out, you would be doing the opposite of evolution and what got us here to follow christian morals and to act like people have unalienable rights, and value.These are biblical ideas that people were created in the image of god.

But they got the ideas in the enlightenment from the bible,In america.

I object to the way you're lumping in Darwin with Hitler, and in any case you're misrepresenting him. Darwin gave us, in a primitive form, an explanation of how different animals might have come into existence who resemble eachother to various degrees. He never used his theory to say people ought to do this or that.

Speaking from a strictly evolutionary perspective, the best way to ensure the long term continuation of your genes is to get several children who are healthy and mentally balanced so that they, in turn, might find children and procreate. Unless you intend to devote your entire time to raising those kids by your self (highly unpractical), you need a woman who sharess your goals and helps raising those kids voluntarily.

No, "Enlightenment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) is not derived from the bible. Lol.

[Quid]

Humans are social creatures. We're born with certain ingrain traits like empathy and compassion because it increases the survival of the group. Knowing that this is a result of evolution does not negate the effect as you claim.

To put it in simple terms: you're arguing that an atheist could come to the conclusion that since he's just a biological machine, and his existence will end with his physical death, there's nothing keeping him from acting as selfishly as possible. I disagree and say that men have evolved as social creatures and are slaves of their natural conscience.

Sociopaths are without empathy and compassion, but it's a psychiatric disorder that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or the lack thereof. It's controversial among psychiatrists wether it's caused by nature or nurture, but the anti-social behaviour manifests itself at an early age, certainly before people seriously start philosophise about the meaning of life and whatnot.



I object to the way you're lumping in Darwin with Hitler, and in any case you're misrepresenting him. Darwin gave us, in a primitive form, an explanation of how different animals might have come into existence who resemble eachother to various degrees. He never used his theory to say people ought to do this or that.

Speaking from a strictly evolutionary perspective, the best way to ensure the long term continuation of your genes is to get several children who are healthy and mentally balanced so that they, in turn, might find children and procreate. Unless you intend to devote your entire time to raising those kids by your self (highly unpractical), you need a woman who sharess your goals and helps raising those kids voluntarily.

No, "Enlightenment" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) is not derived from the bible. Lol.

Ah, good post!

[Ironside]

I fully understand you think i am ignoring, but I am trying to get you to think deeper, those "morals" assuming came about by survival of the fittest. Are not real morals, but just chemical reactions in your brain making you think they are morals. So by me caging up woman in my basement forcing them to have sex with me than killing them. Is not a moral "wrong" as there are none. Your chemicals may very well make you feel they are wrong, but my chemicals [I evolved slightly diffident] and my knowledge of the selfish gene and survival of fittest, tell me to do it. In fact i am just acting of my chemical reactions in my brain making me do it.

Moral absolute is true if it is enforced or not. child sacrifice I believe is a moral wrong, regardless of if someone does it.

Both Horetore and Sir Moody has done some well written notes, so I will simply add on it. In the end, the laws are based on that I can take several friends, based on authority (that comes from an agreement between the people and the law makers) and kick that woman caging guy's ass.
Horetore is talking about different philosophies (what I refered to framework), that gives a better reason beyond "I felt for it" and can decide what laws to keep and which to change, to be compitable with that framework. Convince enough people and the law will change.

A thought experiment. Somewhere in the future, man has discovered how to put people permanently and irrevesibly into a transcendal state (to borrow a science fiction term). This state is said (and the evidence agree on that) to be amazing and is also said to be coming one step closer to God (among the religious that's done this). Should this state be enforced upon everybody? I want your person opinion on this, based on your absolute morals.
Now for the rest of us, it will depend on what philosophical guideline you follow (and your gut feeling, but they have tendency to align), if you find this something that should be done (for the better of all) or not (self determination), so it would be a controversial subject.
If it's instead feeling like permanent torture, about everyone will agree that it's bad.

Edit: Another one. You are aware of an active genocide during a war and every reason to believe that your public words will slow it down and make both the genocide and war stop earlier, but it will cause retaliation on yourself and those below you (those are fewer than the ones who you would save though). Do you chose to speak up, or do you keep quiet? Which one is morally correct?

Also, in general human sacrifices has been done because lives are considered valuable. It's been an attempt to trade with the gods, for say weather that's not destroying the harvest. The bigger gift, the more you get in return. Doesn't work, but haven't stopped people from trying.



I use many translations, witch do you believe says homosexuality is a good thing.The angel of the lord is the one who kills firstborn, who is uriel? is that swedish for something?.

I took homosexuality as an example, I've moved on to general terms several posts ago. Using many translations is a very good thing, but it does show the problem of claiming that the Bible is morally absolute. If two translations differ, which one is correct? The one fitting the third perhaps? Or maybe the third was wrong as well.
About the Destroyer. Who isn't actually mentioned in one older Swedish translation (the 1917 one, used until 2000), where it sounds like the first borns simply died, rather that some entity came and collect them all. The Lord got several angels (that's mentioned in the Bible) and somehow it was decided that Uriel (who is mentioned in other Jewish holy texts) was probably the one doing the deed, through thological studies.



all humans sin. We are just not as lucky as the ones in bible that have there recorded.

Maybe, but it's not good, nor just behavior done there. He could've easily killed the first Jew starting Bhaal-worshipping instead of going after the whole people (killing 24.000) after a while.



I have no idea what this would have to do with endorsing slavery, this is a angry statement by someone who was molested in his sleep/prophecy about what would happen, not endorsing at all.As his descendants after noahs death, did became slave for a time. Notice it says in v25 cannan will be cursed, not because of what just happened. It is a angery/hungover noah v21.Noah dies in v29.

It was used for a justification for slavery of blacks. And an odd time for a simple prophecy (if the event changed history for the prophecy to be true, then it's still a punshment). It's ironic that God wiped out everyone except 4 men (and their wives), and 25% of those men are showing dubvious morals though.
About God creating man several times, the first neanderthal skull identified as such (as in not being the modern man) was discovered in 1829, several decades before the theory of evolution, so it probably caused a lot of speculations. I'm not sure of exact dates for the theory.



Just because someone does not follow a universal law does not mean its not there. Killing is wrong in us, but people do it.

But again your saying morals are not absolute, that proves my entire thread, well OP thank you. If atheism is true than there are no moral absolutes.

I am not saying you dont feel that it is absolutely wrong, i am saying there is no base to claim something is wrong in first place.

Horetore covered that with philosophical guidelines. I'm also free to claim whatever I want. I people agrees enough on those claims so I can hinder you from doing what you want, then it sucks to be you.
To put it differently, if the lack of absolute morals doesn't affect anything, does it matter? Remind you, this is a different question than that you have a book giving you the answer to absolute morals.


On god, agreed, the bible says all he does is good, he is love, cant do evil etc. assuming that is true, than anything he does will be constant with that, weather we may feel diffident about it or not [golden calf, .].

"I define the rules. And if you do the same as me it's evil, while if I'm doing it, it's good you're simply not understanding the good of it." Day dreams of a brutal dictator.



I agree with first part, but point was Byzantine was underatack from expanding Muslims, as all christian were in Europe, until crusades. Everyone starts there, instead of going back to see what got there in first place.

Yes, but the framing from the Byzantines and the Spanish (as in the ones acually fighting Muslims) weren't that it's holy war for Christianity against Islam. Take El Cid (in Spain) for example, a legendary Christian. Worked under Muslim rulers for years. Valencia was allowing both religions freely. The crusades themselves were framed like this yes, but for the Byzantines that meant fighting against Christians instead of Muslims after the first crusade, for example.


You said
"many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor."

Not at all from what I have herd, there were 2-3 places at most were christian matineded worship, lived in peace under Muslims, the rest forced conversion, killed, pilgrims to the holy lands constanley attack/killed etc.

I'm not sure for long term, but short term it was an improvement yes. Pilgrims getting attacked was one big reason yes, but that's more with rulers not providing security, rather than a religious war.


Please inform me of the 30 years war and the christian implications, what war? that is how much I now.
The thirty years war. 1618-1648. Simplified: The ultimate showdown between Protestants and Catholics. Most brutal war for 250 years.

The conquest of the new world by Spain and Portugal should count in part as well (complex counting needed though). Cristopher Columbus sailed with a nice cross on the boat "Saint Mary" (Santa Maria), finding Holy Savior (San Salvador), Trinity (Trinidad), founding La Navidad (Roughly "the birth of Christ"). No religious intent there is it?

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.


Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
That's very selective counting. Take the Inqusition for example. The number of killed might be correct, but it doesn't mention that the Inqusition was overwatching the forced conversion and deportations of all Muslims and Jews in Spain (and killing off Spain as a cultural center in the process). That was hundreds of thousands. They mellowed out from the worst parts with time, but that's how it started.

Losses for the 30-years war is 8 millions, for example. And lots of wars had religious overtunes.



Why not? I have kids I ask they things just to see if they will, to see if they love me etc.It is not torture, Abraham new all along, he trusted god.

If you ask those kids to destroy their favorite toy, will they be distressed and sad? Is it good to force those feelings on someone simply because they trust you enough to do it? That's a whimper compared to sacrificing your own child. If Abraham knew that he wouldn't need to, then it's goofing around.
There's a big difference between being devoted enough to be willing to die for your country, compared to that the country demands this from you, to show your devotion.

[Brenus]

Some others had answer, but I still will do.

“I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to”???? You ask to show the “God with Us” on the Nazi Germany Foot Soldiers buckle. So you see. And 1940’s Germany was Christian so I presume it refers to the Christian version of God.

“but I dont believe in "missing links" mysterious "mother earth creating" life from no life, or a unobserved "big bang" out of thin air etc etc”
The funny thing you and “believers” don’t grasp. You don’t need to believe in it. These are theories, that could be validated or not by daily observations as virus become antibiotic resistant, foxes opening bins and living in herds in town, list is infinite… Me becoming good in shooting on line (I am now on gold in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer…)

“I believe you have you missed point”
Do not worry, I didn’t. I did debate the relativity of Morals as teen-ager in Philosophy Classes, long time ago: As Robert Heinlein said once: “what are the Rights of a Man drowning?” Or Lenin with: “what Freedom for those Who Starve?” Read Emanuel Kant: “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Tough and Hard, but how much delighting. Just the title makes me laugh…

“Pardon my French” I do.

“Most brutal war for 250 years” Don’t forget in your list the French Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other’s with great enthusiasm (8 wars between 1562 – 1598 with the famous St Barthelemy 23-24 of August 1572 )...

“Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries” What Atheist Regimes? You decide against all evidence that Hitler was Atheist. Stalin was probably an atheist (even if if was a Seminarist), but he didn’t kill because he was atheist, but for political purpose, not for Atheistic Purpose. Leopold King of Belgium kill around 20-40 million Africans in the then Belgium Congo, not because he was a Catholic but by pure Greed. If we start to put on Christianity all the murders and killing done by Christians Monarchs and Leaders, you will find your statistic largely in the wrong (including famines in India, Ireland, Vietnam etc)
And in term of Genocide, in South America, Christianity has probably the highest grade in successful killing… And this was done on the name and approval of the Christianity “to convert them by Iron and Fire”.

[HoreTore]

Me becoming good in shooting on line (I am now on gold in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer…)

Lamarckism is discredited ~;)

[Sarmatian]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

[Kadagar_AV]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

I can just answer for myself: I am cleaning out my apartment before I move, and I welcome any and all distractions.

[HoreTore]

Why are people still arguing with this guy?

Morality is always fun to discuss ~;)

[Idaho]

Thread tl:dr

[total relism]

Today,and these post will be my last on thread sorry. I have 7-8 threads on 4 diffident forums going on, it is starting to take allot of my time as you can imagine. This thread I see the most as spinning wheels, getting nowhere, it seems barley understood my a minority of posters. So this is the one I shall end. Thanks for all posters.

[total relism]

This has been repeated, in more words or less, enough times in this thread that I believe this is the basis of your argument. So, I will respond to this.

First, I will say that this is a classic case of why the form someone writes in is so important. Written as a question, this statement would've made you appear curious, interested and as a good and honest debater. Written as a conclusion, as you have done, it makes you look like an unintelligent dick, completely uninterested in what anyone else has to say because you know best. Pardon my french. I look forward to more threads, as always, but do keep that in mind for your next threads. And I might add that I've had more or less the same debate with PVC before, a thread which spread into several pages of very worthy debate, of which at least I(can't speak for pvc of course) learned a lot, so it's not the subject that is the problem here.

So, on to the actual statement, question form or not:

As I have already explained, "atheism" does not contain anything but the disbelief in the divine. There is nothing more to us that "we" all share. Instead, we subscribe to a wealth of vastly different philosophies. Religious people do the same, of course, what seperates an atheist from a religious man is that the philosophies does not contain a divine authority.

At least two such philosophies has been mentioned in this thread already, so I will deal with those two first, then move on to a few others:

First, the philosophy you brought forth, which you called "evolution/darwin/hitler", which I guess is your attempt to describe what we call Social Darwinism. This is a formely popular, but now massively discredited philosophy. It was of course the philosophy which formed parts of the foundation of National Socialism.

A small digression is in order here: the roots of national socialism did not begin with darwinism. Rather, the movement which eventually culminated in the modern german state on one hand, and national socialism on the other hand, started roughly a century prior to The Origin of Species. That movements aim was to create a common state for the fractured germanosphere. A tired saying is that the French had a state, but needed a people, while the Germans had a people, but needed a state. Anyway, as this movement went on, it branched out, branched in again, picked up new ideas, discarded old ideas, etc. This is quite standard for movements which spans a long time period(including your christianity, might I add). One of its branches became known as National Socialism, and it was this branch which picked up Social Darwinism(to the largest degree).

Back to Social Darwinism. This is the belief that the natural way our species has been formed should be used as both an authority and an ideal for society. There's not really any point to add more to it than that, other than to say that there are very few people, religious or atheist, who subscribe to it today. It's been relegated to the looniebin, and with good cause.

The second philosophy brought up in this thread was by Kadagar, when he stated "what if everyone else behaved like me?" This philosophy can be called(avoid weird names) "generalized self-interest". You stated that if I feel like raping someone, lacking a god, I should do it. No. With self-interest as an ideal and authority, even if you feel like raping someone, it's still not right to do so. If you choose to rape someone, you are creating a society where rape is okay. In a society where rape is okay, you get raped yourself. That's not in your self-interest. As such, the authority(self-interest) states that rape is wrong. With a generalized self-interest in mind, you must consider not only the effects an action has directly on yourself, but also the effects it has on others, since those effects will eventually effect you yourself.

Now on to other sources of authority and ideals. "The common good" is a common one. "Maximized happiness" is one. "The Circle of Life" is common among tree-huggers and other smelly hippies. A simple "that which makes the world progress" another.

All of these are authorities of the exact same level as your god. And just like your god does, we feel like it's okay to "force" these authorities upon the rest of society, regardless of majority opinion of it. "The common good" becomes no less potent even if just a minority believes in it, just like your god's message and authority does not diminish when only a minority in society believes in him. We who do not believe in a divine authority will always have at least one like these that we base our outlook upon. And of course - just like a religious man can convert from one religion to another, so will atheists pick or discard these moral authorities. Your claim that atheists cannot have moral absolutes because we do not have any authorities to pin them on is therefore clearly false: we do have authorities of the same magnitude as the christian god, and we are fully capable of having moral absolutes.

If you find all of this hard to understand and/or strange, try thinking of it as an "atheist religion", that might help your understanding.

Edit:

The belt buckle in Brenus' picture says "Gott Mit Uns", german for "God is with us". The christian god, that is. That Nazi soldiers had Gott Mit Uns written on their belt buckles is honestly common knowledge among anyone with at least some knowledge of Nazi Germany. Which makes me wonder just how much you honestly understand and know about the various quotes you have given in this thread....

In math terms, this is like failing simple fractions while giving a lecture on integration.


I will reply to the highlighted parts i see as most important. just to let you now i usually agree almost 100% with what your saying, I feel your just missing what I am saying slightly.

I may act that way as it is truth, you still by your post are slightly off, please think deeper and feel free to pm me whenever. When something is aboslutley true, as the case i make here [not of my own thinking] , than it is the person trying to disprove etc that disagrees with it, is just misunderstanding the argument. That will hold true here 100% of the time. Anyone who feels they think the argument false is not understanding 100%, or they are being inconstant with conclusion.


That may be true what you say, that atheist can ignore what there beliefs demand. But what I will say is, a atheist who is constant with his beliefs /atheism/evolution, as darwin and hitler pointed out, are inconstant with evolution, atheism to try and have absolute morals. Or they are a weakling as hitler said, a coward.


I will say one last time I never said atheist are constant with atheism, in fact[B] my argument is they are not constant with atheism, if they are to tell another person, that rape killing etc are wrong.


Rape second philosophy - I dont disagree at all, I will say again, atheist can and will come up with morals in a purely atheistic society. Using that as a standard,does indeed demand rape as bad. It is a shame i am leaving i hope you pm me, as you are getting so close.. Dont disagree at all, however, my point is this. What makes me going outside of your society, say diffident time/place Nazi Germany, were I decide, raping is good, and killing others in ovens if good as well. What if the German society, decided it was better for blond hair blue eyed people to kill all others, not to mix with them reproduction and kill them off, to create a more fair equal society?. How can you, on what authority do you claim your way is better? If I live in your society and feel rape is good, how do you tell me it is bad? saying that I might get raped? but that does not make the raping I do a moral bad. Also you only believe rape is "bad" because you might not like getting raped yourself. But if someone else does not see raping others as bad as you do. than what makes you correct? you are basing your decision on your own personal feelings, that are just chemical reactions in your brain that make you feel rape is bad. Were another randomly evolved person may feel rape is a good thing. What makes your chemicals right and there opinion wrong? Other than you feel its wrong or you yourself would not want to be raped.


I dont disagree with your statement, atheist can have absolute morals based on what they believe. I said from beginning, they are inconstant with there beliefs to have morals, and it has no authority at all. It does not make seance what there own belief system demands.



I disagree fully, do i speak german no, I can count to ten. That does not make me have less knowledge of hitler/german army. I have read many books, never seen that before. i doubt many have. I have rad lots on there uniforms/weapons etc. But it really does not matter as to what hitler said in the quotes I presented, regardless of my knowledge or lack there of of german uniforms.

[Kadagar_AV]

If you want to evolve, TR, I would recommend you to spend more time reading and thinking about what others write, and less time using internet forums as your personal megaphone for your rather extreme Christian beliefs.

If for no other reason, that you then would be taken seriously. Because as it is now, your very debate technique makes it sincerely hard to.

[total relism]

are you asking for the Evolutionary reason or the Moral reason? I know you have trouble with this but they aren't the same thing

Evolution requires genes to be passed on to the next generation - if you are sacrificing the next generation you are stunting evolutionary growth which is a very sub optimal strategy - comparing two societies - one sacrificing some of their young and another not the society which doesn't sacrifice its young will have a larger gene pool and thus will be in a stronger evolutionary position

The only time this wouldn't be true would be in cases of SEVERE overpopulation - and even then it would be more optimal to sacrifice the OLD first

I did not ask what would be better for evolution, I said what I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?.

You could give no reason, also so child sacrifice could be ok than in certain circumstances, such as if there was not enough food/mates/overpopulation. I agree, in evolutionary terms, than the act of child sacrifice is not morally wrong, it just happens to help evolution to not do it so much. So for you to tell another group of people not to sacrifice babies because it is a moral "wrong" is inconstant. You can say they need to pass on there genes more, but they may not care and go for the survival of the first, killing off weaker/younger offspring so they dont have to complete for food/mates. You also cannot show them to be morally "wrong".


Having conditions are we? Well, never mind then. It has already been explained to you why you will find it hard debating spread of Islam on these boards.

Also, I did do say what huh? Sure you got the right person there?

I think I have the wrong person, you are not the one that said spread of Islam is ok?. or we should not fear it?. I have never turned down a debate, I would love to 1v1, however I do need some time. I ahve many thread going [too many] on 4 forums and need to cut down a bit. So i would not be able to start for awhile.Not sure how long at the moment.





Ok lets try this again

Morals are born out of a social contract with the other members of your community - this is also how we determine who is "moral" or "immoral" since the "moral" will obey the contract while the "immoral" will not - any one individual is only a "cog in the machine" and their individual thoughts cannot alter the moral code of the community without backing from other "cogs"

One individual who believes Murder is fine will not effect the moral views of the entire community unless he can persuade many others to his thinking - he will be considered immoral by the society as a whole and will be ostracised (like we do with Racist groups or criminals)



Ok lets break out evolutionary theory again - why is locking the women in basements sub optimal?

Evolution is about furthering your genes - this requires children and more importantly healthy children - with 50% of the society (the women) chained in the basement only the men are left to care for the young, produce the food required to raise them and educate them - this doesn't leave much room for error - the society which doesn't chain its women in a basement has 50% MORE human resources with which to raise the children which is clearly the optimal strategy

and that isn't even bringing in the fact that the women would be extremely vulnerable to all sorts of health issues which would make child bearing difficult

there is a reason the family unit pre-dates known history - it is by far the most optimal way of passing on your genes and producing a strong and healthy ospring



thank you jesus, you just proved my OP, majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals. As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk].

So as I said you have no right to tell hitler he was wrong

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.


OK so it may be better for evolution, but as I said its not a moral wrong.There is nothing wrong with caging woman up,besides you think not enough reproduction will happen. I think I would knock up say 15 at a time if I had enough, that is mass producing. Also this was not a system for a society, but one person as individual.

[total relism]

Both Horetore and Sir Moody has done some well written notes, so I will simply add on it. In the end, the laws are based on that I can take several friends, based on authority (that comes from an agreement between the people and the law makers) and kick that woman caging guy's ass.
Horetore is talking about different philosophies (what I refered to framework), that gives a better reason beyond "I felt for it" and can decide what laws to keep and which to change, to be compitable with that framework. Convince enough people and the law will change.

A thought experiment. Somewhere in the future, man has discovered how to put people permanently and irrevesibly into a transcendal state (to borrow a science fiction term). This state is said (and the evidence agree on that) to be amazing and is also said to be coming one step closer to God (among the religious that's done this). Should this state be enforced upon everybody? I want your person opinion on this, based on your absolute morals.
Now for the rest of us, it will depend on what philosophical guideline you follow (and your gut feeling, but they have tendency to align), if you find this something that should be done (for the better of all) or not (self determination), so it would be a controversial subject.
If it's instead feeling like permanent torture, about everyone will agree that it's bad.

Edit: Another one. You are aware of an active genocide during a war and every reason to believe that your public words will slow it down and make both the genocide and war stop earlier, but it will cause retaliation on yourself and those below you (those are fewer than the ones who you would save though). Do you chose to speak up, or do you keep quiet? Which one is morally correct?

Also, in general human sacrifices has been done because lives are considered valuable. It's been an attempt to trade with the gods, for say weather that's not destroying the harvest. The bigger gift, the more you get in return. Doesn't work, but haven't stopped people from trying.




I took homosexuality as an example, I've moved on to general terms several posts ago. Using many translations is a very good thing, but it does show the problem of claiming that the Bible is morally absolute. If two translations differ, which one is correct? The one fitting the third perhaps? Or maybe the third was wrong as well.
About the Destroyer. Who isn't actually mentioned in one older Swedish translation (the 1917 one, used until 2000), where it sounds like the first borns simply died, rather that some entity came and collect them all. The Lord got several angels (that's mentioned in the Bible) and somehow it was decided that Uriel (who is mentioned in other Jewish holy texts) was probably the one doing the deed, through thological studies.




Maybe, but it's not good, nor just behavior done there. He could've easily killed the first Jew starting Bhaal-worshipping instead of going after the whole people (killing 24.000) after a while.




It was used for a justification for slavery of blacks. And an odd time for a simple prophecy (if the event changed history for the prophecy to be true, then it's still a punshment). It's ironic that God wiped out everyone except 4 men (and their wives), and 25% of those men are showing dubvious morals though.
About God creating man several times, the first neanderthal skull identified as such (as in not being the modern man) was discovered in 1829, several decades before the theory of evolution, so it probably caused a lot of speculations. I'm not sure of exact dates for the theory.




Horetore covered that with philosophical guidelines. I'm also free to claim whatever I want. I people agrees enough on those claims so I can hinder you from doing what you want, then it sucks to be you.
To put it differently, if the lack of absolute morals doesn't affect anything, does it matter? Remind you, this is a different question than that you have a book giving you the answer to absolute morals.



"I define the rules. And if you do the same as me it's evil, while if I'm doing it, it's good you're simply not understanding the good of it." Day dreams of a brutal dictator.




Yes, but the framing from the Byzantines and the Spanish (as in the ones acually fighting Muslims) weren't that it's holy war for Christianity against Islam. Take El Cid (in Spain) for example, a legendary Christian. Worked under Muslim rulers for years. Valencia was allowing both religions freely. The crusades themselves were framed like this yes, but for the Byzantines that meant fighting against Christians instead of Muslims after the first crusade, for example.



I'm not sure for long term, but short term it was an improvement yes. Pilgrims getting attacked was one big reason yes, but that's more with rulers not providing security, rather than a religious war.


The thirty years war. 1618-1648. Simplified: The ultimate showdown between Protestants and Catholics. Most brutal war for 250 years.

The conquest of the new world by Spain and Portugal should count in part as well (complex counting needed though). Cristopher Columbus sailed with a nice cross on the boat "Saint Mary" (Santa Maria), finding Holy Savior (San Salvador), Trinity (Trinidad), founding La Navidad (Roughly "the birth of Christ"). No religious intent there is it?

agreed, i posted the wrong thing dammit.


That's very selective counting. Take the Inqusition for example. The number of killed might be correct, but it doesn't mention that the Inqusition was overwatching the forced conversion and deportations of all Muslims and Jews in Spain (and killing off Spain as a cultural center in the process). That was hundreds of thousands. They mellowed out from the worst parts with time, but that's how it started.

Losses for the 30-years war is 8 millions, for example. And lots of wars had religious overtunes.




If you ask those kids to destroy their favorite toy, will they be distressed and sad? Is it good to force those feelings on someone simply because they trust you enough to do it? That's a whimper compared to sacrificing your own child. If Abraham knew that he wouldn't need to, then it's goofing around.
There's a big difference between being devoted enough to be willing to die for your country, compared to that the country demands this from you, to show your devotion.


sorry in a hurry cant muti quote


Proving what I said all along,majority opinion is the only thing/best that atheist can claim as being true. So because at a certain place/ time random matter [our brains] decided it was not ok to rape kill, therefore that means it is really wrong? It is based only on random chemical reactions, of random matter, in some people at a certain time/places brain. So even if we are to accept this, than hitler/nazi germany were morally correct in what they did, as the majority of them agreed [law etc.] They really beat up that jew guy.



No



The rest is interesting but off topic and these are my last post, please pm me I will gladly continue this discussion.





second quote
I think you misunderstand what the translations differ on, perhaps you could give me one example of were something differs on morality in bible. I am aware of none.Morals dont come from any one translation, but are only possible even if no bible was written

Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.


Third quote
I thought you were referring to how sinful the jews were,noah etc I agree, I said all there sins are recorded, we are not so lucky, or we would not look so good.



fourth quote
well wrongfully so as I said, slavery is outlawed in bible, says so many times. anyone can misuse anything.

14Then Jehovah said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them: they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their own heart.
Jeremiah 14.14

Yes even noah was sinner, as we all are. God saves because he loves us in spite of our sin.

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
romans 3.23

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
roamans 5.8


Neanderthals
Last week’s big news about Neanderthals prompted an interesting response from Neanderthal expert Clive Finlayson, who noted that “we have, for far too long, considered the Neanderthals to have been so different from us” and that the idea that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans “must surely now be removed from text books

scientific American july 2010 our inner Neanderthal humans and neanderthals interbreed showing both were human.
also
http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours

neanderthals used makeup jewelery
answers mag vol 5 no3 2010

they buried there dead and put flowers around the dead.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/neanderthal.asp

armored neanderthal
in the February issue of the Bulletin International of the Academy of Sciences of Cracow, Mr K. Stolyhwo described the discovery of a human skull with classic Neanderthal features. The entire skeleton was in a tomb which also contained iron arrowheads and a suit of chain-mail armour.
Nature, 77:587 (1908)—as referenced in the Sourcebook series by William Corliss.

They played music
Neanderthal flute?
the Sydney Morning Herald, February 21, 1996 (p. 9).


European burial sites clearly show that Neandertals and modern-looking humans intermarried. They both had elaborate burials―in a few cases, they were buried together―and modern human remains with Neandertal characteristics have been found.1
Walker, M. et. al. 2008. Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo, Murcia, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 12, 2008.
Duarte, C. et al. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7604-7609.


Neanderthal tolls
“We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte.”
“Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434


Because the jawbone appears to contain a mixture of features (called a "morphological mosaic" by the authors), it looks as though Neandertals intermarried with anatomically modern people.
Liu, W. et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print October 25, 2010.

But "a new study shows they cooked and ate veggies." An examination of fossilized Neandertal remains from Belgium and Iraq revealed that their teeth contained starch granules from grain. Amanda Henry, lead author of the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told CNN, "Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors."7
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/neanderthals.diet/index.html?hpt=C2

So, evidence shows that ancient humans performed surgery
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7000810.ece

“[W]e must reclassify Homo neanderthalensis as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-neandertal-brethren

"The genetic difference between Neanderthals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans."
Siberians share DNA with extinct human species
Man's ancestors mated with Neanderthals and other related hominids during human evolution, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8861602/Siberians-share-DNA-with-extinct-human-species.html

"Our findings show that their sinuses were no larger, relative to the skull size, than in Homo sapiens who lived in temperate climates.”
"The view that Neanderthals were knuckle-dragging cave men who scraped a living by hunting large mammals on the frozen wastes of the tundra has been around since they were first discovered because they were known to live at a time when Europe was in the grip of the last Glacial Age.
"As a result a lot of their physical traits have been attributed as adaptations that helped them live in the cold, even when it doesn't make any sense.”
Dr Todd Rae, an evolutionary anthropologist at Roehampton University in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8261609/Neanderthals-were-not-ugly-because-of-the-cold-new-research-finds.html


2 chimps of same species today varry in dna similarity more so than, neaderthals do to humans
anwsers mag p 58 april-june 2012
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/cavemen-different


“yet another indication that they weren't dimwitted brutes as often portrayed,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314152917.htm


“Neanderthals are often portrayed as very backwards or primitive….Now we are beginning to understand that they had some quite advanced technologies and behaviors.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/29/neanderthals.diet/index.html?hpt=C2


A new paper (based on evolutionary reasoning) says that they were.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/uom-grc071411.php



(Abstract of the full paper is here:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.abstract )


Neanderthals were harvesting feathers from birds in order to use them as personal ornaments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19623929


An earlier report described “Stone Age” grinding tools along with hundreds of starch grains in various stages of processing, from a variety of plants
Revedin, A. et al. 2010. Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (44): 18815-18819.


Neanderthals some were fraudulent jaw moved out of scoekt to look more primitive
http://www.amazon.com/Buried-Alive-Startling-Truth-Neanderthal/dp/0890512388



Fith quote
I agree 100% majority onion, and it only sucks to be me, not like I have done wrong, read earlier reply on this post. I agree 100% that just beacue it is inconstant with atheism/evolution does not mean people will not have absolute morals. This is my whole thread, they are inconstant to say certain things are morally wrong.


sixth quote
again, as I said that is the way your precive it. I show atheist this to be wrong on all subjects I have studied in depth, I have not done all, but many.

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
roamns 3 5-6


I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? ?God is love,and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, a region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed, and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalize beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming th perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I cam to thin that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world' evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love (Miroslav Volf as quoted in Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan, 192).




seventh
has nothing to do with what started crusades


eighth quote
disagree, perhaps one day we should debate, is it better living under islam rule or christian, I think we disagree there.


number 9.
were was it? please pm me, who won?lol.


ten
did you just claim hundreds of thousands died in Inquisition? also the 8 mil you claim died in a "christian" war, even assuming true. Is nothing compared to what atheist have done in one century of rule.


11
abraham new god would provide is the whole point, he had faith. You seem to miss that.

[total relism]

Some others had answer, but I still will do.

“I dont see anything christian on the belt buckle, could you please expslain what you are referring to”???? You ask to show the “God with Us” on the Nazi Germany Foot Soldiers buckle. So you see. And 1940’s Germany was Christian so I presume it refers to the Christian version of God.

“but I dont believe in "missing links" mysterious "mother earth creating" life from no life, or a unobserved "big bang" out of thin air etc etc”
The funny thing you and “believers” don’t grasp. You don’t need to believe in it. These are theories, that could be validated or not by daily observations as virus become antibiotic resistant, foxes opening bins and living in herds in town, list is infinite… Me becoming good in shooting on line (I am now on gold in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer…)

“I believe you have you missed point”
Do not worry, I didn’t. I did debate the relativity of Morals as teen-ager in Philosophy Classes, long time ago: As Robert Heinlein said once: “what are the Rights of a Man drowning?” Or Lenin with: “what Freedom for those Who Starve?” Read Emanuel Kant: “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Tough and Hard, but how much delighting. Just the title makes me laugh…

“Pardon my French” I do.

“Most brutal war for 250 years” Don’t forget in your list the French Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other’s with great enthusiasm (8 wars between 1562 – 1598 with the famous St Barthelemy 23-24 of August 1572 )...

“Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries” What Atheist Regimes? You decide against all evidence that Hitler was Atheist. Stalin was probably an atheist (even if if was a Seminarist), but he didn’t kill because he was atheist, but for political purpose, not for Atheistic Purpose. Leopold King of Belgium kill around 20-40 million Africans in the then Belgium Congo, not because he was a Catholic but by pure Greed. If we start to put on Christianity all the murders and killing done by Christians Monarchs and Leaders, you will find your statistic largely in the wrong (including famines in India, Ireland, Vietnam etc)
And in term of Genocide, in South America, Christianity has probably the highest grade in successful killing… And this was done on the name and approval of the Christianity “to convert them by Iron and Fire”.



Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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)
From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.




Your right i dont have to believe in the unseen as evolutionist do, such as what I listed and many others, I would kick your as# at Mass Effect 3 lol.


Bacteria resistance is not evolution but devolution. watch some debates my friend. I will be doing creation/evolution thread here at the org.
good article
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm



as I said missed the point,now ignored.


nothing compared to atheist in one century.


Hitler,stalin,polpot etc hitler all evidence as he even says hated christianity, what evidence do you claim he was was?. read OP.

as hitler/stalin/darwin all say, its there worldview that led them to it. Just as i could say polical/power etc caused any-war 30 year war that has even been.

Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong










If you want to evolve, TR, I would recommend you to spend more time reading and thinking about what others write, and less time using internet forums as your personal megaphone for your rather extreme Christian beliefs.

If for no other reason, that you then would be taken seriously. Because as it is now, your very debate technique makes it sincerely hard to.


I think we need that debate, if you back out, I will remind you over and over.

[Sir Moody]

thank you jesus, you just proved my OP, majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals. As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk].

So as I said you have no right to tell hitler he was wrong

I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.

ACTUALLY it proves your point WRONG

While you may disagree about Hitler being Christian (I still assert he was) - the Nazi's (and the Germans under them) were predominately CHRISTIAN - this shows that your idea of Christian morals being "absolute" is rubbish - all morals of all society are vulnerable to extreme change

Hitler became leader of Germany predominately because Germany was on the Brink of collapse as a society - massive debts had bankrupted them (somewhat ironic considering Greece's current position) and they had rampant unemployment and worse starvation - in times of great crisis like this the Moral code is very vulnerable to vast shifts in Moral attitudes - this is why many unthinkable acts are committed in times of crisis - for example the numerous atrocities committed by both sides in the American civil war (both predominately Christian I am sure you will agree) - once these times pass, and the moral codes have a chance to "Settle", often society can be in utter denial about what they did

100 years ago it was morally correct to withhold voting from women, 100 years before that Slavery was morally acceptable, 100 years before that Burning women at the stake at witches was morally OK

Morals change and it is society that changes them

[Sir Moody]

OK so it may be better for evolution, but as I said its not a moral wrong.There is nothing wrong with caging woman up,besides you think not enough reproduction will happen. I think I would knock up say 15 at a time if I had enough, that is mass producing. Also this was not a system for a society, but one person as individual.


I did not ask what would be better for evolution, I said what I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?.

You could give no reason, also so child sacrifice could be ok than in certain circumstances, such as if there was not enough food/mates/overpopulation. I agree, in evolutionary terms, than the act of child sacrifice is not morally wrong, it just happens to help evolution to not do it so much. So for you to tell another group of people not to sacrifice babies because it is a moral "wrong" is inconstant. You can say they need to pass on there genes more, but they may not care and go for the survival of the first, killing off weaker/younger offspring so they dont have to complete for food/mates. You also cannot show them to be morally "wrong".

Make your mind up - either "Your" Atheists believe that morals are shaped by biology (and thus evolution) or you believe, like us, that Morals are born from Human contact with other Humans in a community set-up - stop moving the goal posts!!!

Evolution does not make Moral choices - it is totally random - while we can use it to determine the optimal "path" it may not actually use that way at all - if Evolution always followed the best path the human body wouldn't be such a mess!

So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different...

[Brenus]

“Devolution”, Sophism, my friend.
That is the “new” tool discovered by “believers”, like the Good Jesuits in the XVI Century. An atheist doesn’t believe, he is not a believer in a nothing like one none – smoker is not a smoker who doesn’t smoke.

“I would kick your as# at Mass Effect 3”: Most probably.

By the way, Hitler have many time thanks Destiny to have spare his life, and in my Kampf (written by him, not by Secret Conversation) told that God gave the task to eradicate the Jews.

“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 only 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 for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in 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.... 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 to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”
I will not do what you do, but I can (did) find more.
So Hitler told, as a Christian that he will kill the Jews.

“he even says hated christianity, what evidence do you claim he was” You’ve got your answer above.

“Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong” Agree, they don't need fairies tales, they have common sense and logic. The “believers” need fear and superstition or they can’t do good…

“he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders”: I afraid he is wrong, utterly and completely, and his studies probably only publish and follow by Religious so-called Universities. The less serious one, I mean. Can you give me one war, one crusade started with the only pretext or reason to expend atheism? Religions, only between monotheisms I can, just in opening a simple grade history book.

[Hepcat]

I've been away from the Org for a long time and it seems the Backroom is now full of religious debates... Odd... ~:confused:
Oh well, I'm game: :sweatdrop:

On Morality:
total relism, you assert that morality is incoherent given atheism. But the Is-Ought problem applies to secular morality AND religious morality! Something apologists never seem to realise.
It's a problem for ANY system of ethics including religious ones.

For example:
Human flourishing is good -> Therefore we ought to increase human flourishing.
God is good/moral/just -> Therefore we ought to follow god.

It's the same jump that must be made for any system of ethics and moral philosophers know this. To say secular morality is incoherent, well isn't religious morality just as incoherent?
Different people may have different moral philosophies but how is that different or more problematic than religious people with different doctrines and interpretations?
Gay marriage, religious people on both sides. Evolution, religious people on both sides. Slavery, religious people on both sides. etc.

Humans have been going through the process of debating and deciding rules and ethics for society since we began living in cities sometimes appealing to a god, sometimes not.


"majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals"

Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?

[spankythehippo]

Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?

This.

[total relism]

cant say if or when I ever post on this thread again, but I was bored.




ACTUALLY it proves your point WRONG

While you may disagree about Hitler being Christian (I still assert he was) - the Nazi's (and the Germans under them) were predominately CHRISTIAN - this shows that your idea of Christian morals being "absolute" is rubbish - all morals of all society are vulnerable to extreme change

Hitler became leader of Germany predominately because Germany was on the Brink of collapse as a society - massive debts had bankrupted them (somewhat ironic considering Greece's current position) and they had rampant unemployment and worse starvation - in times of great crisis like this the Moral code is very vulnerable to vast shifts in Moral attitudes - this is why many unthinkable acts are committed in times of crisis - for example the numerous atrocities committed by both sides in the American civil war (both predominately Christian I am sure you will agree) - once these times pass, and the moral codes have a chance to "Settle", often society can be in utter denial about what they did

100 years ago it was morally correct to withhold voting from women, 100 years before that Slavery was morally acceptable, 100 years before that Burning women at the stake at witches was morally OK

Morals change and it is society that changes them



You disagree with me and hitler.

Please show the majority soldiers under hitler were christian, provide evidence. Than show me how what they did was constant with the bible. It can be shown to be constant with hitler theology of survival of the fittest.

It indeed proves my point as stated earlier, you are misunderstanding the term absolute, as in something is abosulty wrong. For you to say hitler was wrong to do what he did contradicts your own beliefs as your last post showed majority opinion.
I said
"As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them ."

by absolute morals I mean the claim murder rape etc are absoulety wrong no matter what. Not that people will always follow/agree with it.

here is from a william lane craig article

So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.





Make your mind up - either "Your" Atheists believe that morals are shaped by biology (and thus evolution) or you believe, like us, that Morals are born from Human contact with other Humans in a community set-up - stop moving the goal posts!!!

Evolution does not make Moral choices - it is totally random - while we can use it to determine the optimal "path" it may not actually use that way at all - if Evolution always followed the best path the human body wouldn't be such a mess!

So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different...

I am taking two diffident responses and showing neither hit the mark. Neither has anything to do with what I pointed out on OP. I thought that would be clear in my responses sorry.


you said this
"So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different."


society agrees you say, well than as I have said, you cant say what hitler did was wrong as his society decided it was good idea, therefore by your own reasoning, what he did was not wrong as german society agreed it was good.

As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them .


no one ever said atheist would not come up with there own morals, read my first 2 sentences on OP. Showing you still cannot grasp the concept of my OP. As I said, properly understood my argument cannot fail, only if misunderstood.




“Devolution”, Sophism, my friend.
That is the “new” tool discovered by “believers”, like the Good Jesuits in the XVI Century. An atheist doesn’t believe, he is not a believer in a nothing like one none – smoker is not a smoker who doesn’t smoke.

“I would kick your as# at Mass Effect 3”: Most probably.

By the way, Hitler have many time thanks Destiny to have spare his life, and in my Kampf (written by him, not by Secret Conversation) told that God gave the task to eradicate the Jews.

“My feelings as a [U]Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, [U]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 for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in 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.... 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 to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”
I will not do what you do, but I can (did) find more.
So Hitler told, as a Christian that he will kill the Jews.

“he even says hated christianity, what evidence do you claim he was” You’ve got your answer above.

“Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong” Agree, they don't need fairies tales, they have common sense and logic. The “believers” need fear and superstition or they can’t do good…

“he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders”: I afraid he is wrong, utterly and completely, and his studies probably only publish and follow by Religious so-called Universities. The less serious one, I mean. Can you give me one war, one crusade started with the only pretext or reason to expend atheism? Religions, only between monotheisms I can, just in opening a simple grade history book.


I was saying your evidence for evolution is actually the opposite, I would love to show you in a 1v1 debate creation vs evolution, please pm as i wont be reading this thread.


notice your qoute from
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”


mine were from 1940's, so how is this? if you are correct than we have a christian hitler, who also hates chritianity as I showed,allow me to exspalin.


as pointed out here a 1v1 debate i am in [same subject allows comes up]
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=339


please read
Heschel, S., The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton University press, USA, 2008


Hitler needed propaganda to change the germans minds, he used it in every aspect of life, including the church, the government took over the church and forced the "correct theology" jesus was Aryan, a worrier hated jews etc.

some of the changes they made
Jesus the Saviour—a life of Jesus based on excerpts from the synoptic Gospels, expunged of OT prophecy fulfillment, and reorganized to present Jesus as a warrior, not a servant or meek or the Lamb of God.
Jesus the Son of God—a condensed version of the Gospel of John to show the theological significance of Jesus’ actions.
Jesus the Lord—brief excerpts from various Epistles concerning hope, comfort, community of God, etc.
The Emergence of the Christian Community—based on Acts, Paul’s Epistles (without his Jewish biography), his mission to the Gentiles, and his break with the Judaizers of Palestine.
Jewish references were retained only where they were deemed negative to Judaism. Omitted were the genealogies of Jesus linking him to the OT patriarchs. The baby Jesus was brought to the temple to bring him to God, but was merely given a name, not circumcized. In the Sermon on the Mount, there was no blessing for the merciful. The Sabbath became ‘holiday’.
The text associated Jesus with Galilee. Liberal German theologians had taught since the early 1900s that Galilee was supposedly populated by racially Aryan Gentiles in the 8th century BC following the Assyrian conquest of Israel, thereby opposing Jesus’ identity as a Jew (p. 57).
In his own book, Jesus the Galilean, Grundmann advocated that Mary was not a Jew, and Jesus had an illegitimate father: a Roman soldier named Panther (or Panthera) (p. 155). Ironically, this is an ancient libel from Celsus and anti-Christian Jews attacking Jesus’ legitimacy (“ben Panthera/Pandera”). However, the Gospel was clearly presented in Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, especially in John 3:16.
By the end of 1941, 200,000 copies of Die Botschaft Gottes had been sold or distributed to members of the German Christians movement, including soldiers (p. 111). Some pastors and scholars in the Confessing Church wrote pamphlets or spoke against it. After the War, most copies were destroyed, with only two or three still known to exist.
A catechism for the times

In 1941, the Institute was involved in producing Germans with God: a German Catechism.5 “It omitted traditional doctrinal positions regarding miracles, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and so forth, in favor of positioning Jesus as a human being who struggled on behalf of God and died not only as a martyr, but also a ‘victor’ on the cross, despite being a victim of the Jews” (pp. 126–27).


It (not the ‘Nazi Bible’, as has been reported) contained 12 revised Commandments in place of the OT ten:
Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly.
Seek out the peace of God.
Avoid all hypocrisy.
Holy is your health and life.
Holy is your well-being and honor.
Holy is your truth and fidelity.
Honor your father and mother—your children are your aid and your example.
Keep the blood pure and the marriage holy.
Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers.
Be ready to help and forgive.
Honor your Führer and master.
Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice.
The Institute’s perverse attempt to marry Christianity to Nazism was not reciprocated by the Nazis.


Perhaps divine prohibitions of murder, theft, and covetousness were deemed inappropriate for a ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ ideology that was instrumental in the then ongoing pillage of Europe.


notice year of this one quote, after hitler had all the power

4th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)



The idea of common sense/logic make no sense/logic in a atheistic worldview, were we are just randomly evolved chemical reactions of dirt.


If evolution were true than science would not make sense.
Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought,thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science
Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage,They say we are the result of hydrogen gas,than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.
So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident our brain to understand another accident the world?
Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught me a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth.
We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly, how do we know our eyes ears brain memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know, we could be in some matrix world.
Or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]
## Science would be impossible unless our memories was giving accurate info and our senses our eyes ears etc also laws of logic are needed. How does matter produce a organism with memory?
regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions astronomy depends on this almost entirely.
The universe is understandable we assume the universe is logical orderly and it obeys mathematical laws that is how we can make predictions.
Freedom to chose and consider various options free will.
In fact evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them.
The only reason i believe in creation is because the chemicals in my brain make me.

science need us to be able to know our seances are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality?
# evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.



But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature i would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible, so were able to repeatable# lab experiments etc.
That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ear,s are accurately giving us the correct information information to be able to do science in the first place etc
Why should i believe that one accident our brains can properly understand another accident the big bang? how can matter acted on by mutation only for a survival advantage produce laws of logic? this is illogical matter cannot do this matter cannot produce nonmaterial things this is against science and against logic.
If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.



Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion





I've been away from the Org for a long time and it seems the Backroom is now full of religious debates... Odd... ~:confused:
Oh well, I'm game: :sweatdrop:

On Morality:
total relism, you assert that morality is incoherent given atheism. But the Is-Ought problem applies to secular morality AND religious morality! Something apologists never seem to realise.
It's a problem for ANY system of ethics including religious ones.

For example:
Human flourishing is good -> Therefore we ought to increase human flourishing.
God is good/moral/just -> Therefore we ought to follow god.

It's the same jump that must be made for any system of ethics and moral philosophers know this. To say secular morality is incoherent, well isn't religious morality just as incoherent?
Different people may have different moral philosophies but how is that different or more problematic than religious people with different doctrines and interpretations?
Gay marriage, religious people on both sides. Evolution, religious people on both sides. Slavery, religious people on both sides. etc.

Humans have been going through the process of debating and deciding rules and ethics for society since we began living in cities sometimes appealing to a god, sometimes not.



Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?


I think you misunderstand, it is in noway a problem for "religion".


It has nothing to do with what people "feel" or believe is true or what theology they adhere to. Please read.



So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.



than what is evil? or good? it is set up by creator. he decides not us.

[Idaho]

A thread that starts off with Godwin and shows no sign of improvement.

[Brenus]

Yeap: A True Christian can't do bad Things. Hitler did bad Things. Hitler is nor a true Christian.

T.R probably never read 1984.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

[total relism]

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3.23

Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeap: A True Christian can't do bad Things. Hitler did bad Things. Hitler is nor a true Christian.

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

[Brenus]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

[Montmorency]

Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality. :smartass:

[Brenus]

“Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.” In this passage, I don’t “interpret” historical sources. I quote them. Hitler said he was a Christian, so until proven he left or was excommunicated he was. No room for interpretation here.

“All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one”, Indeed. But he was baptised, went in Churches and was never excommunicated. So he was a Christian. A good one? According to you no, but remember that all his anti-Semitic speeches were aim at Christian crowds and were, as we know, not rejected that much.

“I could appropriate the label to myself.” Not a problem, but why do you think Hitler would do the same? Perhaps he was convinced to be a Christian. And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

“you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.” I don’t need to in this example, as I am just quoting Hitler. When Hitler stated “I am now a Catholic (Christian) and will always remain so”, can you show me the room for a “belief” and “semantic reality”?~;)

[total relism]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."


As I sated before, you have a hitler who contradicts himself if he claims on time to be christian and not another time. I can make sense of that back on post 127. You cannot claiming he was christian. No problem that he would early on claim to be publically, that was whole point. The only quote above that would be relevant would be the 41 quote, please provide wider context for this.


In fact I did quick search, it appears that your reference is not even a valid source, not considered genuine.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Miller301204.html


On a atheist site claiming he was catholic, they post this

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

Now assuming its genuine, this makes perfect sense. Read my post 127. See if this "christian" is referring to the bible, or the nazi bible/propaganda they promoted to get people on there side.


Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality. :smartass:


Great point, that killer in norway that shot like 77 kids was a "christian" and said of himself to be one. yet in his writing he clarified he was only culturally christian not a true christian.

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4

[Montmorency]

It is absolutely an interpretation to take the words of a primary source and conclude that they must in and of themselves must be conclusive. And it is bad form to take a source at its word with no further analysis.


And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

Who are you to deny me the right to be a Christian?

If there is a certain definition of "Christian" to which we will choose to adhere in the course of a discussion (though that isn't to say that we have settled upon one here), then "historical facts" must be compared to that definition. Perhaps Hitler Christian considered himself a Christian, sure. But I'm not so sure that most would accept a definition like, "Whoever calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Amen." This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.

Think of the Arians. They considered themselves to be Christians. The Orthodoxy did not consider them as such. Depending on what we do and do not choose to call Christianity or term as falling within it scope, we could today consider them either way. See my point? That's what I mean by semantic reality.


Great point

Oh nooooo...

[Papewaio]

Church is a club for sinners.
Hitler was one of the worst sinners.
Therefore Hitler could join the club.

=][=

Considering in the quote he is rallying against communism and atheism one can readily assume Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler would be in the same category as some as the violent fringe Christians who believe they are so right that they can hurl abuse at soldiers funerals, shoot doctors they disagree with or show gods love to underage boys. Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

So instead of casting stones based on a lack of evidence get your own houses in order.

If the hypothesis was that Hitler was an atheist and ergo all atheist must take responsibility for his actions.

In My Dishonorable Opinion not so humbly belive that the same brush can be used to paint up a black and yellow hazard line on the beam in ones eye.

The hypothesis should be able to be applied that a random official of the Church has done wrong therefore all members of the Church must be responsible.

Since there is a whole weight of evidence that shows priests have buggered young boys, that the church's have covered up and hounded the victims and only under immense public pressure slightly admitted there might be an issue. That this weigh of empirical evidence far out ways the evidence in favour of Hitler being an atheist.

So where is the outrage and the rising up against such crimes in the church? When young people can be raped by people in authority and the blame placed on the victims and systematically covered up. Where is the voice of the moderates of the church against these crimes. I don't see or hear them actively campaigning, they leave it to the victims, the families of the deceased and external parties.

So why can't I say that all Christians are tainted? It seems to be the long shot that is drawn on Hitler and others being atheists used to blame atheists in general. It is also the same thinking used repeatedly to demonise Muslims, the repeated cry of "I don't see the moderates rising against the extremists."

Yet here we have wealthy individuals by world standards, who are part of the majority belief system in their countries, who are educated and upstanding individuals. Yet I don't see a million person march against predatory priests.

Why not use the same standards to tar and feather atheists and Muslims?

Because that would be the act of a moron. Crimes belong must often to an individual. Acts of conspiracy belong to the individuals in the group. What is distasteful is the silent support of the powerful, the craven way we humans will close together to protect 'our own' even when they go against our own internal moral compass or the lettered law of the group. But that is a fault in all human groups.

[Kralizec]

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

[Montmorency]

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

Ah, but you hold a preconceived notion of what that means, what it entails. You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?


Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.


I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

I assume this is intended to be a swipe at me, as I think I'm the only "true" Christian?

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

[Papewaio]

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.


First I align myself with the premise and the requirement for an empirical data set.

I then change the hypothesis from Hitler = Atheist therefore atheists are responsible.

I then apply the hypothesis to Christian figure heads. Come to the conclusion that since the moderates aren't doing anything then they must also be in agreement. The main reason to do this is to put the shoes on the other foot and gain an emphatic foothold. When people have the same level of reasoning applied to their ideas/family/beliefs/faith they quite often quickly and correctly see how absurd it is to apply that reasoning to "them" the faceless others who have different idea/family/beliefs/faith.

So after following the argument down the path of the pariah in the shoes of the Christian what do I state in my concluding paragraph?

Does it look like I am for or against group thunk and group punishment, or maybe I think it should be individual responsibility for individual actions? I am critical of group us vs them and how we divide ourselves and over protect our own. But do I attribute this herd mentality to any one group or to humans in general?

[Montmorency]

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

[Kralizec]

You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?

That would be a rather silly person, right?

A lot of people call themselves christian while they don't believe (often don't know) its basic tenets. Besides, there isn't even consensus on what those basic tenets are. A lot of protestants and catholics don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons to be christians. And some nutty protestants don't even consider catholics to be real christians.


I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

The 2 billion figure refers to nominal christians. As soon as you come up with criteria beyond what the person calls himself you'll never reach that number.

[Brenus]

“This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.” Well, let’s face what we know:
Hitler was Baptised in the Catholic Branch of Christianity. Catholics are Christian aren’t they?
You can renounce your baptism, Hitler never did.
Hitler said in public meeting he was a Catholic several times.
He was never excommunicated.
So he was a Catholic, Christian.

I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity. But the facts point that he was a Christian.

[Montmorency]

You're begging the question again.

But let's go from your definition - 'whoever has been baptized and not excommunicated is Christian'.

In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated. It's a convenient one, I suppose. An excommunicated individual loses all connection to God, and can not reforge one without papal approval. Such an individual could at the pope's lack of grace perish a heathen, to be sorted with the other unconverted heathens. I'm sure this is a notion the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages would have loved to see held dearly.

This is clearly an inadequate definition, but by this - yes, Hitler would have been a Christian.


I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity.

Don't get the wrong idea.

[Sir Moody]

seems this is appropriate right now...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9u5eTXyWg8

sorry about the Russian sub but I couldn't track down a version without it...

[Brenus]

"In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated." Or if you renounce to be a Christian. And if the case of Hitler, there is no evidence he did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

...because Christians set standards they think they can live up to?

No.

Try learning about my religion - even HoreTore and Kadagar know I don't live up to my own ideals.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ITT: Everyone should read a book before talking apparently.

Monty needs to read the bible.
PVC needs to read a book about not being smug.
Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary.
T.R. needs to read some Dr. Seuss books so he can finish 1st grade english class.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ITT: Everyone should read a book before talking apparently.

Monty needs to read the bible.
PVC needs to read a book about not being smug.
Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary.
T.R. needs to read some Dr. Seuss books so he can finish 1st grade english class.

Smug?

I'm bitter and angry.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Smug?

I'm bitter and angry.

Yes, smug in how bitter and angry you are.

[Montmorency]

A lot of people call themselves christian while they don't believe (often don't know) its basic tenets. Besides, there isn't even consensus on what those basic tenets are.

Yes!


Or if you renounce to be a Christian. And if the case of Hitler, there is no evidence he did.

Now it's a bit more expansive - otherwise, none could technically move from Christianity to atheism without producing a contradiction. But it denies that there can be an implicit rejection of Christianity's tenets, whatever they may be. I notice you don't ascribe any tenets, by the way. It's a very broad - still - definition that does what it can to prevent deconstruction. Any believer in any higher power is necessarily a Christian if raised in a Catholic household. Isn't it possible for an individual to be deeply spiritual without being Christian? Without believing in a Christian doctrine set by any existing sect?


...because Christians set standards they think they can live up to?

No.

Try learning about my religion - even HoreTore and Kadagar know I don't live up to my own ideals.

You're holding me to a claim I'd just disavowed and clarified!

[Brenus]

“Isn't it possible for an individual to be deeply spiritual without being Christian? Without believing in a Christian doctrine set by any existing sect?”: I am probably not the best to answer this question. In theory, I would say yes. An individual can decide the follow Christ outside the official Churches. It was done before, so a person decide he is a Christian. The problem is the ones who tried were declared Heresies. But, today, we have different sects in Christianity, disagreeing on the Mary Virginity, Holiness of Icons, and marriage of Priest, women, and have different liturgies. All of them describe themselves as Christian. So, an individual can decide he is a Christian for his own reason. And others religions have as well deeply spiritual individuals so, yes, it is possible...
This basically what I said.

“Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary”: Why? What is the definition I am missing?

[The Stranger]

ITT: Everyone should read a book before talking apparently.

Monty needs to read the bible.
PVC needs to read a book about not being smug.
Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary.
T.R. needs to read some Dr. Seuss books so he can finish 1st grade english class.

cant remember im posting in this thread XD

[Montmorency]

follow Christ outside the official Churches.

Aha - but did Hitler follow Christ? I'd say that he didn't. Hitler didn't even believe himself to be following Christ, certainly not the Biblical Christ. So let's say we take this label "Christian" and apply it to him - an individual who does not "follow Christ", nor any existing Christian doctrine - indeed reviling organized Christianity - but applies his own special brand of spirituality. This is a Christian? Anyone with spiritual belief can be described as a Christian, having had a Christian upbringing? You don't see anything off about this?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aha - but did Hitler follow Christ? I'd say that he didn't. Hitler didn't even believe himself to be following Christ, certainly not the Biblical Christ. So let's say we take this label "Christian" and apply it to him - an individual who does not "follow Christ", nor any existing Christian doctrine - indeed reviling organized Christianity - but applies his own special brand of spirituality. This is a Christian? Anyone with spiritual belief can be described as a Christian, having had a Christian upbringing? You don't see anything off about this?

"Christian" is short for the Latin Christianus FideliS, literally "faithful of (to) Christ" but more idiosyncratically a disciple of Christ.

So Hitler doesn't qualify.

[Beskar]

I think technically Hitler was a Mysticist with self-styled screwing up and influence from Christianity. So Hilter cannot condemn Christianity for being what he is. The only way you can truly judge is to look towards Christian institutions during that time, such as the Catholic and Protestant church and their various circles of influence. If they were condemning the actions of Hitler, then it is not fair to paint tar upon them, however, if they were awfully silence or promoting Hitler's agenda, then you can pour the tar on, cover in feathers and set them mess alight.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think technically Hitler was a Mysticist with self-styled screwing up and influence from Christianity. So Hilter cannot condemn Christianity for being what he is. The only way you can truly judge is to look towards Christian institutions during that time, such as the Catholic and Protestant church and their various circles of influence. If they were condemning the actions of Hitler, then it is not fair to paint tar upon them, however, if they were awfully silence or promoting Hitler's agenda, then you can pour the tar on, cover in feathers and set them mess alight.

According to Einstein and voting patterns the Roman Catholic Church opposed Hitler for as song as it was feasible i.e until opposition got you shot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary”: Why? What is the definition I am missing?


cant remember im posting in this thread XD

Oohhhhhh ****, I conflated this thread with the other total relism thread.

Either way, you both should still read the dictionary because it helps your vocabulary and thus raises your SAT scores on the dumb written portion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary”: Why? What is the definition I am missing?


cant remember im posting in this thread XD

Oohhhhhh ****, I conflated this thread with the other total relism thread.

Either way, you both should still read the dictionary because it helps your vocabulary and thus raises your SAT scores on the dumb written portion.

[The Stranger]

Oohhhhhh ****, I conflated this thread with the other total relism thread.

Either way, you both should still read the dictionary because it helps your vocabulary and thus raises your SAT scores on the dumb written portion.

im not a native english speaker so its hard to translate certain technical terms to another language. you could be helpful and point out where you think im using a wrong definition.

[a completely inoffensive name]

im not a native english speaker so its hard to translate certain technical terms to another language. you could be helpful and point out where you think im using a wrong definition.

Don't worry about it, it was a dumb joke by me. I saw in the other thread you and Brenus talking about semantics and definitions about atheism and belief. So obviously, the joke is that we should just open a dictionary and see what "the answer" is.

My last statement was just silliness from American high school. In order to do well on the SAT (a main test for getting into uni), people tell you all sorts of things in order to prepare for it, including reading the dictionary so you can look super smart in your 20 min essay portion.

[The Stranger]

haha i understood that your first post was a joke, but i thought maybe it had a core of truth.

[Slyspy]

According to Einstein and voting patterns the Roman Catholic Church opposed Hitler for as song as it was feasible i.e until opposition got you shot.

What, you mean right up to the point where their opposition would mean a damn?

[Brenus]

“Anyone with spiritual belief can be described as a Christian, having had a Christian upbringing?” Apparently yes, as France is still describe as a Christian Country even if less than 10% of the population go to churches.

“You don't see anything off about this” I do, but in the case of Adolf Hitler, he claimed in public to be a Christian. Now, what give you the right to deny him the right to be? Perhaps, in secret, he was not. But this is a perhaps. The only thing we know for sure is what he said in public meetings.

“but did Hitler follow Christ?” He never said he didn’t. In speeches in public, he told the crowd he was a Christian, and he followed the Christian Doctrine in blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus… So yes, he did follow a part of the Christian Tradition.

“So Hitler doesn't qualify.” So nobody qualifies.

“According to Einstein and voting patterns the Roman Catholic Church opposed Hitler for as song as it was feasible i.e until opposition got you shot.” So, I am pleased that my Grand-father didn’t stop to resist Nazism when the bullets started to fly. According to you, the Churches did resist Hitler until it was too dangerous… That is heroism or I don’t know what it is…:laugh4:

[Montmorency]

Apparently yes, as France is still describe as a Christian Country even if less than 10% of the population go to churches.

Misleading for a number of reasons.

1. Religious identification is what is quantified by the state for administrative purposes, not "trueness" to doctrine or ideals. In this area, it's all about self-identification. What do the citizens see themselves as?

2. 10% makes Christianity the dominant religion in the country. There isn't even a need to suddenly adopt such a restrictive definition anyway. Why equivocate?

3. Christianity is the religion that has had the most significant influence on French culture, institutions, language, etc. Is France a Western country?


The only thing we know for sure is what he said in public meetings.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944-Conversations/dp/1929631057

And other private comments. Unless "public" includes all words to his closest associates?


He never said he didn’t.

He commended Christ for agitating against the Jews, but thought his values as laid out in the Bible were a corruption of recording and translation. He clearly wasn't into that 'peace & neighborliness' stuff. Look at all his sayings on the eternal struggle for survival, the primacy of self-defense, and so on.

[Sigurd]

“but did Hitler follow Christ?” He never said he didn’t. In speeches in public, he told the crowd he was a Christian, and he followed the Christian Doctrine in blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus… So yes, he did follow a part of the Christian Tradition.

ZOMG... this cant be a Christian doctrine. Anyhow, this is just NOT understanding the purpose of the death of Jesus ACCORDING to Christianity. Remember, they do believe he was a God - and could have prevented this if he chose to. They believe he could have called down fire from the heavens or called a legion of angels that would have leveled the entire empire of Rome to dust. They believe that he chose to die, so that men (humans) might be released from Adam's transgression and could attain resurrection and live forever in glory with God. This is the Christian Doctrine of Christ's death. Why would they blame the Jews for this? They should thank them.

[HoreTore]

Still, "they killed Jesus" has been among the key aspects of christian antisemitism.

As for "who is a christian", I'd say the answer is "whoever defines themselves as such".

[Sigurd]

Still, "they killed Jesus" has been among the key aspects of christian antisemitism.

An oxymoron if there ever was one.


As for "who is a christian", I'd say the answer is "whoever defines themselves as such".

The correct answer would be: Only God knows who is Christian and who is not. :sneaky:

[HoreTore]

The correct answer would be: Only God knows who is Christian and who is not. :sneaky:

Only correct within christianity, not for those on the outside.

[Sigurd]

Only correct within christianity, not for those on the outside.
Why would those outside Christianity want to define themselves as Christians?

[HoreTore]

Why would those outside Christianity want to define themselves as Christians?

No idea, so that wasn't my point ~;)

Defining "christian" your way probably makes sense to a christian. For someone like me who doesn't believe in any gods, it makes no sense. I will have to define a christian as being those who define themselves that way.

[Sigurd]

No idea, so that wasn't my point ~;)

Defining "christian" your way probably makes sense to a christian. For someone like me who doesn't believe in any gods, it makes no sense. I will have to define a christian as being those who define themselves that way.

It makes perfect sense to me, not being a Christian myself. If someone claims to be a Christian, I would have to retort: That is for your God to decide. :sneaky: ... begging the question you say?? whaddayamean?

[Brenus]

“And other private comments.” Yes. People asking questions to former Nazi having a lot to be forgotten and saying what Hitler said (AFTER the war), trying to please the victors… Very reliable witnesses: But wasn’t the Vatican that organise the escape to Argentina and others South American Countries of all the Nazis left without jobs?

“Christianity is the religion that has had the most significant influence on French culture, institutions, language, etc.” As culture is concern, as much as Paganism, Invasions (various), Colonisation and Wars, nothing for the institutions (France doesn’t follow the Rules of St Augustin anymore), and I can’t say that French is linked with Christianity. Latin was first the language of the Romans before to be the language of Christianity, and is the combination of 2 main streams medieval French (langue d’Oc and Langue d’Oi).

[Montmorency]

Yes. People asking questions to former Nazi having a lot to be forgotten and saying what Hitler said (AFTER the war), trying to please the victors… Very reliable witnesses: But wasn’t the Vatican that organise the escape to Argentina and others South American Countries of all the Nazis left without jobs?

Basically, you've got nothing? I see.


As culture is concern, as much as Paganism, Invasions (various), Colonisation and Wars, nothing for the institutions (France doesn’t follow the Rules of St Augustin anymore), and I can’t say that French is linked with Christianity. Latin was first the language of the Romans before to be the language of Christianity, and is the combination of 2 main streams medieval French (langue d’Oc and Langue d’Oi).

Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.

Christian influence. That isn't to say that modern institutions in France have a strong religious character.

Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!

Do we have anything more to quibble on?

[HoreTore]

It makes perfect sense to me, not being a Christian myself. If someone claims to be a Christian, I would have to retort: That is for your God to decide. :sneaky: ... begging the question you say?? whaddayamean?

Now that's being a smart-ass. Well played, good sir! :bow:

[Hax]

Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.

Christian influence. That isn't to say that modern institutions in France have a strong religious character.

Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!


That is not how they curse in France, that's joual right there.

[Kival]

An oxymoron if there ever was one.


So reality is and was an an oxymoron? Was Luther e.g. not a Christian or how do you want to claim, that there was no Christian antisemitism whatsoever?

[Brenus]

“Basically, you've got nothing? I see.” I have what Hitler himself said during meetings. And in My Kampf, which is his platform. If you think it is nothing, well, by glasses and you will see. I don’t have second hand comments (well, I have, but some extreme-right novelist contest the reality of it. So I went back to the original: Hitler himself by himself.:yes:

“Christianity has had the most as well as most immediate cultural influence. Paganism isn't a single religion, and I am not convinced that Celtism is more relevant to modern French culture than Christianity.” Paganism is a form of religion. Celtism is not relevant to the French Culture (well, except in the French Founding Myths, along the Franks and the Romans. In fact it is funny to study how the French School Books succeeded to make one thing of it. Christianity had an impact of French Culture of course, but it is now over-rated. Largely. The Pope can tell what he wants, nobody care. And even long time ago: You do know that some Popes were “invited” to live in Avignon do you? Not even speaking of Napoleon wedding…

“Tabernac, but Latin is not a religion! Calisse!”: Er, can I remind you that you are the one claiming the influence of Christianity on the French Language, so I supposed you were mentioning Latin: my mistake. So what did you wanted to say when you mentioned the link between French and Christianity?
And I think that you wanted to say “tabernacle” (that is a cupboard) and “Calice” (that is the central part of a flower, looking like a cup, reason why it is as well the name for the recipient used in liturgy). This words are used more in Canada (Quebec) as swearing than in France.
If you want to develop on the use of religious words in French cursing, you can add “Vains dieu” (Useless God) or “Vingt Dieux” (Twenty Gods) I never know which one is the right one (same pronunciation). Old ones: Mordieu. (Death of God), Milledieu (Thousand Gods), Palsambleu (by the blood of God).

All right, time to go to bed…

“Do we have anything more to quibble on?” Bring it on…:verycool:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What, you mean right up to the point where their opposition would mean a damn?

You missed the part about Hitler getting elected being important then, and the Roman Catholics trying to stop it.

Here's a question - why didn't the Pope flee to Ireland after the Italians surrendered and Italy was occupied by the Germans?


Only correct within christianity, not for those on the outside.

People outside Christianity can't be allowed to define who or what we are - that allows you to lump us in with anti-Semites, White Supremacists...

Whatever.

That's like me defining who is and isn't a socialist - ultimately it's for the socialist political movement to decide.


So reality is and was an an oxymoron? Was Luther e.g. not a Christian or how do you want to claim, that there was no Christian antisemitism whatsoever?

Jesus was a Jew - and antisemitism is a complex phenomenon, I'll give you a cookie if you can work out why, historically, almost every group has persecuted Jews.

[HoreTore]

People outside Christianity can't be allowed to define who or what we are - that allows you to lump us in with anti-Semites, White Supremacists...

Whatever.

That's like me defining who is and isn't a socialist - ultimately it's for the socialist political movement to decide.

i'd say both ways of defining are important, but they serve different purposes. Since you mentioned socialism(ding ding ding!)......

There are certain things I consider key aspects of socialism. Those who do not conform to those aspects, are not people I consider socialists at all, regardless of their stance on other issues. Gay rights and internationalism, for example. A person who opposes gay rights or who promote nationalism have nothing to do with socialism - the way I see socialism.

Violá - I've just removed the stench of Stalin from my socialist coat.

That, however, makes very little sense to an outsider - as far as the world is concerned, Stalin is a socialist, no matter how much of a chauvinist I (and Lenin) consider him. Even though have less in common with Stalin than I have with the leader of the conservative party, his name will forever be a part of the socialist movement I'm a part of.

I'd say the same goes for you. Even though it makes little sense to call people you have absolutely nothing in common with christian, to an outsider, the KKK is still christian.


Hitler wasn't one though. Nor was he gay, or any of the other thousands of labels people have put on him in their effort to distance him from themselves and lump him with the groups we don't like.

He was a vegitarian, though. Crazy buddhists.

[Kralizec]

(christian antisemitism)An oxymoron if there ever was one.

From a strictly dogmatic perspective maybe. And only a modern one- AFAIK the position of the catholic church was, for a long time, that the jews as a religious (as opposed to ethnic) community were responsible for Jesus' crucifiction. I'm sure you can call upon various arguments as to why that position was ridiculous. Doesn't change the bare fact that christian anti-semitism did exist.


The correct answer would be: Only God knows who is Christian and who is not. :sneaky:

Again: from a dogmatic standpoint. In broad everyday use the word christian refers to someone who considers himself a member of a christian church. I couldn't care less about how much these self-described christians observe the tenets of their faith.

This whole business of defining the term "christian" as the "true scotsman" annoys me. The latest thread about Hitler and atheist morality should give you an idea why. Generally the people who say "a real christian would not do that, it's in the definition of the word" show no reluctance whatsoever to claim that there are 2 billion christians on the planet.

Allthough I must admit I find it remarkable whenever someone calls himself a christian but who choses to cherry-pick the parts of the bible and established dogma which he believes/adheres to, not because of theological thinking but based on convenience or how it fits in with the rest of their worldview. Personally I tend to view the matter as black or white; either the essentials of christian dogma are correct or they're entirely nonsense. If God really exists, why would he allow nonsense about his Word to become so widespread, and why would so many honestly believing adherents fall for this nonsense for centuries?

Believing in only a part of it, for pragmatic reasons, always seemed like a form of hypocricy to me, albeit a harmless one.

[Montmorency]

That, however, makes very little sense to an outsider - as far as the world is concerned, Stalin is a socialist, no matter how much of a chauvinist I (and Lenin) consider him. Even though have less in common with Stalin than I have with the leader of the conservative party, his name will forever be a part of the socialist movement I'm a part of.


This whole business of defining the term "christian" as the "true scotsman" annoys me. The latest thread about Hitler and atheist morality should give you an idea why. Generally the people who say "a real christian would not do that, it's in the definition of the word" show no reluctance whatsoever to claim that there are 2 billion christians on the planet.

It isn't a philosophical quest to find 'the one true X', but a matter of shifting perspectives. Who defines this as what, and why? As for "2 billion Christians n the planet" - of course there are. As I mentioned, governments take census on terms of self-identification, and pretty much that alone. This is the administrative perspective.

Think of the fervent anti-Obamites in the USA, who hold Obama to be a socialist. What makes them 'wrong'? Nothing really, until you consider the label they confer in light of other, more internationally common definitions of socialism, historically common definitions of socialism, and historical individuals and regimes thought to be socialist. But that's just the start of the process - do you at least see the premise?

[Sigurd]

So reality is and was an an oxymoron? Was Luther e.g. not a Christian or how do you want to claim, that there was no Christian antisemitism whatsoever?
I do not claim that there are no Christian anti-semitism. I am just pointing out the oxymoronic notion, that people who do believe in the canon of scripture can have any anti-semitic sentiments. If they believe the Bible - then they should believe that Israel including the tribe of Judah (Jews) are God's chosen people. Why would they be anti-God's people? Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, hence the oxymoron. To be "Christian" and have a general anti-Jew attidude doesn't compute. The Gospel of Christ was only taught to the Jews at first. Peter changed that, not Christ whilst alive.

[total relism]

I do not claim that there are no Christian anti-semitism. I am just pointing out the oxymoronic notion, that people who do believe in the canon of scripture can have any anti-semitic sentiments. If they believe the Bible - then they should believe that Israel including the tribe of Judah (Jews) are God's chosen people. Why would they be anti-God's people? Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, hence the oxymoron. To be "Christian" and have a general anti-Jew attidude doesn't compute. The Gospel of Christ was only taught to the Jews at first. Peter changed that, not Christ whilst alive.


Agreed, christian's really should be called Messianic Judaism, jews that believe Jesus is the messiah. Or gentiles that became messianic Jews.

[Hax]

I do not claim that there are no Christian anti-semitism. I am just pointing out the oxymoronic notion, that people who do believe in the canon of scripture can have any anti-semitic sentiments. If they believe the Bible - then they should believe that Israel including the tribe of Judah (Jews) are God's chosen people. Why would they be anti-God's people? Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, hence the oxymoron. To be "Christian" and have a general anti-Jew attidude doesn't compute. The Gospel of Christ was only taught to the Jews at first. Peter changed that, not Christ whilst alive.

Same goes for Islamic anti-semitism.

Yes, it's the exact same thing.

[HoreTore]

Same goes for Islamic anti-semitism.

Yes, it's the exact same thing.

Yes, as the Jew has infiltrated and talen control of the entire world, the resistance to their satanic perversion is pretty much the same all over the world.











Since we have a new member here, I feel the need to clarify: this was a joke. :beam: although with a core of truth, since the jewish conspiracy myth has spread to pretty much the entire world, and it's largely the same everywhere.

[Sigurd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlBLOJnrui0

[Beskar]

Oatmeal has one (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism) related to this thread.

[Sir Moody]

you know its a good satire when you can only just tell its satire :yes:

[Odin]

People outside Christianity can't be allowed to define who or what we are - that allows you to lump us in with anti-Semites, White Supremacists...



The problem is the rich history of murder, rape torture and complicity in criminal acts that extend now thousands of years. Its very easy to make a difinitive statement "Christians who support the church, a church which has commited several crimes are they themselves criminal" Its right up there with the driver of the get away car getting a jail sentence along with the bank robber. Sorry but being outside of christianity is a wonderful place to assess its cultural impact over its span and its wrought with ugly episodes of violence.

So yeah i think we can define what christians are, filthy stinking criminals who belong in the klink. The paddy wagon should be parked outside of churches all over the world this sunday waiting for you clowns to exit to cuff and stuff you for supporting the criminal enterprise. Pray for me and I'll pray for you. When we get to hell Ill be the one holding the suggestion box.

[rvg]

So yeah i think we can define what christians are, filthy stinking criminals who belong in the klink. The paddy wagon should be parked outside of churches all over the world this sunday waiting for you clowns to exit to cuff and stuff you for supporting the criminal enterprise.

Your so called "definition" begs the question. You have offered nothing to support it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is the rich history of murder, rape torture and complicity in criminal acts that extend now thousands of years. Its very easy to make a difinitive statement "Christians who support the church, a church which has commited several crimes are they themselves criminal" Its right up there with the driver of the get away car getting a jail sentence along with the bank robber. Sorry but being outside of christianity is a wonderful place to assess its cultural impact over its span and its wrought with ugly episodes of violence.

So yeah i think we can define what christians are, filthy stinking criminals who belong in the klink. The paddy wagon should be parked outside of churches all over the world this sunday waiting for you clowns to exit to cuff and stuff you for supporting the criminal enterprise. Pray for me and I'll pray for you. When we get to hell Ill be the one holding the suggestion box.

People do bad things - Christians are people - QED Christians do bad things.

The key thing to take away from that is that people do bad things, not Christians specifically.

Having said that, right now you're the one peddling ignorant hatred of something you have no understanding of - you might like to take a look at what everyone else was doing for the last two thousand years. Indians were throwing the wives of dead men on funeral piers alive, Muslims were enslaving Christians women and children on an industrial scale, the Vikings were making sacrifices to Odin.

You might benefit from reading the City of God Against the Pagans, specifically Augustine's bit in book one about how Christians treat each other in War and how Pagans treat each other.

[Brenus]

“specifically Augustine's bit in book one about how Christians treat each other in War” You mean, how the English King Henry V treated his French Prisoners after the Agincourt? They were both Christian and same Order (in St Augustin’s definition of the 3 orders). Or do you prefer the Great Peasants' Revolt, Germany, on how the very Christian Monarch and Nobility crushed it?:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“specifically Augustine's bit in book one about how Christians treat each other in War” You mean, how the English King Henry V treated his French Prisoners after the Agincourt? They were both Christian and same Order (in St Augustin’s definition of the 3 orders). Or do you prefer the Great Peasants' Revolt, Germany, on how the very Christian Monarch and Nobility crushed it?:laugh4:

Perhaps you would like to discuss the reaction of Europe's Christians to Henry's actions? Or the fact that he did not simply kill all the prisoners which is what a Julius Caesar would have done.

I already covered the fact that Christians can do bad things, I was responding to Odin's claim that we are worse historically than anyone else, we aren't. Far from it.

[Beskar]

I already covered the fact that Christians can do bad things, I was responding to Odin's claim that we are worse historically than anyone else, we aren't. Far from it.

Cannibalism during the Crusades really did hit a low point though.

[total relism]

The problem is the rich history of murder, rape torture and complicity in criminal acts that extend now thousands of years. Its very easy to make a difinitive statement "Christians who support the church, a church which has commited several crimes are they themselves criminal" Its right up there with the driver of the get away car getting a jail sentence along with the bank robber. Sorry but being outside of christianity is a wonderful place to assess its cultural impact over its span and its wrought with ugly episodes of violence.

So yeah i think we can define what christians are, filthy stinking criminals who belong in the klink. The paddy wagon should be parked outside of churches all over the world this sunday waiting for you clowns to exit to cuff and stuff you for supporting the criminal enterprise. Pray for me and I'll pray for you. When we get to hell Ill be the one holding the suggestion box.



Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". But both are sinners. But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs, while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.


15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?#
matt 7 15-16
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.#
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4

[Kadagar_AV]

Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". But both are sinners. But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs, while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.


15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?#
matt 7 15-16
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.#
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4

What's christianitys take on stupidity?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cannibalism during the Crusades really did hit a low point though.

Well, it wasn't policy.

[Brenus]

“Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". : Prove it. You already failed in a previous attempt.:laugh4:

“But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs”: Because their belief is more accurate description.

“ while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.” Hitler was a Christian, so were the rulers of Europe during the slavery trade, the colonisation of all continents, and most of the famines created by their greed.
Why do you insist in claim you can’t back-up with evidences? Er, you have no choice, I know…:rolleyes:

[Idaho]

People do bad things - Christians are people - QED Christians do bad things.

I don't think that is logical. If you said:

All people do bad things - Christians are people.

Then you could say that Christians do bad things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think that is logical. If you said:

All people do bad things - Christians are people.

Then you could say that Christians do bad things.

You are being obtuse, without a qualifier "people" can be taken as "all people".

[Kadagar_AV]

You are being obtuse, without a qualifier "people" can be taken as "all people".

His underlying point remains though.

Or do you want to make a comparative analysis of Buddhist vs Christian crusades?

There are factors held within Christianity that has an ill effect on the world at large. That is why enlightenment and Christianity has so often clashed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

His underlying point remains though.

Or do you want to make a comparative analysis of Buddhist vs Christian crusades?

There are factors held within Christianity that has an ill effect on the world at large. That is why enlightenment and Christianity has so often clashed.

You don't want to compare Buddhist and Christian religious wars - believe me. You definitely don't want to compare Christian religious wars with, say, Communist Purges.

Christianity is not, at root, a violent or militaristic creed - the fact that it has been used to justify military action is a fact of it's context being entirely human.

I stand by my point.

[Hax]

Or do you want to make a comparative analysis of Buddhist vs Christian crusades?

Well... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohei)

[Brenus]

“You definitely don't want to compare Christian religious wars with, say, Communist Purges.” You are right. Christian Religious wars were rougher, merciless and bloodier. Under Communist Purges, you had a chance to escape if you were not opponent, but if you were not praying the same God, or not as you were supposed to do, that was the end, my friend (Apocalypse Now, The Door)…
A quick look at the results of the French one (e.g. St Barthelemy Night, Siege of La Rochelle –Christian VS Christian by the way- the Dragonnades of Louis the XIV and the Abrogation of the Edit de Nantes) will give you clues.


http://youtu.be/_faIFf9mB8o

[total relism]

“Atheist have done far worse in history than "christians". : Prove it. You already failed in a previous attempt.:laugh4:

“But the point is, is when christian do things that are "bad" they do so in-spite of there beliefs”: Because their belief is more accurate description.

“ while atheist have no reason not to, and as hitler/darwin said are not being consistent with evolution if they pretend there are moral right and wrongs.” Hitler was a Christian, so were the rulers of Europe during the slavery trade, the colonisation of all continents, and most of the famines created by their greed.
Why do you insist in claim you can’t back-up with evidences? Er, you have no choice, I know…:rolleyes:



‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).

Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler#(1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.



Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky#(1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.
He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.
He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.
Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's#Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.
Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.




Hitler was not a christian as this thread has pointed out to you many times.


“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003




All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

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.

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.



Hitler had to convice germany of his beliefs he did so throgh propaganda, the leading opnents of his beliefs was the church in germany so he changed the bible and took over the church to fit his beliefs.

Heschel, S., The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton University press, USA, 2008




But what is important is, atheist are not contradicting there beliefs by murdering millions, christian are.

“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

[total relism]

As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:
‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958


And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983



‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982


‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….
Stein, G., Biological science and the roots of Nazism,#American Scientist#76(1):50–58, 1988


Hitler, as an evolutionist,‘consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’.

If war be the progeny of evolution#—#and I am convinced that it is#—#then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life#—#which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad.’#
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946.

‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’
Whitehead, J,#The Stealing of America, Crossway Books, Westchester, IL, p. 15, 1983


‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile”#(Mein Kampf).’


talking of chirtianity hitler says
‘ … organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side#…#it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples …. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’
Hitler, A.,#Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.


Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society.#
Fest, J.C.,#The Face of the Third Reich,#Pantheon, NY, pp. 99–100, 1970.


“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003

“if nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one. Because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile.”
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p263 2003


# Hitler made it clear that he “hated Christianity” and was going to eliminate it when the war ended
#“it had crippled everything noble about humanity” (quoted in Kershaw, 2000, p. 936).
Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.

# Hitler was trying to use science — especially Darwinism — to create a utopia on Earth, and he made it absolutely clear that there would be “no place in this utopia for the Christian Churches” in his plans for the future of Germany.# He realized that this was a long term goal and “was prepared to put off long-term ideological goals in favor of short-term advantage”
p. 238 Kershaw, Ian. 2000.#Hitler. 1936-45: Nemesis.#New York: W.W. Norton.

#For example, when Germany invaded Poland, around 200 executions a day occurred — all without trials — which included especially, the “nobility, clerics, and Jews,” all which were eventually to be exterminated (Kershaw, 2000, p. 243)


Hitler considered Christianity the “invention of the Jew Saul” (Azar, 1990, p. 154)
Azar, Larry. 1990.#Twentieth Century in Crisis.#Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.


“murdered by Hitler’s stormtroopers.# In an attempt to discredit the Church, monks were brought to trial on immorality charges.# In 1935 the Protestant churches were placed under state control.# Protesting ministers and priests were sent to concentration camps.# They had become ‘supervisives’ on a par with the Jews and communists.# Pope Pius XI, realizing the anti-Christian nature of Nazism, charged Hitler with ‘the threatening storm clouds of destructive religious wars ... which have no other aim than ... that of extermination.’# But the Nazi shouts of ‘Kill the Jews’ drowned out the warning voice of the Pope and the agonized cries of the tortured in the concentration camps” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).


“Hitler spoke of both Protestants and Catholics with contempt, convinced that all Christians would betray their God when they were forced to choose between the swastika and the Cross: ‘Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again?# Nonsense!# Never again.# That tale is finished.# No one will listen to it again.# But we can hasten matters.# The parsons will dig their own graves.# They will betray their God to us.# They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes’” (1995, p. 104).
Lutzer, Erwin W. 1995.#Hitler’s Cross: The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ was Used as a Symbol of the Nazi Agenda.#Chicago, IL: Moody Press.


physicist Albert Einstein
“lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.# Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.# I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.# I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly” (cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in#Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche#— Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p. 526. and Cochrane).


Altogether Hitler’s killing machine murdered 5 million Jews, and 7 million Christians — a little published fact that caused Jewish historian Max Dimont to declare that “the world blinded itself to the murder of Christians” by Nazi Germany (Dimont, 1994, pp. 391-392).# In Poland alone 881 Catholic priests were annihilated (Azar, 1990, p. 154).# In time many more priests would end up in concentration camps.


Dachau concentration camp held the largest number of Catholic priests — over 2,400 — in the Nazi camp system.# They came from about 24 nations, and included parish priests and prelates, monks and friars, teachers and missionaries.# Over one third of the priests in Dachau alone were killed (Lenz, 2004).# One Dachau survivor, Fr. Johannes Lenz, wrote an account of the Catholic holocaust.# He claimed that the Catholic Church was the only steadfast fighter against the Nazis.# Lenz tells the agony and martyrdom of the physical and mental tortures Dachau inmates experienced.# Men and women were murdered by the thousands in Dachau, and those who survived were considered “missionaries in Hell.”# The fact is, official Nazi works taught both anti-Semitic and anti-Christian doctrines:

“If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose.# Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).

More documents that prove Nazi’s planned to “eliminate Christianity and convert its followers to an Aryan philosophy” are now on the online version of#Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion#(Hotchkin, 2003, p. 3).# The church did much to fight Nazism, but not nearly enough.# Nonetheless, there is no way that they can they be held as the#cause#of Nazism.



‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946

[Sir Moody]

would people stop saying Hitler was Christian (even if you believe it) - all it does is prompt TR to pull out the stupid copy paste reams he has used so many times in this thread...

stick to Hitler was a "Believer" and not atheist- that way we may survive the copy pasta attacks...

on a serious note


I don't think that is logical. If you said:

All people do bad things - Christians are people.

Then you could say that Christians do bad things.

Better would be:

Some People do Bad things > Christians are People > therefore Some Christians do bad things

[Brenus]

“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.

TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).

Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.:book2:

Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.

The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).

Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.:yes:

Try again. I mean, copy and paste.:yes:

[Kralizec]

If Darwin was in favour of eugenics, then that would be pretty ironic, considering that the guy married his own cousin.

I understand that there are some pointers that Darwin and/or his cousin (the male one which he didn’t marry) were in favour of eugenics – not just in this thread, mind you. I don’t know how credible these claims are, and I don’t really care. His theoretical groundwork for evolution is still just as sound, if he endorsed eugenics than that’s his private opinion, and the guy is not some idol or role model for anyone.

The guy who invented insulin was a rabid anti-semite. That doesn’t mean that diabetes doesn’t exist, or that you’re endorsing Hitler if you use insulin shots.

[Sir Moody]

“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.

TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).

Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.:book2:

Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.

The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).

Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.:yes:

Try again. I mean, copy and paste.:yes:

just in case you missed it (you quoted me) - I was being sarcastic about TR's copy Pasta which he brings out like a reflex whenever we point out Hitlers beliefs... hence why this thread was started

I don't actually want people to stop saying it - the sooner he comes to terms with the entire thing the better

[total relism]

“would people stop saying Hitler was Christian” Well, it is funny how he is a believer in repetition makes truth.

TR, check who was Aloysius Stepinac, new Croatian Saint of the Roman Catholic Church…
Kershaw, is he the “historian” trying to exempt Hitler of the decision of the “Final Solution”? Yes, very reliable, as much as D. Irving (holocaust Denier).

Do you understand (but I am sure you don’t) that in evolution there no superior or inferior races. In Religion(s), where the Christian Hitler picked his idea, yes, not in evolution. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic Christian, why did he pick the Jews and the Slavs as inferior? Answers: Because the first killed the Christ (according to the Christian Tradition), and the second went in Heresy. See.
And an “evolutionist” knows that there is one actual human race. Perhaps you don’t know as the Bible agrees with slavery, rapes and slaughters of others populations, but there is ONLY one Human Race. Other races are Equine, Porcine, Birds, etc. Just buy a book of biology. I don’t blame the ignorant writers of the Bible for this, as they didn’t have the knowledge to know this, but Darwin had.:book2:

Religions call for killing on their names. News for you: There no Atheist equivalent of Bible. I can imagine how stupide it would be for an individual to call to kill for nothing: “Kill the believers in the name of err… Nobody” is not really strong. Now, kill for Christ was quite used: From “Kill them all, God will know his own” Arnaud Amaury, Pope’s Legate, 1209, to the “God with us” on the Nazi Germany soldiers’ belt, that sounds much better and motivating.

The victims’ figures of the Atheist regimes: There is no example of Atheist Regime. There are examples of Theocracies. You might have regime lead by atheists. But if you add all the victims during wars to rulers who were Christians, I think you will find the Religions take the lead in numbers of murders and killing, and the Christians one probably competing for the first place (see conversion of the Saxons by Charlemagne).

Eugenic was based more on Comte Arthur Gobineau essay on the “Inequality of Human Races” or other scientists as Francis Galton (1883).
Nothing in Darwin tells about “inequality” in Races, as it is not the subject of the studies. Linking Darwin and his Cousin and then to Hitler is an intellectual fraud, only good for those who have a lot to be forgiven.:yes:

Try again. I mean, copy and paste.:yes:



so you find one of many sources unsaleable and that makes them all false? who should we listen to than on hitler? many scholars that agree? or who? The question asked was is hitler christian, the clear answer is no. Hitler/nazi thought was anti christian.


The rest is trying to bring off topic from the clear fact hitler hated christian and was anti christian, the topic of this thread.


You claim there is no Superior races etc in evolution, did you not read what darwins title was of origin of species.?

OnThe Origin of Speciesby Means of Natural Selection,orThe Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


darwin/hitler were both racist, evolution is all about change and surivial of the fittest, blacks are not the same as whites we evolved diferntley. Just as diffident animals change and have diffident species etc so do people. It is all a struggle for life pass on genes and survival.


That is were hitler got his ideas from

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946


As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of#Mein Kampf#that Darwinism was theonly#basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work#—#in English#My Struggle#—#alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:
‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching#—#probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas#—#quite undisguised#—#lie at the basis of all that is worst in#Mein Kampf#-and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’
Clark, Robert,#Darwin: Before and After,#Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958

And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘#… was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book,#Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
Hickman, R.,#Biocreation,#Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983




‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.
Wilder-Smith,#B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982


In fact the reason many evolutionary nazis like hitler and Ernst hankel hated christian was because they were not racist.

A major reason why Haeckel concluded this was because Christianity:
‘ … makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946

As Humber notes, Hitler believed that Blacks were ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’ and therefore he disapproved of German Christians:
‘ … going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy … human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.
Humber, P., The Ascent of Racism, Impact,#February, p. 2, 1987.




You claim hitler hated jews because they killed christ this was already responded to on thread to witch you could not respond, post 127. Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said but one quote you can provide in context and can easily be easplanied [post 127] and ignore his deeds actions worldview etc. A few quotes up it says because jews were under evolved.

You than claim the bible agree with slavery rape etc this is topic I would love to discuss, but not on this thread. The bible is so very much against these both.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=531534


we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc.



Christianity calls to kill for in there names? interesting, not sure you would like to debate this 1v1, nor does this have to do with Hitler. Not to mention you have no right to call murder wrong look here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity/page5



hitler killed because of his worldview/belie in evolution not atheism.



in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many.


eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point.


‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978

[Brenus]

“On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Where is the superiority of races in the title? Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life means The Lucky Ones that can adapt to Changing Conditions. Please, do some text analyse before claiming absurdities.:wall:
“evolution is all about change and survival of the fittest” Nope, Evolution is the survival of the ones that can adapt, nothing to do with the fittest. Neanderthal was probably the fitter (stronger) of the 2 human races (the other one being Cro-Magnon), but he vanished when we survived as we were more adaptable…:sweatdrop: But you probably deny the existence of Neanderthal, as it is not in the Bible, I suppose.

All the links between evolution and Nazism you propose are not from Hitler himself, but other authors’ opinions on Hitler. So, I will question their motives. And until now, each time, you propose authors very close to the Extreme Right Ideology. This only begs the question about Christianity and Extreme Right.
Humber just lies in his book.
For the web: “English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation.".
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Keith: Interesting biography in the site called white nationalism and it goes on for all your references.
None of your sources is a credible one as they all have an agenda and interest in disentangling Christianity from Nazism.

Just for your information and fun, the other evil atheist butcher, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution as it was a Bourgeois’ Theory… The real truth starts to show: you don’t believe in Evolution, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution, you are Christian, so Stalin was a Christian… This fact really nails it, as Stalin was a student in Religion in his youth.:laugh4:

darwin/hitler were both racist: Christianity/Hitler were both racist: Fixed for you

“we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc” Nope. Races concept is a Biological description. You mix up (like racist –and I am not telling you are one) a Biological reality the racists extended to politic. The treatment of non-white populations is due to the “politisation” of a Biological observation where politicians twisted biology to support their goals. They spent a lot of resources in trying to prove their theories and had, as we know, some success.

“in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many” It is so true that you can’t come up with facts. But apparently, you are not bothered too much by facts.

“Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said” I don’t. You do, when Hitler said “as a Christian”, YOU pretend it was to fool people. I say that when Hitler said he was a Christian, he was genuine, and when Hitler said because of this, he will kill the Jews, he was genuine. When Hitler wrote in My Kampf that the White Race was the creation of God and had to rules the sub-races, I say he meant it.

I am not interested in what other people said that Hitler said; I am not interested in what other people extrapolating from where he took his idea of “Superior” races, I just acknowledge what he said: Form his Christian background and education. And you can bring as much as you want of so-called proofs (indirect ones, Hitler told me, in secret,) as you want, the facts stay stubbornly that in My Kampf and in his public speeches Hitler qualified himself as a Christian. So he was.
Concerning the link with Darwin and Nazism, you emphasize that the one (one of) developing the concept of Eugenic is his cousin. So the fact that you have a stupid or crazy cousin makes your study suspect as well? You have a strange system of analyse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Darwin was actually a well known racist and white supremacist - it's just that nobody found that particularly noteworthy at the time.

His work was also as much a Scientific flop as a public success, people like to forget that he had no idea what the mechanism of heritability was, and his wild guesses were miles off. Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out.

[Sir Moody]

The monk in question was Gregor Johann Mendel - also I find the statement "Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out." a little odd - not many scientific discoveries of the time were made by "bored" catholic monks so shouldn't it be "surprisingly"

slightly amusing note - Mendel actually reported his discoveries 3 years before Darwin settled on the wrong idea of pangenesis :yes:

[total relism]

“On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Where is the superiority of races in the title? Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life means The Lucky Ones that can adapt to Changing Conditions. Please, do some text analyse before claiming absurdities.:wall:
“evolution is all about change and survival of the fittest” Nope, Evolution is the survival of the ones that can adapt, nothing to do with the fittest. Neanderthal was probably the fitter (stronger) of the 2 human races (the other one being Cro-Magnon), but he vanished when we survived as we were more adaptable…:sweatdrop: But you probably deny the existence of Neanderthal, as it is not in the Bible, I suppose.

All the links between evolution and Nazism you propose are not from Hitler himself, but other authors’ opinions on Hitler. So, I will question their motives. And until now, each time, you propose authors very close to the Extreme Right Ideology. This only begs the question about Christianity and Extreme Right.
Humber just lies in his book.
For the web: “English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation.".
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Keith: Interesting biography in the site called white nationalism and it goes on for all your references.
None of your sources is a credible one as they all have an agenda and interest in disentangling Christianity from Nazism.

Just for your information and fun, the other evil atheist butcher, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution as it was a Bourgeois’ Theory… The real truth starts to show: you don’t believe in Evolution, Stalin didn’t believe in Evolution, you are Christian, so Stalin was a Christian… This fact really nails it, as Stalin was a student in Religion in his youth.:laugh4:

darwin/hitler were both racist: Christianity/Hitler were both racist: Fixed for you

“we define what a race is,that changes with time and who you ask, read textbooks from Germany in 1940's and america see how they threat blacks etc” Nope. Races concept is a Biological description. You mix up (like racist –and I am not telling you are one) a Biological reality the racists extended to politic. The treatment of non-white populations is due to the “politisation” of a Biological observation where politicians twisted biology to support their goals. They spent a lot of resources in trying to prove their theories and had, as we know, some success.

“in fact that is untrue, atheist have killed 100 times as many” It is so true that you can’t come up with facts. But apparently, you are not bothered too much by facts.

“Not to mention you would have to ignore everything he has said” I don’t. You do, when Hitler said “as a Christian”, YOU pretend it was to fool people. I say that when Hitler said he was a Christian, he was genuine, and when Hitler said because of this, he will kill the Jews, he was genuine. When Hitler wrote in My Kampf that the White Race was the creation of God and had to rules the sub-races, I say he meant it.

I am not interested in what other people said that Hitler said; I am not interested in what other people extrapolating from where he took his idea of “Superior” races, I just acknowledge what he said: Form his Christian background and education. And you can bring as much as you want of so-called proofs (indirect ones, Hitler told me, in secret,) as you want, the facts stay stubbornly that in My Kampf and in his public speeches Hitler qualified himself as a Christian. So he was.
Concerning the link with Darwin and Nazism, you emphasize that the one (one of) developing the concept of Eugenic is his cousin. So the fact that you have a stupid or crazy cousin makes your study suspect as well? You have a strange system of analyse.




Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
you are rejecting clear teachings/thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution was and how he viewed races, darwin as well. Your not lucky to adapt and survive,your more advanced/evolved as nazi germany taught about evolution in there textbooks,jews less evolved.



The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol. Also all one needs to do is read what hitler/darwin and germany thought in 1940's to tell they would very much disagree with you. Fittest does not mean strongest. Why would I deny Neanderthal? they fit the creation model fine, I tried to debate you 1v1 on evolution or Neanderthal you would on neither.



hitler/evolution
False,go back and read many are direct from hitler,just the source is from a scholar quoiting him so its there book. Its not like this is groundbreaking stuff [maybe to you] Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody? That is a completely baseless claim you cannot support. It is also a logical fallcie to attack source instead of material.



Your one hitler quote

wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm

Notice it does not refrence any page number for the claim it makes about Aryan race etc lol.

That is because your source is trying to hide it. Here are just 3 exsamples

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)


Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)


But lets assume your correct, what does that have to do with anything said? I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times in Mein Kampf. I never said he had to or did so. I said hitlers evolutionary beliefs led to his racism and view of less evolved races such as blacks/jews to want to ride them of his pure blood Nordic society. Also that hitler hated christian and all religon killing more christian than jews.


wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm


You than claim your online website with no references and not my multiple books/university studies are reliable. I shall ask you to tell me why? knowing you cant refute facts you must attack the source, yet me and any other will clearly see this as a escape from the truth that you dont want to admit. You claim because they have a agenda, yet cant show evidence of it, nor would that change the truth even if they did, hitler was still hitler.




stalin
you do this often, you try to bring discussion somewhere else when it does not go well with you. This thread is on hitler not stalin. Just because someone studies bible/religion does not make them christian. Bart erhman would be christian today if true and darwin etc.

At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections


stalin
An avid reader, Soso acquired a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when he was about 13
"One day, he and some friends were talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor. Soso amazed them all by saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just. I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.’ He produced a copy of Darwin’s book"
biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40


not to mention he killed
100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church




because history tells us as do hitler stalin, that they were racist, it should be fixed.



as i sated races are made up words that humans define.




provided many times over to you.


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong



You have to ignore all the books quotes his writings etc that dont agree with your one quote you cant put in context that can be easily explained as I stated last post, that is why you cant respond to post 127. I dont ignore the quote at all, that was reason for post 127, you clearly have to ignore so much to keep your view you cling to alive. I will refer to post 207/208 for his own words/opinions writings on how he felt about chritianity, keep in mind hes a weird christian if he killed more of them than jews and directly targeted priest churches etc.





eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point. my last post, not sure on how to be more clear on this. Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?.

[Kadagar_AV]

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
you are rejecting clear teachings/thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution was and how he viewed races, darwin as well. Your not lucky to adapt and survive,your more advanced/evolved as nazi germany taught about evolution in there textbooks,jews less evolved.



The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol. Also all one needs to do is read what hitler/darwin and germany thought in 1940's to tell they would very much disagree with you. Fittest does not mean strongest. Why would I deny Neanderthal? they fit the creation model fine, I tried to debate you 1v1 on evolution or Neanderthal you would on neither.



hitler/evolution
False,go back and read many are direct from hitler,just the source is from a scholar quoiting him so its there book. Its not like this is groundbreaking stuff [maybe to you] Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody? That is a completely baseless claim you cannot support. It is also a logical fallcie to attack source instead of material.



Your one hitler quote

wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm

Notice it does not refrence any page number for the claim it makes about Aryan race etc lol.

That is because your source is trying to hide it. Here are just 3 exsamples

The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution.
By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)

But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)


Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. (p. 249)


But lets assume your correct, what does that have to do with anything said? I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times in Mein Kampf. I never said he had to or did so. I said hitlers evolutionary beliefs led to his racism and view of less evolved races such as blacks/jews to want to ride them of his pure blood Nordic society. Also that hitler hated christian and all religon killing more christian than jews.


wow great source your using lol
http://www.holysmoke.org/cre011.htm


You than claim your online website with no references and not my multiple books/university studies are reliable. I shall ask you to tell me why? knowing you cant refute facts you must attack the source, yet me and any other will clearly see this as a escape from the truth that you dont want to admit. You claim because they have a agenda, yet cant show evidence of it, nor would that change the truth even if they did, hitler was still hitler.




stalin
you do this often, you try to bring discussion somewhere else when it does not go well with you. This thread is on hitler not stalin. Just because someone studies bible/religion does not make them christian. Bart erhman would be christian today if true and darwin etc.

At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections


stalin
An avid reader, Soso acquired a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when he was about 13
"One day, he and some friends were talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor. Soso amazed them all by saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just. I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.’ He produced a copy of Darwin’s book"
biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40


not to mention he killed
100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church




because history tells us as do hitler stalin, that they were racist, it should be fixed.



as i sated races are made up words that humans define.




provided many times over to you.


atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong



You have to ignore all the books quotes his writings etc that dont agree with your one quote you cant put in context that can be easily explained as I stated last post, that is why you cant respond to post 127. I dont ignore the quote at all, that was reason for post 127, you clearly have to ignore so much to keep your view you cling to alive. I will refer to post 207/208 for his own words/opinions writings on how he felt about chritianity, keep in mind hes a weird christian if he killed more of them than jews and directly targeted priest churches etc.





eugenics
I was referring to the worldview,not who started it, you missed the point. my last post, not sure on how to be more clear on this. Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?.

As mentioned, too, those in power such as Gove, especially ones that have relied upon privileged institutions to get where they are, have been helped by biased, interest-vested institutions to then criticise people for not trying hard enough when they have no idea what it feels like to live in poverty, desperation and try to achieve the same things as those who are telling them they aren’t doing/trying well enough. As for women re men, poorer disadvantaged groups have to try twice, at least, as hard to get to the same places that people from wealthier backgrounds do – not to mention the lack of status, and respect such people get in society even if they succeed. Social Darwinists’ advocate natural selection whilst relying on socially constructed privatisation, for instance, to ensure dominance.

The same can be said for Hague’s comments, who argued that the government’s strategy for growth is simply for people to work harder. How insulting and offensive to all those people who get up, work so hard for not enough to maintain a decent living. How insulting for a government, intent on helping the 1% through socially constructed measures such as allowing bankers’ bonuses to go on at the high they are, lowering corporate tax, whilst cutting benefits at disgusting amounts and arguing benefits such as Disability Living Allowance have been exploited when there is only around a 0.5% fraud rate for this benefit, not to mention only around £1bn of fraud committed by welfare claimants in general as those at the top get away with more than £100bn a year of fraud/evasion. To then hear Hague say the problem with the economy, now back in a recession, is not the government’s austerity measures – which are being rejected around Europe as we speak – but rather is the fault of individuals not working hard enough – adds insult to injury. Again, Social Darwinism blames the individual, whilst ignoring the socially constructed vested interests that ensure the same people get into power and then tell those off who aren’t in power, for being lazy, thick, scroungers and just essentially, they feel, beneath them.

[Papewaio]

Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out.

Mendel was a physicist, so really not surprising that he would advance biology on his off days. :smoking:

The biologists will just have to weather the stamp collecting criticism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The monk in question was Gregor Johann Mendel - also I find the statement "Unsurprisingly, it was a bored Roman Catholic Monk who worked it out." a little odd - not many scientific discoveries of the time were made by "bored" catholic monks so shouldn't it be "surprisingly"

slightly amusing note - Mendel actually reported his discoveries 3 years before Darwin settled on the wrong idea of pangenesis :yes:

Most knowledge has been advanced by Roman Catholic monks who are bored - it's what happens when you train bright minds to think logically, and then deprive them of stimulus.

[Sir Moody]

I think that's a little... biased

While you are right I think your reasoning is off - the reason most Knowledge in the West was propagated by Catholic Monks is primarily because for a VERY long time they were the only ones who could read and write (and had the time to actually inscribe books which isn't a fast process)

[Kadagar_AV]

I like experimenting with pizzas.

pineapple, curry, onion was a favourite. Sounds strange, but is quite nice.

[Brenus]

“Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody?” I did it in the text you just answered (white nationalism website, doesn’t ring an alarm bell?)…
“biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40”: novelist, not historian… Sorry.

“Favoured Races” and you read “fittest”, Favoured in adaptation…

“The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol” Err, not. The Sabres Teeth Tiger was incredible fit, and didn’t survive, nor the mammoth, and the mega beast…

“thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution” Hitler completely ignored Evolution as defined by Darwin.

“It is also a logical fallacies to attack source instead of material” What? You have obviously no idea how to study history and texts. The interest of the Author, his own belief and ideology are keys of what he/she writes. It is the core of REAL historians. A person having an agenda will “forget” or twist facts, as YOU do.
In another debate, somebody came-up with the figures of 20 million of the famine in Ukraine due to the Stalin Regime and the Collectivisation of the land. The problem is we have the figures of the Ukrainian population in 1926: Around 30 million. So if you add the alleged 20 million dead and that would have made Ukrainian population before the famine at around 50 million. That would have made Ukraine one of the most populated Countries in Europe at that time (61 million for Germany, 41 million for France). And we know it wasn’t.

“I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times” You didn’t, but the author you mentioned to support your text did. He lies.
Again, providing figures from books of Christian Authors or Extreme Right keen to extract Christianity from Nazism prove nothing. The fact to put Hitler in the list is speaking by itself. The Christians are so keen in it, as you are, that it is laughable. Then who tell you that Pol Pot was Atheist? Or Mao? Perhaps they believed in something, a deity… It the same anti-communism that made the Churches allied with Hitler.
The Pope (Christian) told the Christians that the fight against Communism was a Holly Duty.

“Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?”
That is because I made a free and sapient decision, without fear. That is why we are sapient. It is the same kind of decision I took when at the age of 20 I joined the army and trained to prepare for war to defend the ones who can’t, or when at around 30 I went in Charities to help my brothers and sisters in Humanity in wars, disease and distress. I don’t need a God to tell me what is right from wrong. I can THINK by myself.
The Religious Authorities and their so-called morality are so obsess by sex and death that they forget that there is life. I know you can’t, but read the Bible for what it is with a free mind. Read the words: killing, rape, humiliation, and genocides.

“the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook.” First, you link atheism and the Evolution, which is debatable. Second, can you develop why atheism is consistent with bloodbath? There are no Holly Books in atheism, so you will have trouble to go for it. But again, I don’t think that facts are really a trouble for you, your constant denial of Hitler’s Christianity being the proof.
Religions are consistent with blood bath, as several times illustrated not only in the Bible but by History.

“not to mention he killed 100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church” : Figures from?
He probably killed and deported more Communist than that, and he was still a communist: “We will destroy every enemy, even if he is an Old Bolshevik, we will destroy his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly." I.V. Stalin, November 1937”. And just as a reminder, the Gulags existed under the very Christian Tsar(s) of all Russia.
Stalin killed every body, believers, atheists, Jews, non-Jews, all nationalities, Soldiers and Officers, Socialists and Nationalists, etc. He was very open and universalist in the killing spree.

[total relism]

“Also please show me were these authors are ex stream right idolody?” I did it in the text you just answered (white nationalism website, doesn’t ring an alarm bell?)…
“biography of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore, Young Stalin, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2007. p40”: novelist, not historian… Sorry.

“Favoured Races” and you read “fittest”, Favoured in adaptation…

“The ones that can adapt are the fittest lol” Err, not. The Sabres Teeth Tiger was incredible fit, and didn’t survive, nor the mammoth, and the mega beast…

“thought of hitler on what he concluded evolution” Hitler completely ignored Evolution as defined by Darwin.

“It is also a logical fallacies to attack source instead of material” What? You have obviously no idea how to study history and texts. The interest of the Author, his own belief and ideology are keys of what he/she writes. It is the core of REAL historians. A person having an agenda will “forget” or twist facts, as YOU do.
In another debate, somebody came-up with the figures of 20 million of the famine in Ukraine due to the Stalin Regime and the Collectivisation of the land. The problem is we have the figures of the Ukrainian population in 1926: Around 30 million. So if you add the alleged 20 million dead and that would have made Ukrainian population before the famine at around 50 million. That would have made Ukraine one of the most populated Countries in Europe at that time (61 million for Germany, 41 million for France). And we know it wasn’t.

“I never said hitler used the word evolution so many times” You didn’t, but the author you mentioned to support your text did. He lies.
Again, providing figures from books of Christian Authors or Extreme Right keen to extract Christianity from Nazism prove nothing. The fact to put Hitler in the list is speaking by itself. The Christians are so keen in it, as you are, that it is laughable. Then who tell you that Pol Pot was Atheist? Or Mao? Perhaps they believed in something, a deity… It the same anti-communism that made the Churches allied with Hitler.
The Pope (Christian) told the Christians that the fight against Communism was a Holly Duty.

“Also if your atheist why do you say eugenics is wrong, or inconstant with evolution?”
That is because I made a free and sapient decision, without fear. That is why we are sapient. It is the same kind of decision I took when at the age of 20 I joined the army and trained to prepare for war to defend the ones who can’t, or when at around 30 I went in Charities to help my brothers and sisters in Humanity in wars, disease and distress. I don’t need a God to tell me what is right from wrong. I can THINK by myself.
The Religious Authorities and their so-called morality are so obsess by sex and death that they forget that there is life. I know you can’t, but read the Bible for what it is with a free mind. Read the words: killing, rape, humiliation, and genocides.

“the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook.” First, you link atheism and the Evolution, which is debatable. Second, can you develop why atheism is consistent with bloodbath? There are no Holly Books in atheism, so you will have trouble to go for it. But again, I don’t think that facts are really a trouble for you, your constant denial of Hitler’s Christianity being the proof.
Religions are consistent with blood bath, as several times illustrated not only in the Bible but by History.

“not to mention he killed 100,000 priests, monks and nuns of the Russian orthodox church” : Figures from?
He probably killed and deported more Communist than that, and he was still a communist: “We will destroy every enemy, even if he is an Old Bolshevik, we will destroy his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly." I.V. Stalin, November 1937”. And just as a reminder, the Gulags existed under the very Christian Tsar(s) of all Russia.
Stalin killed every body, believers, atheists, Jews, non-Jews, all nationalities, Soldiers and Officers, Socialists and Nationalists, etc. He was very open and universalist in the killing spree.


My references not yours, please provide were mine are from far right etc also why would it matter even though untrue, hitler was raciest no matter who tells you. I could also just claim yours are liberal so dont listen to them.


again facts matter stop using logical fallacies for facts you cant respond to. Disprove with facts, something you cannot do so you stick with logical fallacies.
ad hominem
attack on person not argument


and?....


That matters not to what hitler/darwin were saying.


based on nothing, you wont be able to support at all.


Great, than you should be able to refute what I have said based on facts, this you are never able to do, that is why its a logical fallcie. Also you claim I twist facts, yet wont be able to show with facts,only baseless claims as you have so far.


He did not lie as I showed, he diid use the word, my point was it matters not at all to what i was saying. I never said he had to use the word evolution at all though he did as I showed. I think you are alone on a island with your beliefs on hitler, that is why you must give random baseless opinions on subjects.



But why are these wrong? what do you base it on? and if i think rape,murder etc are good, what do you base me doing them being wrong on?
why is jeffery dahmer wrong to you?
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within



you claim there is facts for hitler being a christian, I really dont know what to say at this point. Its like my kids closing there ears and eyes to not hear "bad" words. The point is death is what got us here in evolution, survival of the fittest, so killing weaker less evolved is just a natural part of life.



True,but did he target caomunist for being communist? me thinks not, also i was referring to hitler and nazi germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that's a little... biased

While you are right I think your reasoning is off - the reason most Knowledge in the West was propagated by Catholic Monks is primarily because for a VERY long time they were the only ones who could read and write (and had the time to actually inscribe books which isn't a fast process)

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

Why were Monks often the only ones who could read and write?

Because they had the time to learn - in a way the whole Monastery was geared towards education (aside from feeding itself), that's why noblemen sent their children their to study, and it's why so much came from Monks and not the Secular Clergy.

Even today this is true - look at the Jesuits.

[Ironside]

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

Why were Monks often the only ones who could read and write?

Because they had the time to learn - in a way the whole Monastery was geared towards education (aside from feeding itself), that's why noblemen sent their children their to study, and it's why so much came from Monks and not the Secular Clergy.

Even today this is true - look at the Jesuits.

The problem occurs when the research isn't sanctioned or ends up silenced though.

[Hax]

I take your point - but the Secular University is based on the model of the Religious Monastery for a reason.

There's a theory, though, that the university of Oxford was actually based on the madrasa​ in the Islamic world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem occurs when the research isn't sanctioned or ends up silenced though.

Which has historically happened very rarely - the one always touted is Galileo, but he was obsolete even before he was locked up and he was actually locked up for writing a tract which was seen as satirising the Pope as stupid. The fact is, if Galileo had been a proper observational Astronomer, like Iohannes Keppler, he would have been able to prove heliocentrism to the Pope without being seen to mock him.

Don't misunderstand me, he shouldn't have been locked up or accused of heresy but his downfall has nothing to do with the Church rejecting good science because he wasn't offering any, just out-of-date Copernicism. If you compare him to the Protestant Keppler, who was more radical and completely unmolested, you can see his error had nothing to do with supporting heliocentrism - in fact the Pope asked him to write a tract supporting it.

The only example of suppressing scientific knowledge I can think of is the Roman Church's early, and shortlived, objections to evolutionary theory, which, again, was being presented without evidence as to its mechanical operation at the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a theory, though, that the university of Oxford was actually based on the madrasa​ in the Islamic world.

Yep, via the Templar Chapter House. The Islamic Divines were riffing on the same theme though - we're bored and we need to do something that's Holy but doesn't involve just reading the Koran.

Of course - both owe a great deal to Plato's Academe as well.

[Ironside]

Which has historically happened very rarely - the one always touted is Galileo, but he was obsolete even before he was locked up and he was actually locked up for writing a tract which was seen as satirising the Pope as stupid. The fact is, if Galileo had been a proper observational Astronomer, like Iohannes Keppler, he would have been able to prove heliocentrism to the Pope without being seen to mock him.

Don't misunderstand me, he shouldn't have been locked up or accused of heresy but his downfall has nothing to do with the Church rejecting good science because he wasn't offering any, just out-of-date Copernicism. If you compare him to the Protestant Keppler, who was more radical and completely unmolested, you can see his error had nothing to do with supporting heliocentrism - in fact the Pope asked him to write a tract supporting it.

The only example of suppressing scientific knowledge I can think of is the Roman Church's early, and shortlived, objections to evolutionary theory, which, again, was being presented without evidence as to its mechanical operation at the time.

Not only the Roman Church did that. Carl von Linné ended up with something similar, if milder. There is a plant that have a common mutation that messes up Linné's taxonomy system completely and makes it almost impossible for the plant to procreate. He wasn't stupid, so he drew the connections. Only such ideas about evolving plants and it's consequences wasn't that celebrated in the church, so they made him shut up on that.

I'm also suspect that some research wouldn't really start in a monastary. Human anatomy for example. Let us cut up some bodies!!
You can prove me wrong here though.

[Beskar]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#God.2C_racism_and_anti-Semitism), Hitler's dislike of the Jews is deeply rooted in Christian anti-Semitism.

As Wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge, I win.