Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[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.

[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 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 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]

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

[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.

[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
... and out

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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/showt...l-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.

[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.

[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 [because I am leaving this thread lol] I never said atheist are constant with atheism, in fact 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.

[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" 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" is not derived from the bible. Lol.

Ah, good post!