Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[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.

[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...act_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.