Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[total relism]

This has started from a thread here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...lam-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/showt...l-State-of-Man

Bring it here, to one place on topic.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...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/...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/...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/...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?



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?



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.
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.
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.

[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