Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[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.

[Sir Moody]

thank you jesus, you just proved my OP, majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals. As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk].

So as I said you have no right to tell hitler he was wrong

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

ACTUALLY it proves your point WRONG

While you may disagree about Hitler being Christian (I still assert he was) - the Nazi's (and the Germans under them) were predominately CHRISTIAN - this shows that your idea of Christian morals being "absolute" is rubbish - all morals of all society are vulnerable to extreme change

Hitler became leader of Germany predominately because Germany was on the Brink of collapse as a society - massive debts had bankrupted them (somewhat ironic considering Greece's current position) and they had rampant unemployment and worse starvation - in times of great crisis like this the Moral code is very vulnerable to vast shifts in Moral attitudes - this is why many unthinkable acts are committed in times of crisis - for example the numerous atrocities committed by both sides in the American civil war (both predominately Christian I am sure you will agree) - once these times pass, and the moral codes have a chance to "Settle", often society can be in utter denial about what they did

100 years ago it was morally correct to withhold voting from women, 100 years before that Slavery was morally acceptable, 100 years before that Burning women at the stake at witches was morally OK

Morals change and it is society that changes them

[Sir Moody]

OK so it may be better for evolution, but as I said its not a moral wrong.There is nothing wrong with caging woman up,besides you think not enough reproduction will happen. I think I would knock up say 15 at a time if I had enough, that is mass producing. Also this was not a system for a society, but one person as individual.

I did not ask what would be better for evolution, I said what I was asking from your worldview, what makes child sacrifice wrong?.

You could give no reason, also so child sacrifice could be ok than in certain circumstances, such as if there was not enough food/mates/overpopulation. I agree, in evolutionary terms, than the act of child sacrifice is not morally wrong, it just happens to help evolution to not do it so much. So for you to tell another group of people not to sacrifice babies because it is a moral "wrong" is inconstant. You can say they need to pass on there genes more, but they may not care and go for the survival of the first, killing off weaker/younger offspring so they dont have to complete for food/mates. You also cannot show them to be morally "wrong".

Make your mind up - either "Your" Atheists believe that morals are shaped by biology (and thus evolution) or you believe, like us, that Morals are born from Human contact with other Humans in a community set-up - stop moving the goal posts!!!

Evolution does not make Moral choices - it is totally random - while we can use it to determine the optimal "path" it may not actually use that way at all - if Evolution always followed the best path the human body wouldn't be such a mess!

So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different...

[Brenus]

“Devolution”, Sophism, my friend.
That is the “new” tool discovered by “believers”, like the Good Jesuits in the XVI Century. An atheist doesn’t believe, he is not a believer in a nothing like one none – smoker is not a smoker who doesn’t smoke.

“I would kick your as# at Mass Effect 3”: Most probably.

By the way, Hitler have many time thanks Destiny to have spare his life, and in my Kampf (written by him, not by Secret Conversation) told that God gave the task to eradicate the Jews.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”
I will not do what you do, but I can (did) find more.
So Hitler told, as a Christian that he will kill the Jews.

“he even says hated christianity, what evidence do you claim he was” You’ve got your answer above.

“Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong” Agree, they don't need fairies tales, they have common sense and logic. The “believers” need fear and superstition or they can’t do good…

“he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders”: I afraid he is wrong, utterly and completely, and his studies probably only publish and follow by Religious so-called Universities. The less serious one, I mean. Can you give me one war, one crusade started with the only pretext or reason to expend atheism? Religions, only between monotheisms I can, just in opening a simple grade history book.

[Hepcat]

I've been away from the Org for a long time and it seems the Backroom is now full of religious debates... Odd...
Oh well, I'm game:

On Morality:
total relism, you assert that morality is incoherent given atheism. But the Is-Ought problem applies to secular morality AND religious morality! Something apologists never seem to realise.
It's a problem for ANY system of ethics including religious ones.

For example:
Human flourishing is good -> Therefore we ought to increase human flourishing.
God is good/moral/just -> Therefore we ought to follow god.

It's the same jump that must be made for any system of ethics and moral philosophers know this. To say secular morality is incoherent, well isn't religious morality just as incoherent?
Different people may have different moral philosophies but how is that different or more problematic than religious people with different doctrines and interpretations?
Gay marriage, religious people on both sides. Evolution, religious people on both sides. Slavery, religious people on both sides. etc.

Humans have been going through the process of debating and deciding rules and ethics for society since we began living in cities sometimes appealing to a god, sometimes not.

"majority opinion is the best argument atheist have for morals"

Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?

[spankythehippo]

Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?

This.

[total relism]

cant say if or when I ever post on this thread again, but I was bored.

ACTUALLY it proves your point WRONG

While you may disagree about Hitler being Christian (I still assert he was) - the Nazi's (and the Germans under them) were predominately CHRISTIAN - this shows that your idea of Christian morals being "absolute" is rubbish - all morals of all society are vulnerable to extreme change

Hitler became leader of Germany predominately because Germany was on the Brink of collapse as a society - massive debts had bankrupted them (somewhat ironic considering Greece's current position) and they had rampant unemployment and worse starvation - in times of great crisis like this the Moral code is very vulnerable to vast shifts in Moral attitudes - this is why many unthinkable acts are committed in times of crisis - for example the numerous atrocities committed by both sides in the American civil war (both predominately Christian I am sure you will agree) - once these times pass, and the moral codes have a chance to "Settle", often society can be in utter denial about what they did

100 years ago it was morally correct to withhold voting from women, 100 years before that Slavery was morally acceptable, 100 years before that Burning women at the stake at witches was morally OK

Morals change and it is society that changes them

You disagree with me and hitler.

Please show the majority soldiers under hitler were christian, provide evidence. Than show me how what they did was constant with the bible. It can be shown to be constant with hitler theology of survival of the fittest.

It indeed proves my point as stated earlier, you are misunderstanding the term absolute, as in something is abosulty wrong. For you to say hitler was wrong to do what he did contradicts your own beliefs as your last post showed majority opinion.
I said
"As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk]."

by absolute morals I mean the claim murder rape etc are absoulety wrong no matter what. Not that people will always follow/agree with it.

here is from a william lane craig article

So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.

Make your mind up - either "Your" Atheists believe that morals are shaped by biology (and thus evolution) or you believe, like us, that Morals are born from Human contact with other Humans in a community set-up - stop moving the goal posts!!!

Evolution does not make Moral choices - it is totally random - while we can use it to determine the optimal "path" it may not actually use that way at all - if Evolution always followed the best path the human body wouldn't be such a mess!

So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different...

I am taking two diffident responses and showing neither hit the mark. Neither has anything to do with what I pointed out on OP. I thought that would be clear in my responses sorry.


you said this
"So why is Child sacrifice Morally wrong? because our society agrees it is - and since our societies are made up of many different people of many different faith's (or lack of faith) there is no reason to believe a community of predominately Atheists would feel any different."


society agrees you say, well than as I have said, you cant say what hitler did was wrong as his society decided it was good idea, therefore by your own reasoning, what he did was not wrong as german society agreed it was good.

As I said than the majority in 1940's germany were indeed correct in there morals,as they convinced the majority correct. But those damn outsiders were unjust and forced there morals on them [us,uk].


no one ever said atheist would not come up with there own morals, read my first 2 sentences on OP. Showing you still cannot grasp the concept of my OP. As I said, properly understood my argument cannot fail, only if misunderstood.

“Devolution”, Sophism, my friend.
That is the “new” tool discovered by “believers”, like the Good Jesuits in the XVI Century. An atheist doesn’t believe, he is not a believer in a nothing like one none – smoker is not a smoker who doesn’t smoke.

“I would kick your as# at Mass Effect 3”: Most probably.

By the way, Hitler have many time thanks Destiny to have spare his life, and in my Kampf (written by him, not by Secret Conversation) told that God gave the task to eradicate the Jews.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”
I will not do what you do, but I can (did) find more.
So Hitler told, as a Christian that he will kill the Jews.

“he even says hated christianity, what evidence do you claim he was” You’ve got your answer above.

“Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong” Agree, they don't need fairies tales, they have common sense and logic. The “believers” need fear and superstition or they can’t do good…

“he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders”: I afraid he is wrong, utterly and completely, and his studies probably only publish and follow by Religious so-called Universities. The less serious one, I mean. Can you give me one war, one crusade started with the only pretext or reason to expend atheism? Religions, only between monotheisms I can, just in opening a simple grade history book.

I was saying your evidence for evolution is actually the opposite, I would love to show you in a 1v1 debate creation vs evolution, please pm as i wont be reading this thread.


notice your qoute from
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922”


mine were from 1940's, so how is this? if you are correct than we have a christian hitler, who also hates chritianity as I showed,allow me to exspalin.


as pointed out here a 1v1 debate i am in [same subject allows comes up]
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=339


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


Hitler needed propaganda to change the germans minds, he used it in every aspect of life, including the church, the government took over the church and forced the "correct theology" jesus was Aryan, a worrier hated jews etc.

some of the changes they made
Jesus the Saviour—a life of Jesus based on excerpts from the synoptic Gospels, expunged of OT prophecy fulfillment, and reorganized to present Jesus as a warrior, not a servant or meek or the Lamb of God.
Jesus the Son of God—a condensed version of the Gospel of John to show the theological significance of Jesus’ actions.
Jesus the Lord—brief excerpts from various Epistles concerning hope, comfort, community of God, etc.
The Emergence of the Christian Community—based on Acts, Paul’s Epistles (without his Jewish biography), his mission to the Gentiles, and his break with the Judaizers of Palestine.
Jewish references were retained only where they were deemed negative to Judaism. Omitted were the genealogies of Jesus linking him to the OT patriarchs. The baby Jesus was brought to the temple to bring him to God, but was merely given a name, not circumcized. In the Sermon on the Mount, there was no blessing for the merciful. The Sabbath became ‘holiday’.
The text associated Jesus with Galilee. Liberal German theologians had taught since the early 1900s that Galilee was supposedly populated by racially Aryan Gentiles in the 8th century BC following the Assyrian conquest of Israel, thereby opposing Jesus’ identity as a Jew (p. 57).
In his own book, Jesus the Galilean, Grundmann advocated that Mary was not a Jew, and Jesus had an illegitimate father: a Roman soldier named Panther (or Panthera) (p. 155). Ironically, this is an ancient libel from Celsus and anti-Christian Jews attacking Jesus’ legitimacy (“ben Panthera/Pandera”). However, the Gospel was clearly presented in Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, especially in John 3:16.
By the end of 1941, 200,000 copies of Die Botschaft Gottes had been sold or distributed to members of the German Christians movement, including soldiers (p. 111). Some pastors and scholars in the Confessing Church wrote pamphlets or spoke against it. After the War, most copies were destroyed, with only two or three still known to exist.
A catechism for the times

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


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


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


notice year of this one quote, after hitler had all the power

4th December, 1941, midday:

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



The idea of common sense/logic make no sense/logic in a atheistic worldview, were we are just randomly evolved chemical reactions of dirt.


If evolution were true than science would not make sense.
Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought,thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science
Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage,They say we are the result of hydrogen gas,than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.
So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident our brain to understand another accident the world?
Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught me a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth.
We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly, how do we know our eyes ears brain memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know, we could be in some matrix world.
Or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]
## Science would be impossible unless our memories was giving accurate info and our senses our eyes ears etc also laws of logic are needed. How does matter produce a organism with memory?
regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions astronomy depends on this almost entirely.
The universe is understandable we assume the universe is logical orderly and it obeys mathematical laws that is how we can make predictions.
Freedom to chose and consider various options free will.
In fact evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them.
The only reason i believe in creation is because the chemicals in my brain make me.

science need us to be able to know our seances are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality?
# evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.



But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature i would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible, so were able to repeatable# lab experiments etc.
That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ear,s are accurately giving us the correct information information to be able to do science in the first place etc
Why should i believe that one accident our brains can properly understand another accident the big bang? how can matter acted on by mutation only for a survival advantage produce laws of logic? this is illogical matter cannot do this matter cannot produce nonmaterial things this is against science and against logic.
If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.



Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion

I've been away from the Org for a long time and it seems the Backroom is now full of religious debates... Odd...
Oh well, I'm game:

On Morality:
total relism, you assert that morality is incoherent given atheism. But the Is-Ought problem applies to secular morality AND religious morality! Something apologists never seem to realise.
It's a problem for ANY system of ethics including religious ones.

For example:
Human flourishing is good -> Therefore we ought to increase human flourishing.
God is good/moral/just -> Therefore we ought to follow god.

It's the same jump that must be made for any system of ethics and moral philosophers know this. To say secular morality is incoherent, well isn't religious morality just as incoherent?
Different people may have different moral philosophies but how is that different or more problematic than religious people with different doctrines and interpretations?
Gay marriage, religious people on both sides. Evolution, religious people on both sides. Slavery, religious people on both sides. etc.

Humans have been going through the process of debating and deciding rules and ethics for society since we began living in cities sometimes appealing to a god, sometimes not.



Personally I'd rather have majority opinion morality to absolute celestial dictating morality. I mean... what if your god was evil? How would you know?

I think you misunderstand, it is in noway a problem for "religion".


It has nothing to do with what people "feel" or believe is true or what theology they adhere to. Please read.



So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.



than what is evil? or good? it is set up by creator. he decides not us.

[Idaho]

A thread that starts off with Godwin and shows no sign of improvement.

[Brenus]

Yeap: A True Christian can't do bad Things. Hitler did bad Things. Hitler is nor a true Christian.

T.R probably never read 1984.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

[total relism]

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3.23

Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeap: A True Christian can't do bad Things. Hitler did bad Things. Hitler is nor a true Christian.

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

[Brenus]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

[Montmorency]

Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.

[Brenus]

“Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.” In this passage, I don’t “interpret” historical sources. I quote them. Hitler said he was a Christian, so until proven he left or was excommunicated he was. No room for interpretation here.

“All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one”, Indeed. But he was baptised, went in Churches and was never excommunicated. So he was a Christian. A good one? According to you no, but remember that all his anti-Semitic speeches were aim at Christian crowds and were, as we know, not rejected that much.

“I could appropriate the label to myself.” Not a problem, but why do you think Hitler would do the same? Perhaps he was convinced to be a Christian. And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

“you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.” I don’t need to in this example, as I am just quoting Hitler. When Hitler stated “I am now a Catholic (Christian) and will always remain so”, can you show me the room for a “belief” and “semantic reality”?

[total relism]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

As I sated before, you have a hitler who contradicts himself if he claims on time to be christian and not another time. I can make sense of that back on post 127. You cannot claiming he was christian. No problem that he would early on claim to be publically, that was whole point. The only quote above that would be relevant would be the 41 quote, please provide wider context for this.


In fact I did quick search, it appears that your reference is not even a valid source, not considered genuine.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Miller301204.html


On a atheist site claiming he was catholic, they post this

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Now assuming its genuine, this makes perfect sense. Read my post 127. See if this "christian" is referring to the bible, or the nazi bible/propaganda they promoted to get people on there side.

Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.

Great point, that killer in norway that shot like 77 kids was a "christian" and said of himself to be one. yet in his writing he clarified he was only culturally christian not a true christian.

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4

[Montmorency]

It is absolutely an interpretation to take the words of a primary source and conclude that they must in and of themselves must be conclusive. And it is bad form to take a source at its word with no further analysis.

And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

Who are you to deny me the right to be a Christian?

If there is a certain definition of "Christian" to which we will choose to adhere in the course of a discussion (though that isn't to say that we have settled upon one here), then "historical facts" must be compared to that definition. Perhaps Hitler Christian considered himself a Christian, sure. But I'm not so sure that most would accept a definition like, "Whoever calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Amen." This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.

Think of the Arians. They considered themselves to be Christians. The Orthodoxy did not consider them as such. Depending on what we do and do not choose to call Christianity or term as falling within it scope, we could today consider them either way. See my point? That's what I mean by semantic reality.

Great point

Oh nooooo...

[Papewaio]

Church is a club for sinners.
Hitler was one of the worst sinners.
Therefore Hitler could join the club.

=][=

Considering in the quote he is rallying against communism and atheism one can readily assume Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler would be in the same category as some as the violent fringe Christians who believe they are so right that they can hurl abuse at soldiers funerals, shoot doctors they disagree with or show gods love to underage boys. Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

So instead of casting stones based on a lack of evidence get your own houses in order.

If the hypothesis was that Hitler was an atheist and ergo all atheist must take responsibility for his actions.

In My Dishonorable Opinion not so humbly belive that the same brush can be used to paint up a black and yellow hazard line on the beam in ones eye.

The hypothesis should be able to be applied that a random official of the Church has done wrong therefore all members of the Church must be responsible.

Since there is a whole weight of evidence that shows priests have buggered young boys, that the church's have covered up and hounded the victims and only under immense public pressure slightly admitted there might be an issue. That this weigh of empirical evidence far out ways the evidence in favour of Hitler being an atheist.

So where is the outrage and the rising up against such crimes in the church? When young people can be raped by people in authority and the blame placed on the victims and systematically covered up. Where is the voice of the moderates of the church against these crimes. I don't see or hear them actively campaigning, they leave it to the victims, the families of the deceased and external parties.

So why can't I say that all Christians are tainted? It seems to be the long shot that is drawn on Hitler and others being atheists used to blame atheists in general. It is also the same thinking used repeatedly to demonise Muslims, the repeated cry of "I don't see the moderates rising against the extremists."

Yet here we have wealthy individuals by world standards, who are part of the majority belief system in their countries, who are educated and upstanding individuals. Yet I don't see a million person march against predatory priests.

Why not use the same standards to tar and feather atheists and Muslims?

Because that would be the act of a moron. Crimes belong must often to an individual. Acts of conspiracy belong to the individuals in the group. What is distasteful is the silent support of the powerful, the craven way we humans will close together to protect 'our own' even when they go against our own internal moral compass or the lettered law of the group. But that is a fault in all human groups.

[Kralizec]

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

[Montmorency]

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

Ah, but you hold a preconceived notion of what that means, what it entails. You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?

Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

I assume this is intended to be a swipe at me, as I think I'm the only "true" Christian?

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

[Papewaio]

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

First I align myself with the premise and the requirement for an empirical data set.

I then change the hypothesis from Hitler = Atheist therefore atheists are responsible.

I then apply the hypothesis to Christian figure heads. Come to the conclusion that since the moderates aren't doing anything then they must also be in agreement. The main reason to do this is to put the shoes on the other foot and gain an emphatic foothold. When people have the same level of reasoning applied to their ideas/family/beliefs/faith they quite often quickly and correctly see how absurd it is to apply that reasoning to "them" the faceless others who have different idea/family/beliefs/faith.

So after following the argument down the path of the pariah in the shoes of the Christian what do I state in my concluding paragraph?

Does it look like I am for or against group thunk and group punishment, or maybe I think it should be individual responsibility for individual actions? I am critical of group us vs them and how we divide ourselves and over protect our own. But do I attribute this herd mentality to any one group or to humans in general?

[Montmorency]

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

[Kralizec]

You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?

That would be a rather silly person, right?

A lot of people call themselves christian while they don't believe (often don't know) its basic tenets. Besides, there isn't even consensus on what those basic tenets are. A lot of protestants and catholics don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons to be christians. And some nutty protestants don't even consider catholics to be real christians.

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

The 2 billion figure refers to nominal christians. As soon as you come up with criteria beyond what the person calls himself you'll never reach that number.

[Brenus]

“This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.” Well, let’s face what we know:
Hitler was Baptised in the Catholic Branch of Christianity. Catholics are Christian aren’t they?
You can renounce your baptism, Hitler never did.
Hitler said in public meeting he was a Catholic several times.
He was never excommunicated.
So he was a Catholic, Christian.

I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity. But the facts point that he was a Christian.

[Montmorency]

You're begging the question again.

But let's go from your definition - 'whoever has been baptized and not excommunicated is Christian'.

In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated. It's a convenient one, I suppose. An excommunicated individual loses all connection to God, and can not reforge one without papal approval. Such an individual could at the pope's lack of grace perish a heathen, to be sorted with the other unconverted heathens. I'm sure this is a notion the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages would have loved to see held dearly.

This is clearly an inadequate definition, but by this - yes, Hitler would have been a Christian.

I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity.

Don't get the wrong idea.

[Sir Moody]

seems this is appropriate right now...



sorry about the Russian sub but I couldn't track down a version without it...

[Brenus]

"In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated." Or if you renounce to be a Christian. And if the case of Hitler, there is no evidence he did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

...because Christians set standards they think they can live up to?

No.

Try learning about my religion - even HoreTore and Kadagar know I don't live up to my own ideals.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ITT: Everyone should read a book before talking apparently.

Monty needs to read the bible.
PVC needs to read a book about not being smug.
Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary.
T.R. needs to read some Dr. Seuss books so he can finish 1st grade english class.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ITT: Everyone should read a book before talking apparently.

Monty needs to read the bible.
PVC needs to read a book about not being smug.
Brenus and The Stranger need to read the dictionary.
T.R. needs to read some Dr. Seuss books so he can finish 1st grade english class.

Smug?

I'm bitter and angry.