Poor Ray Comfort didn’t know that a banana was intelligently designed — by humans. So much for the “atheist’s nightmare.”
Theists have their own nightmare, and it’s right there in historical black and white.
Ha, Hitler was a Catholic, therefore not a true Christian…
LM That is a strange statement. Roman Catholics were among the first to call themselves Christian. Who are the true Christians?
…in your opinion..
Here is a great read for you…
“You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.”
“As for your chat-room experiences, well, my friend and source David Gehrig noted that Hitler still sets the gold standard for “easiest rhetorical cheap shot.” He related a comment from Usenet that there is an empirical law: As a Usenet discussion gets longer, the probability that someone in it will compare someone else in it to Hitler asymptotically approaches 1. In other words, atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign. (So by the “reasoning” used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn’t make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view. No matter how his madness is painted, he was still evil incarnate.
I have one more quote to share on this topic. This, again, from David Gehrig: “Let’s save the rhetorical comparisons to Hitler and Nazis for those who really deserve them–hate groups who proudly assume the Nazi mantle, and ‘Holocaust revisionists’ who would fantasize away Hitler’s genocidal crimes.”
PG, that’s not the point. If Hamby were to have made the argument that Christianity was the cause of the Nazis, he would have a lot of explaining to do, particularly the Bormann comments you posted.
But I don’t think that was his point. The point is that just because you are religious does not mean that you are moral.
In fact that might just be my next blog entry of how just because you’re religious doesn’t mean your good and that religion doesn’t necessarly make you good.
cptpineapple, on January 14, 2011 at 11:26 pm said:
“In fact that might just be my next blog entry of how just because you’re religious doesn’t mean your good and that religion doesn’t necessarly make you good.”
That would make for a great post CPT.
Thanks I can’t add anything to your defense of my post. Which is remarkable. Is it possible we are learning to communicate with each other? And if so, is there hope for humanity?
OMG, if the two of your are actually communicating it must mean the second coming is close. Damn it, they might have been right all along…
Alex, it must be a statistical anomaly. Confirmation bias. Something. It can’t be that I wrote something, she understood it, and then communicated it back to me in such a way that I understood it.
Hamby, I don’t exactly think our miscommunications have been a one way street.
I am sure not. The question is whether or not you have a hypothesis. None of my science buddy readers have been able to glean one from your posts. Believe me, they’ve tried.
I have an hypothesis as to why that they couldn’t find one.
It’s because I haven’t proposed one.
That’s the reason I read claims of the atheist movement is to formulate one, but I haven’t been impressed by the ones proposed. They mostly rely on anecdotes and confuse correlation with causation and sometimes ignore other factors.
I hope they studied science enough to know that I don’t need one to question those proposed.
That’s what you seem to get caught up on.
PG, the blog entry is up
and Hamby, I’m starting to formulate an hypothesis and I’m not so sure that it isn’t the coalition and social bonds that religion makes that’s the explanation as to why religious people do evil things.
I’m also questioning as to whether being a “skeptic/freethinker” reduces this effect, seeing as I still some stupid things being done/said in the atheist movement.
I’m glad to know you’re putting something together. I’m definitely looking forward to it. A word of caution: Be sure that when you define “stupid things,” you do it very precisely, because I don’t know of any atheist who suggests that non-theism reduces “general stupidity,” only a very specific kind.
That’s the tricky part. I don’t want to define it too broadly that that anything can be considered or too narrow that only religious ideas can be considered.
For example, “God created the world 6000 years ago” is a stupid claim that, by definition, an atheist can’t hold, however, I’m trying to quantify on some sort of stupid scale so that I can see if there’s a non-religious claim with the same stupidity index such as 9/11 was a controlled demolition by the NWO lizard overlords.
I think I’ll go the route of actions and effects. That is whether or not the stupid idea can have dire moral consequences, and I think non-religious and religious ideas compete on equal footing on that. I’m also going to measure indirect effects on morality, that is while it’s not chopping off heads, it’s still morally repulsive and I think too, that the religious and atheist movement is competing on this.
Speaking of religious and non-religious, I’m going to be careful in defining them too, as to not too broad that anything can be a religion, and not too narrow.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Life Without a Net
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: The Morning After by WooThemes.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 104 other followers