# Now it's only third world countries and USA that are still religious



## johnsweeting

I like to study religions and stats around it and I have found some interesting things. 
All the other western nations have a majority of the population being non-religious. 
Take a look at these numbers:

Is Religion important in your life - People who answer "No" in percentage below:
Sweden 88%
Denmark 80.5%
Norway 78%
Czech Republic 74.5%
Hong Kong 75.5%
Japan 75%
United Kingdom 73%
Finland 70%
France 69.5%
Germany 69%
Australia 67.5%
Canada 67%
Netherlands 66.5%
New Zealand 66%


There is not one single "western" nation left now that haven't left religion behind. Even if you compare the "old" British colonies - Canada, Australia & New Zealand there is a big difference compared to America. Why is this ??

Western nation = Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand & Canada.

America is on the same religious level as third world countries like:
Uganda
Jamaica
Armenia
Uzbekistan
El Salvador
Honduras

....which I don't think is a good thing. 

Still Religious:
1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
2. USA

USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.

Will this ever change ?


----------



## oldfart

johnsweeting said:


> Still Religious:
> 1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
> 2. USA
> 
> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?



Yes it will change.  The biggest factor is that the United States is not a homogeneous culture like many European nations; it is a collection of sub-cultures.  Some of those sub-cultures are militantly religious.  Such groups can succeed by limiting contact with the broader world by supporting separate institutions such as schools and universities, using home schooling, and developing their own economic institutions.  It doesn't matter if they are Islamic, Evangelical, FLDS, Hassidic, or Amish.  The dynamics are the same.  

There is a downside.  If cultural groups have rights, those rights are carved out of basic human individual rights.  None of these groups survive without being able to indoctrinate their children.  We chose to accept child abuse, spousal abuse, denial of medical care, denial of educational opportunity, and similar abuses as acceptable costs of "freedom" for these groups.  Indeed the hallmark of American freedom is that we allow groups to abuse their members free of government interference to a much larger degree than any other Western society. It is the epitome of "American exceptionalism".  

I hope that slowly over time more Americans, especially those damaged by the excesses of these groups, will strike a better balance between group rights and individual rights.  Perhaps some day freedom will come to mean more than the freedom to abuse and exploit others.  Until then, there is nothing more dangerous in America to personal liberty than the freedoms of these groups to exploit and kill their own.


----------



## legaleagle_45

johnsweeting said:


> I like to study religions and stats around it and I have found some interesting things.
> All the other western nations have a majority of the population being non-religious.
> Take a look at these numbers:
> 
> Is Religion important in your life - People who answer "No" in percentage below:
> Sweden 88%
> Denmark 80.5%
> Norway 78%
> Czech Republic 74.5%
> Hong Kong 75.5%
> Japan 75%
> United Kingdom 73%
> Finland 70%
> France 69.5%
> Germany 69%
> Australia 67.5%
> Canada 67%
> Netherlands 66.5%
> New Zealand 66%
> 
> 
> There is not one single "western" nation left now that haven't left religion behind. Even if you compare the "old" British colonies - Canada, Australia & New Zealand there is a big difference compared to America. Why is this ??
> 
> Western nation = Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand & Canada.
> 
> America is on the same religious level as third world countries like:
> Uganda
> Jamaica
> Armenia
> Uzbekistan
> El Salvador
> Honduras
> 
> ....which I don't think is a good thing.
> 
> Still Religious:
> 1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
> 2. USA
> 
> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?



You do not think Austria, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal are "western" nations?


----------



## Capstone

Not to refute the results of the poll _alluded to_ in the OP (I'm fully aware that my country is loaded with fundies), but it's tough for me to formulate an opinion here without access to the relevant polling data.

The only question mentioned in the original post is too ambiguous to be worth a damn. If somebody asked me the question, "Is Religion important in your life?", I'd have to say yes, despite the fact that I personally have no religious affiliation whatsoever. As an informed US citizen, it's virtually impossible for me to overlook the warping influence of religion on society (especially that of Zionist-friendly Christianity).


----------



## Avatar4321

This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.



Why would you say that? 

Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.  

Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
Click to expand...


well, your religious views definitely explain why you are acting that way.


----------



## martybegan

oldfart said:


> johnsweeting said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still Religious:
> 1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
> 2. USA
> 
> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it will change.  The biggest factor is that the United States is not a homogeneous culture like many European nations; it is a collection of sub-cultures.  Some of those sub-cultures are militantly religious.  Such groups can succeed by limiting contact with the broader world by supporting separate institutions such as schools and universities, using home schooling, and developing their own economic institutions.  It doesn't matter if they are Islamic, Evangelical, FLDS, Hassidic, or Amish.  The dynamics are the same.
> 
> There is a downside.  If cultural groups have rights, those rights are carved out of basic human individual rights.  None of these groups survive without being able to indoctrinate their children.  We chose to accept child abuse, spousal abuse, denial of medical care, denial of educational opportunity, and similar abuses as acceptable costs of "freedom" for these groups.  Indeed the hallmark of American freedom is that we allow groups to abuse their members free of government interference to a much larger degree than any other Western society. It is the epitome of "American exceptionalism".
> 
> I hope that slowly over time more Americans, especially those damaged by the excesses of these groups, will strike a better balance between group rights and individual rights.  Perhaps some day freedom will come to mean more than the freedom to abuse and exploit others.  Until then, there is nothing more dangerous in America to personal liberty than the freedoms of these groups to exploit and kill their own.
Click to expand...


So basically the freedom for you to indoctrinate someone else's children as YOU see fit.

How Facist.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
Click to expand...


But usually the biggest arrogant douchebags come from the aethist side of the equation.

Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, your religious views definitely explain why you are acting that way.
Click to expand...


My religious view is you treat people the right way because they deserve to as people, not because some imaginary sky pixie is going to punish you in the afterlife.  

That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.


----------



## Capstone

Avatar4321 said:


> This nation is religious now? ...



Always has been, but there _was_ a definitive explosion where questionable breeding as a means of increasing the labor forces on family farms in the post-slavery era reigned supreme for awhile. Today this area with a high occurrence of low intelligence and other birth defects is commonly referred to as _the Bible Belt_ (it's also known as the unofficial stomping grounds of _the religious right_). 

Of course, there are several hubs of religious insanity outside of the belt ([COUGH]*Utah*[/COUGH]), but then you already knew that, didn't you.


----------



## Capstone

martybegan said:


> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.



As opposed to those who not only believe in "something bigger than themselves" ...but claim to know its name and the guidelines for serving, praising, and worshiping it? 

There is no bigger asshole than the one with a single answer to all of the questions and mysteries of the universe: _my_ Goddidit.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to those who not only believe in "something bigger than themselves" ...but claim to know its name and the guidelines for serving, praising, and worshiping it?
> 
> There is no bigger asshole than the one with a single answer to all of the questions and mysteries of the universe: _my_ Goddidit.
Click to expand...


I find them to be far less condescending and far more humble than hard core asshole atheists. 

At least with them they can be content that God will judge thier opponents, Atheists have no such fall back, so they pretty much have to be dicks in this life to get thier jollies out of the situation.


----------



## Capstone

martybegan said:


> I find them to be far less condescending and far more humble than hard core asshole atheists. [...]



True, there's something intrinsically humbling about the notion of _submission_ to faith in the absence of reason.



martybegan said:


> [...] At least with them they can be content that God will judge thier opponents, Atheists have no such fall back, so they pretty much have to be dicks in this life to get thier jollies out of the situation.



Yeah, that must be it.

It probably has nothing to do with the concerted efforts of religious nuts to impose their twisted views on society at large throughout human history; and more locally, it certainly has zilcho to do with the American political scene (no matter how many stupid wedge issues exist as a means of pulling the strings of overtly religious voting blocks).

I'm not an atheist, but I can definitely see a clear rationale for browbeating religious kooks at every turn.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find them to be far less condescending and far more humble than hard core asshole atheists. [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, there's something intrinsically humbling about the notion of _submission_ to faith in the absence of reason.
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] At least with them they can be content that God will judge thier opponents, Atheists have no such fall back, so they pretty much have to be dicks in this life to get thier jollies out of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that must be it.
> 
> It probably has nothing to do with the concerted efforts of religious nuts to impose their twisted views on society at large throughout human history; and more locally, it certainly has zilcho to do with the American political scene (no matter how many stupid wedge issues exist as a means of pulling the strings of overtly religious voting blocks).
> 
> I'm not an atheist, but I can definitely see a clear rationale for browbeating religious kooks at every turn.
Click to expand...


Define a "religous nut"

You sure as hell sound like an asshole atheist.


----------



## dilloduck

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, your religious views definitely explain why you are acting that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My religious view is you treat people the right way because they deserve to as people, not because some imaginary sky pixie is going to punish you in the afterlife.
> 
> That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Click to expand...


Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.


----------



## konradv

dilloduck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, your religious views definitely explain why you are acting that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My religious view is you treat people the right way because they deserve to as people, not because some imaginary sky pixie is going to punish you in the afterlife.
> 
> That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.
Click to expand...


1st century Rome- Pagan and rules most of the Western world.

4th-5th centuries- Becomes Christianized and in less than 100 years Rome sacked by barbarians.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was no Hitler or Mussolini (two very religious guys of some note), but only because Josef (named for St. Joseph, BTW) was violently abused as a child in a poor but extremely religious household. There were also the five years spent in a Greek Orthodox seminary, only after which did he renounce his religion. Take heart though, because [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-In-depth-Biography-Explosive-Documents/dp/0385479549]according to Stalin biographer Edvard Radzinsky,[/ame] "During his mysterious retreat *[of June 1941]* the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." (Radinsky also listed a number of religious comrades from Stalin's circle). So, for better or worse, it's clear that religion played an important role in Stalin's life.
> 
> Wanna talk more about Hitler or Mussolini now?
Click to expand...


There is no evidence that Hitler was religous at all. He left religous stuff to the other Nazis, who were big fans of making worship of the state and Party the offical religion. 

Mussolini is a pimple on Hitler's ass, not even worth mentioning in a conversation like this.


----------



## Capstone

Regarding Hitler's _lack of faith_, the following is an excerpt  from a speech in Munich:

"_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._"

Now, whether he was _actually_ a Christian or just a 'self-proclaimed' one (as the more informed apologists like to argue), he was certainly religious in much of his rhetoric and he definitely knew how  to use the faith of hiss countrymen to his advantage.


----------



## dilloduck

Capstone said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was no Hitler or Mussolini (two very religious guys of some note), but only because Josef (named for St. Joseph, BTW) was violently abused as a child in a poor but extremely religious household. There were also the five years spent in a Greek Orthodox seminary, only after which did he renounce his religion. Take heart though, because [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-In-depth-Biography-Explosive-Documents/dp/0385479549]according to Stalin biographer Edvard Radzinsky,[/ame] "During his mysterious retreat *[of June 1941]* the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." (Radzinsky also listed a number of religious comrades from Stalin's circle). So, for better or worse, it's clear that religion played an important role in Stalin's life.
> 
> Wanna talk more about Hitler or Mussolini now?
Click to expand...


Stalin led an atheist and communist regime that killed more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> Regarding Hitler's _lack of faith_, the following is an excerpt  from a speech in Munich:
> 
> "_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._"
> 
> Now, whether he was _actually_ a Christian or just a 'self-proclaimed' one (as the more informed apologists like to argue), he was certainly religious in much of his rhetoric and he definitely knew how  to use the faith of hiss countrymen to his advantage.



He also said his armies would not violate the rhineland (broken) not invade poland (broken) not take over the rest of chekoslovakia after the sudentenland was handed over (broken) had no aspirations to the anchluss (unification of austria and Germany, yeah broken). 

Hitler signed a concordant with the vatican, and then proceeded to remove the church from public life. German education was stripped of religous teachings. 

ANY speech from that man in suspect.


----------



## Capstone

dilloduck said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was no Hitler or Mussolini (two very religious guys of some note), but only because Josef (named for St. Joseph, BTW) was violently abused as a child in a poor but extremely religious household. There were also the five years spent in a Greek Orthodox seminary, only after which did he renounce his religion. Take heart though, because [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-In-depth-Biography-Explosive-Documents/dp/0385479549]according to Stalin biographer Edvard Radzinsky,[/ame] "During his mysterious retreat *[of June 1941]* the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." (Radzinsky also listed a number of religious comrades from Stalin's circle). So, for better or worse, it's clear that religion played an important role in Stalin's life.
> 
> Wanna talk more about Hitler or Mussolini now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin led an atheist and communist regime that killed more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.
Click to expand...


What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!

The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was no Hitler or Mussolini (two very religious guys of some note), but only because Josef (named for St. Joseph, BTW) was violently abused as a child in a poor but extremely religious household. There were also the five years spent in a Greek Orthodox seminary, only after which did he renounce his religion. Take heart though, because according to Stalin biographer Edvard Radzinsky, "During his mysterious retreat *[of June 1941]* the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." (Radzinsky also listed a number of religious comrades from Stalin's circle). So, for better or worse, it's clear that religion played an important role in Stalin's life.
> 
> Wanna talk more about Hitler or Mussolini now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin led an atheist and communist regime that killed more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!
> 
> The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.
Click to expand...


I am merely correcting your statement that Hitler was "very religous" which there is no proof of.


----------



## Capstone

martybegan said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Hitler's _lack of faith_, the following is an excerpt  from a speech in Munich:
> 
> "_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._"
> 
> Now, whether he was _actually_ a Christian or just a 'self-proclaimed' one (as the more informed apologists like to argue), he was certainly religious in much of his rhetoric and he definitely knew how  to use the faith of hiss countrymen to his advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also said his armies would not violate the rhineland (broken) not invade poland (broken) not take over the rest of chekoslovakia after the sudentenland was handed over (broken) had no aspirations to the anchluss (unification of austria and Germany, yeah broken).
> 
> Hitler signed a concordant with the vatican, and then proceeded to remove the church from public life. German education was stripped of religous teachings.
> 
> ANY speech from that man in suspect.
Click to expand...


Well, duh.

Again, though in slightly different terms, whether sincere in his proclamation of Christianity or not, the man knew how to use religion to his advantage. 

What's more, without that advantage ...his meteoric rise to power might never have happened.


----------



## dilloduck

Capstone said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he was no Hitler or Mussolini (two very religious guys of some note), but only because Josef (named for St. Joseph, BTW) was violently abused as a child in a poor but extremely religious household. There were also the five years spent in a Greek Orthodox seminary, only after which did he renounce his religion. Take heart though, because according to Stalin biographer Edvard Radzinsky, "During his mysterious retreat *[of June 1941]* the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." (Radzinsky also listed a number of religious comrades from Stalin's circle). So, for better or worse, it's clear that religion played an important role in Stalin's life.
> 
> Wanna talk more about Hitler or Mussolini now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin led an atheist and communist regime that killed more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!
> 
> The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.
Click to expand...


damn that's lame--you have no way of proving that religion created the evil on Hitler or Stalin. Did you want to try for Pol Pot too ?

Defining role ? Funny


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, your religious views definitely explain why you are acting that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My religious view is you treat people the right way because they deserve to as people, not because some imaginary sky pixie is going to punish you in the afterlife.
> 
> That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know the right thing if it had neon signs pointing to it.


----------



## Capstone

martybegan said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin led an atheist and communist regime that killed more than Hitler ever dreamed of killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!
> 
> The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am merely correcting your statement that Hitler was "very religous" which there is no proof of.
Click to expand...


First, you're responding to my reply to Dilloduck, in which I was speaking primarily of Stalin.

Secondly, whether Hitler was really a Christian or not, he WAS OBVIOUSLY "very religious" in his approach to leadership and his overall agenda, as evidenced by the EXPLICIT rationale for his antisemitism.


----------



## westwall

johnsweeting said:


> I like to study religions and stats around it and I have found some interesting things.
> All the other western nations have a majority of the population being non-religious.
> Take a look at these numbers:
> 
> Is Religion important in your life - People who answer "No" in percentage below:
> Sweden 88%
> Denmark 80.5%
> Norway 78%
> Czech Republic 74.5%
> Hong Kong 75.5%
> Japan 75%
> United Kingdom 73%
> Finland 70%
> France 69.5%
> Germany 69%
> Australia 67.5%
> Canada 67%
> Netherlands 66.5%
> New Zealand 66%
> 
> 
> There is not one single "western" nation left now that haven't left religion behind. Even if you compare the "old" British colonies - Canada, Australia & New Zealand there is a big difference compared to America. Why is this ??
> 
> Western nation = Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand & Canada.
> 
> America is on the same religious level as third world countries like:
> Uganda
> Jamaica
> Armenia
> Uzbekistan
> El Salvador
> Honduras
> 
> ....which I don't think is a good thing.
> 
> Still Religious:
> 1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
> 2. USA
> 
> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?








You atheist nutters are all alike aren't you?  Why do you care?  Leave the people alone to do what they wish, and how they wish.  That is why the US was founded.


----------



## westwall

konradv said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My religious view is you treat people the right way because they deserve to as people, not because some imaginary sky pixie is going to punish you in the afterlife.
> 
> That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1st century Rome- Pagan and rules most of the Western world.
> 
> 4th-5th centuries- Becomes Christianized and in less than 100 years Rome sacked by barbarians.
Click to expand...







Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.  AND Rome had stopped being Rome over a century before.  they had become a welfare state where Romans worked less than 50% of the time and slaves were used for almost everything.  The citizens no longer fought their own wars, instead they were fought by mercenaries.  Rome was failing and its religion had nothing to do with it.  As evidence you have the Eastern Roman Empire which survived (as an Eastern Orthodox religion) for a further 1000 years.  

Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.


----------



## dilloduck

Capstone said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!
> 
> The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely correcting your statement that Hitler was "very religous" which there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you're responding to my reply to Dilloduck, in which I was speaking primarily of Stalin.
> 
> Secondly, whether Hitler was really a Christian or not, he WAS OBVIOUSLY "very religious" in his approach to leadership and his overall agenda, as evidenced by the EXPLICIT rationale for his antisemitism.
Click to expand...


working on UBER LAME I see. Claiming Hitler had a "religious" approach to something hardly makes him a religious man. Desperate measures


----------



## High_Gravity

Avatar4321 said:


> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.



Sure it is, more people go to Church here and attend religious functions than most of Europe. Plus take a look at the south where on Sunday they don't let people buy liquor until a certain time, thats all religious based and unheard of anywhere in Europe.


----------



## martybegan

Capstone said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's this, the _my dictator was less religious than yours and killed more people_ argument? HA!
> 
> The point was that religion played a defining role in the creation of your preferred monster, who resorted to using religion to his advantage in his later years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am merely correcting your statement that Hitler was "very religous" which there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you're responding to my reply to Dilloduck, in which I was speaking primarily of Stalin.
> 
> Secondly, whether Hitler was really a Christian or not, he WAS OBVIOUSLY "very religious" in his approach to leadership and his overall agenda, as evidenced by the EXPLICIT rationale for his antisemitism.
Click to expand...


Hitler's anti-semitism and Nazi anti-semitism in general had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that they considered Jews a "race."  Non religous and converted jews were still considered Jews and were treated the same as other jews, the exception being converted German jews, and those were given less harsh treatment soley to not rock the boat in german communities. 

Read the Wanasee Conference Transcript for an idea of how Nazi's saw Jews. 

Wannsee Protocol - Wikisource, the free online library

This quote in particular



> The number of Jews given here for foreign countries includes, however, only those Jews who still adhere to the Jewish faith, since some countries still do not have a definition of the term "Jew" according to racial principles.


----------



## Avatar4321

High_Gravity said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, more people go to Church here and attend religious functions than most of Europe. Plus take a look at the south where on Sunday they don't let people buy liquor until a certain time, thats all religious based and unheard of anywhere in Europe.
Click to expand...


Attending church doesn't make people religious. And being more religious than Europe certainly doesnt make anyone religious (Im not sure if that trend is going to remain with the Muslims moving into European Nations)

What does it profit a man to go to Church on Twice a year or even every Sunday if he doesnt live the principles espoused? 

You think we are a nation of honest people? You think we are a nation of hard workers? We may have been at one point but take one look at the rising generation and you know it's not true. You think we are a charitable nation when outsource our responsibility to the government? You think we worship the Lord when we place countless things ahead of Him like: Money, power, sports, politics, hobbies, etc?

We aren't. It's just a fact.


----------



## High_Gravity

Avatar4321 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, more people go to Church here and attend religious functions than most of Europe. Plus take a look at the south where on Sunday they don't let people buy liquor until a certain time, thats all religious based and unheard of anywhere in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Attending church doesn't make people religious. And being more religious than Europe certainly doesnt make anyone religious (Im not sure if that trend is going to remain with the Muslims moving into European Nations)
> 
> What does it profit a man to go to Church on Twice a year or even every Sunday if he doesnt live the principles espoused?
> 
> You think we are a nation of honest people? You think we are a nation of hard workers? We may have been at one point but take one look at the rising generation and you know it's not true. You think we are a charitable nation when outsource our responsibility to the government? You think we worship the Lord when we place countless things ahead of Him like: Money, power, sports, politics, hobbies, etc?
> 
> We aren't. It's just a fact.
Click to expand...


Well going to service means something, those folks could all stay in bed. I believe there are more religious people in the states than most Western nations, but they don't get as much attention as the people who aren't religious, if that make sense. I'm not religious but this is my observation.


----------



## johnsweeting

> Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.  AND Rome had stopped being Rome over a century before.  they had become a welfare state where Romans worked less than 50% of the time and slaves were used for almost everything.  The citizens no longer fought their own wars, instead they were fought by mercenaries.  Rome was failing and its religion had nothing to do with it.  As evidence you have the Eastern Roman Empire which survived (as an Eastern Orthodox religion) for a further 1000 years.
> 
> Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it is important that you compare the least non-religious countries in the world today, which are Sweden, Norway & Denmark.

Sweden - The World's Best Country for Women (click on the link in the Quote box)


> Best Countries to Live In - Best Places to Live in the World - Marie Claire



Norway - Norway - the best country in the world (click on the link in the Quote box)


> http://www.bi.edu/about-bi/News/News-archive-2009/Norway---the-best-country-in-the-world/



Denmark - Happiest in the World (click on the link in the Quote box)


> Why the Danes are the happiest people in the world -The official website of Denmark



Scandinavia least religious in the World (click on the link in the Quote box)


> Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: 9780814797235: Amazon.com: Books



Scandinavians give most aid in the world as percentage of GDP (Gross National Product):


> This lists countries by the amount of money they give as a percentage of their gross national income.
> The list includes international giving through official channels that qualify as Official Development Assistance, and national charitable giving.
> 
> *Percentage of GDP:*
> Luxembourg  1.00%
> Sweden  0.99%
> Norway  0.93%
> Denmark  0.84%
> Netherlands  0.71%
> United Kingdom  0.56%
> Finland  0.53%
> Ireland  0.48%
> Belgium  0.47%
> France- 0.45%
> Switzerland  0.45%
> Germany  0.38%
> Australia  0.36%
> Canada  0.32%
> Austria  0.28%
> New Zealand  0.28%
> Portugal  0.27%
> Iceland  0.22%
> United States  0.19%
> Japan  0.17%
> Spain  0.15%
> South Korea  0.14%
> Italy  0.13%
> Greece  0.13%



These awful non-religious countries 8Sweden, Norway & Denmark).....Look at what they are doing...


----------



## Avatar4321

If those nations are so great, feel free to go there.


----------



## westwall

johnsweeting said:


> Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.  AND Rome had stopped being Rome over a century before.  they had become a welfare state where Romans worked less than 50% of the time and slaves were used for almost everything.  The citizens no longer fought their own wars, instead they were fought by mercenaries.  Rome was failing and its religion had nothing to do with it.  As evidence you have the Eastern Roman Empire which survived (as an Eastern Orthodox religion) for a further 1000 years.
> 
> Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think it is important that you compare the least non-religious countries in the world today, which are Sweden, Norway & Denmark.
> 
> Sweden - The World's Best Country for Women (click on the link in the Quote box)
> 
> 
> 
> Best Countries to Live In - Best Places to Live in the World - Marie Claire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Norway - Norway - the best country in the world (click on the link in the Quote box)
> 
> 
> Denmark - Happiest in the World (click on the link in the Quote box)
> 
> 
> Scandinavia least religious in the World (click on the link in the Quote box)
> 
> 
> 
> Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: 9780814797235: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scandinavians give most aid in the world as percentage of GDP (Gross National Product):
> 
> 
> 
> This lists countries by the amount of money they give as a percentage of their gross national income.
> The list includes international giving through official channels that qualify as Official Development Assistance, and national charitable giving.
> 
> *Percentage of GDP:*
> Luxembourg  1.00%
> Sweden  0.99%
> Norway  0.93%
> Denmark  0.84%
> Netherlands  0.71%
> United Kingdom  0.56%
> Finland  0.53%
> Ireland  0.48%
> Belgium  0.47%
> France- 0.45%
> Switzerland  0.45%
> Germany  0.38%
> Australia  0.36%
> Canada  0.32%
> Austria  0.28%
> New Zealand  0.28%
> Portugal  0.27%
> Iceland  0.22%
> United States  0.19%
> Japan  0.17%
> Spain  0.15%
> South Korea  0.14%
> Italy  0.13%
> Greece  0.13%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These awful non-religious countries 8Sweden, Norway & Denmark).....Look at what they are doing...
Click to expand...







Those nations also lead the world in suicide, alcoholism, and a whole host of other social issues.  Secular countries are just as fucked up as religious ones.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This nation is religious now? hard to tell from the way people act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But usually the biggest arrogant douchebags come from the aethist side of the equation.
> 
> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.
Click to expand...


Really, name them. 

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...  

You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.


----------



## JoeB131

dilloduck said:


> [
> 
> Oh yes----Stalin was great guy.



No, Stalin was the result of hundreds of years of brutal history. 

Read about Russian History some time, guy, it's not a walk in the park.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> He also said his armies would not violate the rhineland (broken) not invade poland (broken) not take over the rest of chekoslovakia after the sudentenland was handed over (broken) had no aspirations to the anchluss (unification of austria and Germany, yeah broken).



Actually, in Mein Kampf, he said he was going to do ALL of those things, years before he ever came to power.  






martybegan said:


> [
> Hitler signed a concordant with the vatican, and then proceeded to remove the church from public life. German education was stripped of religous teachings.
> 
> ANY speech from that man in suspect.



And when did Pope Pius XII denounce this "broken agreement". 

Oh. That's right. He didn't.  Pius loved him some Axis powers.  

Even let Catholic priests like Jozef Tizo run puppet states like Slovakia for the Nazis.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> [
> 
> *Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.*
> 
> Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.



80 Million? really?  This is what you are trying to claim?  

Most historians put the death toll from Stalin's purges at only a few million, which for a country that just underwent a civil war, is kind of to be expected.  You only get into 8 figures if you toss in the wars and the famines...  

Yeah, Famines. that's the ticket. Dirty stinking commies created famines.


----------



## boedicca

johnsweeting said:


> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?




I'm not sure what you are concerned about.  Do you want other Western countries to become more religious or for the U.S. to become less religious?

If the latter, do you also support multiculturalism which equates third world culture with Western?


----------



## whitehall

Where does this alleged polling data come from? Are there actually pollsters who find isolated Uganda tribes and ask them if religion is important? How big a sample was taken and what demographic part of the population. Personally it is reassuring that Americans still consider their religious beliefs to be important in their lives but I guess that's bad news to the radical left.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say that?
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people act like douchebags because they are religious.
> 
> Because usually, they are pretty ignorant of what is in their holy books, and the Imaginary Sky Pixie is a great enabler for douchebaggery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But usually the biggest arrogant douchebags come from the aethist side of the equation.
> 
> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, name them.
> 
> Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...
> 
> You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.
Click to expand...







You make it too easy...  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Ataturk, Hell plug in any mass murderer in history and odds are they were atheist.


----------



## Avatar4321

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> But usually the biggest arrogant douchebags come from the aethist side of the equation.
> 
> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, name them.
> 
> Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...
> 
> You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it too easy...  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Ataturk, Hell plug in any mass murderer in history and odds are they were atheist.
Click to expand...


You forgot to put JoeB on the list.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.*
> 
> Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80 Million? really?  This is what you are trying to claim?
> 
> Most historians put the death toll from Stalin's purges at only a few million, which for a country that just underwent a civil war, is kind of to be expected.  You only get into 8 figures if you toss in the wars and the famines...
> 
> Yeah, Famines. that's the ticket. Dirty stinking commies created famines.
Click to expand...






The minimum number for Stalin is 20 million.  The high estimate is 80 million (most Russians are leaning towards this number as they further their research), and that was accomplished through many methods, starvation being one of them.  Does it matter how they died?

That does NOT include the 25 million killed during the 2nd World War.  Mao is responsible for a minimum of 80 million and demographers have estimated as high as 150 million.  In other words atheistic socialist governments have managed to murder orders of magnitude more people in under 100 years than all the religious murders committed over 2000 years.

You guys are __


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Stalin murdered 80 million idiot.*
> 
> Read a book sometime konny.  Your profound ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80 Million? really?  This is what you are trying to claim?
> 
> Most historians put the death toll from Stalin's purges at only a few million, which for a country that just underwent a civil war, is kind of to be expected.  You only get into 8 figures if you toss in the wars and the famines...
> 
> Yeah, Famines. that's the ticket. Dirty stinking commies created famines.
Click to expand...


Ask a ukranian about the "famine" that Stalin caused. 

Only JoeB would defend Stalin, you are a fucking waste of life.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> But usually the biggest arrogant douchebags come from the aethist side of the equation.
> 
> Its not suprising that people who believe in nothing bigger than themselves can tend to be assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, name them.
> 
> Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...
> 
> You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it too easy...  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Ataturk, Hell plug in any mass murderer in history and odds are they were atheist.
Click to expand...


Hitler wasn't an "Atheist".  We just spent three pages debunking that, I'm kind of amazed that you repeated it. 

Mao and Pol Pot were brought up in societies that lacked a Western notion of "God". 

Kemel Ataturk was actually kind of an okay guy, not sure why you are putting him on the list, exactly. 

Mugabe is grossly incompetant, but he's hardly a mass murderer. 

So that kind of just leaves you with Stalin.  A guy who was educated in a seminary and studied to be a priest, BTW.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> [
> 
> The minimum number for Stalin is 20 million.  The high estimate is 80 million (most Russians are leaning towards this number as they further their research), and that was accomplished through many methods, starvation being one of them.  Does it matter how they died?



Um, yeah, it kind of does.  Stalin didn't start the civil war that disrupted wheat production, nor can he be held accountable for the fact most of the rest of hte world stopped trading with Russia because they killed their plutocrats.  

Were people killing each other in Russia because Stalin was an atheist, or because they had just fought a civil war and the winners were taking it out on the losers.  




westwall said:


> That does NOT include the 25 million killed during the 2nd World War.  Mao is responsible for a minimum of 80 million and demographers have estimated as high as 150 million.  In other words atheistic socialist governments have managed to murder orders of magnitude more people in under 100 years than all the religious murders committed over 2000 years.
> 
> You guys are __



Actually, if you keep throwing out bullshit numbers from people who are still fighting the Cold War in their heads, it's just kind of hard to take you seriously.  

Were these very ruthless dictators? 
Yup? 
Did they kill as many people as the Cold War Propagandists said? 
Not really?
Does this have anything to do with what their religous beleifs were? 
Nope.


----------



## Capstone

Martybegan,

Any attempt to redact religious considerations from Nazi ideology is an exercise in futility. History simply doesn't bear you out.

From here:



> [. . .]The Nazis defined Jewishness in part genetically, but did not always use formal genetic tests or physiognomic features to determine one's status (although the Nazis talked a lot about physiognomy as a racial characteristic). *In practice records on the religious affiliation(s) of one's grandparents were often the deciding factor (mostly christening records and membership registers of Jewish congregations).*[9]
> 
> However, while the grandparents had been able to choose their religion, their grandchildren in the Nazi era were compulsorily classified as Jews and thus non-Aryans if at least three grandparents had been enrolled as members of a Jewish congregation (regardless whether the persecuted themselves were Jews). According to Orthodox Jewish Halachah, one is Jewish by birth from a Jewish mother or by conversion. Thus Jews who had converted to Christianity could be regarded as especially deceitful and subversive, *while Gentiles who had converted to Judaism were perceived as traitors to the "Aryan race" and were among the first to be persecuted and killed.*[...][E.A.]



The historical record is clear, and the picture it paints is _at least_ as rich in its religious connotation as it is in the ethnic.

In Saul Friedlaender's recently published book, _Nazi Germany and the Jews_, the author refers to the writings of Wilhelm Stuckart and Hans Globke (of the Reichsinnen-ministerium) as follows:

"*In order to illustrate the absolute validity of religious affiliation as the criterion for identifying the race of the descendents*_, Stuckart and Globke gave the hypothetical example of a woman, fully German by blood, who had married a Jew and converted to Judaism and then, having been widowed, returned to Christianity and married a man fully German by blood.  A grandchild deriving from this second marriage would, according to the law, be considered partly Jewish *because of the grandmother's one-time [purely] religious affiliation as a Jew*.  Stuckart and Globke could not but state the following corollary: 'Attention has to be given to the fact that ... *[in] terms of racial belonging, a full-blooded German who converted to Judaism is to be considered as German-blooded after that conversion as before it; but in terms of the racial belonging of his grandchildren, he is to be considered a full Jew'.*" (p. 152)_ (emphasis mine)

Granted, Hitler's hatred transcended religion (take a look at his ideas on homosexuality and the developmentally disabled), but it also transcended the realm of ethnicity.  

However, there's no question that the man knew how to use the Faith of his countrymen to his advantage.

Again, in his own words (from the transcript of a 1933 meeting with RC Bishop Wilhelm Berning):

_The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. *I do not set race over religion*, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, *and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.*_ (emphasis mine)

It was a nice try on your part. Not so much.


----------



## thewanderer

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why atheists are more moral than religous people.  We do the right thing because it's the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New to the board and this may be a discussion that's been had before.  Apologies in advance if so.
> 
> But I don't understand how atheism can presume a "right" action even exists.  I don't understand the basis for morality for an atheist.  True morality, I mean; as in, this act is absolutely morally wrong as opposed to, I would prefer a different act, or this act makes me feel bad personally.
> 
> As with Nietzsche's atheism, I don't see how atheists escape inevitable nihilism.  I don't think they do, in fact.  I think the "new breed" of atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> If someone can explain to me how one can be an atheist yet still enjoy a foundation of objective and absolute morality and meaning I'd be much obliged, because I can't figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, name them.
> 
> Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...
> 
> You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it too easy...  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Ataturk, Hell plug in any mass murderer in history and odds are they were atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler wasn't an "Atheist".  We just spent three pages debunking that, I'm kind of amazed that you repeated it.
> 
> Mao and Pol Pot were brought up in societies that lacked a Western notion of "God".
> 
> Kemel Ataturk was actually kind of an okay guy, not sure why you are putting him on the list, exactly.
> 
> Mugabe is grossly incompetant, but he's hardly a mass murderer.
> 
> So that kind of just leaves you with Stalin.  A guy who was educated in a seminary and studied to be a priest, BTW.
Click to expand...







I find it amusing how desperately you atheists try and bury the very real fact that Hitler was atheist.  Pages and pages of bullshit trying to hide the very simple fact, that anyone who has ever read anything the prick wrote, knows.

Here is a very, very small sampling of his views on religion....






The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. 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.

 All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

 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. 

 21st October, 1941, midday:

 Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65) 
 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 immunized 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) 

 9th April, 1942, dinner:
 There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

 27th February, 1942, midday:

 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 ." (p 278)


----------



## westwall

Avatar4321 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, name them.
> 
> Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, I could come up with a whole list of religous douchebags...
> 
> You, not so much.  Okay, I guess you'll claim Stalin was an "atheist".  You'd probably try to claim Hitler was an atheist, ignoring the whole "Gott Mit Uns" thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it too easy...  Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Ataturk, Hell plug in any mass murderer in history and odds are they were atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to put JoeB on the list.
Click to expand...







He's not a mass murderer....yet.


----------



## KevinWestern

thewanderer said:


> New to the board and this may be a discussion that's been had before.  Apologies in advance if so.
> 
> But I don't understand how atheism can presume a "right" action even exists.  I don't understand the basis for morality for an atheist.  True morality, I mean; as in, this act is absolutely morally wrong as opposed to, I would prefer a different act, or this act makes me feel bad personally.
> 
> As with Nietzsche's atheism, I don't see how atheists escape inevitable nihilism.  I don't think they do, in fact.  I think the "new breed" of atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> If someone can explain to me how one can be an atheist yet still enjoy a foundation of objective and absolute morality and meaning I'd be much obliged, because I can't figure it out.



I&#8217;m not an atheist (or religious), but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a requirement to believe in a higher power to have what we like to call &#8220;morals&#8221; (lol). 

Morals - in my opinion - are often based on what&#8217;s ultimately best for a society and (ultimately) what&#8217;s best for the individual.

If I were to go out and kill another person, not only would I foster a sort of dangerous environment in the place I live (which ultimately could come back to hurt me), I would also make others fearful of me, and would probably be viewed with a low opinion of those who knew the person I killed (ie could no longer rely on them for help when I need it). I don&#8217;t need a commandment to tell me this. 

I don&#8217;t cheat on my wife because I know it will make her sad (which will make me sad, naturally as a human being) and would make me a dishonorable, lying person which would also work to lower my self-esteem. Similarly to the above, I don&#8217;t need a commandment to tell me this. 

Again, morals are often (no-brainers) that in no way need to be tied to a higher power necessarily.


----------



## Agit8r

The more economically degraded a populace is, the more likely they are to fall into superstition...

...or is it the other way around?


----------



## thewanderer

"Morals - in my opinion - are often based on whats ultimately best for a society and (ultimately) whats best for the individual."

I have two difficulties with a utilitarian explanation of my question.

First, a sizable amount of the time it's not clear what action will afford the greatest utility for society, nor do we stop to philosophize to figure it out.  The philosophizing almost always takes place after the fact and IMO serves to justify or rationalize a decision already made by different processes.  Those different processes are frequently called "common sense" by atheists to explain them away, but many of the things we intuitively feel are right or wrong do not conform to common sense, nor are they the best for a larger society.  For example, it's not at all clear that democracy actually produces the best, most stable society for the most people.  I would make the case that a benevolent dictatorship that prohibited all behavior that we know is harmful (such as taking drugs or eating processed food) would do a much better job of that.  However, there's something within us that still feels that democracy, freedom, and equal participation in society is "right."   

Second, a utilitarian explanation still doesn't establish a foundation for something being "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense.  What it does is reduce the idea of morality to selfish utility.  So why would the poster to whom I originally replied feel superior as an atheist for "doing what is right" for it's own sake when "doing what is right" merely means doing what will make him feel the best?


----------



## Capstone

westwall said:


> The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. 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.[...]



Great book! An Amazon reviewer summarized its credibility rather succinctly:



> Beware, this is a discredited source (at the very best, widely disputed), and no serious historian relies on this information. After WW2, there was much embarrassment over Hitler being a Christian and supported by the Christians and the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Lo and behold, we have this book of "secret" conversations, which is where we get all the these anti-Christian quotes. Its usually published as "Hitler's Table Talk", and is an exclusively hearsay compilation of "private" conversations in which Hitler was supposedly warned beforehand that everything he said would be recorded for posterity, yet he lowered his guard and supposedly revealed his true feelings anyway. Naturally, these feelings contrast violently with other public and private speeches or conversations, and mysteriously enough, no original documents or recordings can be found.
> 
> Another over-used source is Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks", which was already so heavily quoted by 1945 that it was explicitly mentioned and dismissed in OSS documents because of its unreliable nature. In fact, May 1983, Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel formally gathered together all of the criticisms of Rauschning's book and resoundingly debunked it at a presentation at the annual conference of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center, showing
> (among other things) that Hitler was not physically present at the times and places indicated, and that the financially desperate Rauschning was paid a staggering sum of money to produce the book by French and American sources who wished to use it as propaganda.



More reading on _Table Talk_.

And here's some relevant information about _Hitler Speaks_.



> Authenticity of Hitler Speaks
> 
> The authenticity of the discussions Rauschning claims to have had with Hitler between 1932 and 1934, which form the basis of his book Hitler Speaks,[18] was challenged shortly after Rauschning's death by Swiss researcher Wolfgang Hänel. Hänel investigated the memoir and announced his findings at a conference of the revisionist association Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt[19] in 1983.[citation needed]
> 
> Hänel declared that Gespräche mit Hitler (the German title of Hitler Speaks) was a fraud and that the book has no value "except as a document of Allied war propaganda"[page needed] and concluded that:
> 
> Rauschning's claim to have met with Hitler "more than a hundred times" was a lie[page needed]
> that the two actually met only four times, and never alone[page needed]
> words attributed to Hitler were simply invented or plagiarized from many different sources, including the writings of Ernst Jünger and Friedrich Nietzsche; and an
> account of Hitler hearing voices, waking at night with convulsive shrieks and pointing in terror at an empty corner while shouting "There, there, in the corner!" was taken from a short story by French writer Guy de Maupassant (Le Horla).[page needed]
> 
> Hänel based his book upon a tape-recorded interview that he had led in 1981 with Emery Reves, Jewish publisher of the original French edition of Hitler speaks (which had been entitled Hitler m'a dit) who had commissioned the book from Rauschning in 1939. In this interview, Reves contended that penniless Rauschning's main reason for agreeing to write Hitler speaks was the 125,000 francs advance, and, referring to preliminary talks with Rauschning in 1939 where he had agreed with the author on what themes and personality traits to apply to Hitler, considered it as largely fabrication.
> 
> The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich also considers that "The research of the Swiss educator Wolfgang Hänel has made it clear that the 'conversations' were mostly free inventions."[20]
> 
> The non-revisionist historian Hugh Trevor-Roper's initial view that the conversations recorded in Hitler Speaks were authentic[21] also wavered as a result of the Hänel research. For example, in the introductory essay[22] he wrote for Hitler's Table Talk in 1953[23] he had said:
> 
> "Hitler's own table talk in the crucial years of the Machtergreifung (193234), as briefly recorded by Hermann Rauschning, so startled the world (which could not even in 1939 credit him with either such ruthlessness or such ambitions) that it was for long regarded as spurious. It is now, I think, accepted. If any still doubt its genuineness, they will hardly do so after reading the volume now published. For here is the official, authentic record of Hitler's Table-Talk almost exactly ten years after the conversations recorded by Rauschning".[24]
> 
> in the third edition, published in 2000,[25] he wrote a new preface in which he did revise, though not reverse, his opinion of the authenticity of Hitler Speaks:
> 
> "I would not now endorse so cheerfully the authority of Hermann Rauschning which has been dented by Wolfgang Hanel, but I would not reject it altogether. Rauschning may have yielded at times to journalistic temptations, but he had opportunities to record Hitler's conversations and the general tenor of his record too exactly foretells Hitler's later utterances to be dismissed as fabrication."[26]
> 
> In writing his biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw has written "I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether."[27][28]
> 
> Richard Steigmann-Gall, in The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, is another historian contending Hitler speaks an overall fake.[29]
> 
> The Hänel research was reviewed in the West German newspapers Der Spiegel[30] and Die Zeit in 1985.[31][...]



While I don't blame Westwall entirely for the cut-and-paste job from answers.com, he or she has demonstrated a common failing of the willfully ignorant: namely the complete lack of effort in verifying the credibility of a source.


----------



## JoeB131

thewanderer said:


> [
> 
> New to the board and this may be a discussion that's been had before.  Apologies in advance if so.
> 
> But I don't understand how atheism can presume a "right" action even exists.  I don't understand the basis for morality for an atheist.  True morality, I mean; as in, this act is absolutely morally wrong as opposed to, I would prefer a different act, or this act makes me feel bad personally.
> 
> As with Nietzsche's atheism, I don't see how atheists escape inevitable nihilism.  I don't think they do, in fact.  I think the "new breed" of atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins simply choose to ignore it.
> 
> If someone can explain to me how one can be an atheist yet still enjoy a foundation of objective and absolute morality and meaning I'd be much obliged, because I can't figure it out.



Okay, you remind me of Jamie Lee Curtis' line from _A Fish Called Wanda_.  "An Ape reads philosophy, he just doesn't understand it."

It's very easy to find the right action without believe in a Sky Pixie. 

1) Does my action harm another?  If so, is there a good reason to do so? 

If you can't answer yes to the first without a yes to the second, it's immoral.  

No Sky Pixie required.


----------



## westwall

Capstone said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. 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.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great book! An Amazon reviewer summarized its credibility rather succinctly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beware, this is a discredited source (at the very best, widely disputed), and no serious historian relies on this information. After WW2, there was much embarrassment over Hitler being a Christian and supported by the Christians and the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Lo and behold, we have this book of "secret" conversations, which is where we get all the these anti-Christian quotes. Its usually published as "Hitler's Table Talk", and is an exclusively hearsay compilation of "private" conversations in which Hitler was supposedly warned beforehand that everything he said would be recorded for posterity, yet he lowered his guard and supposedly revealed his true feelings anyway. Naturally, these feelings contrast violently with other public and private speeches or conversations, and mysteriously enough, no original documents or recordings can be found.
> 
> Another over-used source is Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks", which was already so heavily quoted by 1945 that it was explicitly mentioned and dismissed in OSS documents because of its unreliable nature. In fact, May 1983, Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel formally gathered together all of the criticisms of Rauschning's book and resoundingly debunked it at a presentation at the annual conference of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center, showing
> (among other things) that Hitler was not physically present at the times and places indicated, and that the financially desperate Rauschning was paid a staggering sum of money to produce the book by French and American sources who wished to use it as propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More reading on _Table Talk_.
> 
> And here's some relevant information about _Hitler Speaks_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authenticity of Hitler Speaks
> 
> The authenticity of the discussions Rauschning claims to have had with Hitler between 1932 and 1934, which form the basis of his book Hitler Speaks,[18] was challenged shortly after Rauschning's death by Swiss researcher Wolfgang Hänel. Hänel investigated the memoir and announced his findings at a conference of the revisionist association Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt[19] in 1983.[citation needed]
> 
> Hänel declared that Gespräche mit Hitler (the German title of Hitler Speaks) was a fraud and that the book has no value "except as a document of Allied war propaganda"[page needed] and concluded that:
> 
> Rauschning's claim to have met with Hitler "more than a hundred times" was a lie[page needed]
> that the two actually met only four times, and never alone[page needed]
> words attributed to Hitler were simply invented or plagiarized from many different sources, including the writings of Ernst Jünger and Friedrich Nietzsche; and an
> account of Hitler hearing voices, waking at night with convulsive shrieks and pointing in terror at an empty corner while shouting "There, there, in the corner!" was taken from a short story by French writer Guy de Maupassant (Le Horla).[page needed]
> 
> Hänel based his book upon a tape-recorded interview that he had led in 1981 with Emery Reves, Jewish publisher of the original French edition of Hitler speaks (which had been entitled Hitler m'a dit) who had commissioned the book from Rauschning in 1939. In this interview, Reves contended that penniless Rauschning's main reason for agreeing to write Hitler speaks was the 125,000 francs advance, and, referring to preliminary talks with Rauschning in 1939 where he had agreed with the author on what themes and personality traits to apply to Hitler, considered it as largely fabrication.
> 
> The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich also considers that "The research of the Swiss educator Wolfgang Hänel has made it clear that the 'conversations' were mostly free inventions."[20]
> 
> The non-revisionist historian Hugh Trevor-Roper's initial view that the conversations recorded in Hitler Speaks were authentic[21] also wavered as a result of the Hänel research. For example, in the introductory essay[22] he wrote for Hitler's Table Talk in 1953[23] he had said:
> 
> "Hitler's own table talk in the crucial years of the Machtergreifung (193234), as briefly recorded by Hermann Rauschning, so startled the world (which could not even in 1939 credit him with either such ruthlessness or such ambitions) that it was for long regarded as spurious. It is now, I think, accepted. If any still doubt its genuineness, they will hardly do so after reading the volume now published. For here is the official, authentic record of Hitler's Table-Talk almost exactly ten years after the conversations recorded by Rauschning".[24]
> 
> in the third edition, published in 2000,[25] he wrote a new preface in which he did revise, though not reverse, his opinion of the authenticity of Hitler Speaks:
> 
> "I would not now endorse so cheerfully the authority of Hermann Rauschning which has been dented by Wolfgang Hanel, but I would not reject it altogether. Rauschning may have yielded at times to journalistic temptations, but he had opportunities to record Hitler's conversations and the general tenor of his record too exactly foretells Hitler's later utterances to be dismissed as fabrication."[26]
> 
> In writing his biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw has written "I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether."[27][28]
> 
> Richard Steigmann-Gall, in The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, is another historian contending Hitler speaks an overall fake.[29]
> 
> The Hänel research was reviewed in the West German newspapers Der Spiegel[30] and Die Zeit in 1985.[31][...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I don't blame Westwall entirely for the cut-and-paste job from answers.com, he or she has demonstrated a common failing of the willfully ignorant: namely the complete lack of effort in verifying the credibility of a source.
Click to expand...








Fine, here's some more.  I was being quick because I had to leave, but as you made the claim, here you go.  There is loads more.  This will get you started.  I find it amusing that you guys will buy Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and claim to be critical thinkers when you are anything but.

Instead of trying to bury the fact that Hitler was an atheist you should simply acknowledge it and state that while he was indeed an atheist his views in now are reflected in the views of atheists around the world.

It is too easy to show what Hitler was.  A egomaniacle, amoral, vegetarian atheist.  Who also happened to be a mass murderer.  His beliefs didn't make him a mass murderer.  His amorality did that.


A major part of what Hitler saw as his forthcoming struggle was targeting, isolating and destroying a number of enemies who were perceived as inherently hostile to his dream of the 'Volksgemeinschaft' or 'Racial Community'. Chief among these were Jews, Communists, the Social Democrats with their loyal electoral support, the Catholic Centre Party and the Christian Churches. All were threats, each to be dealt with as quickly as circumstances would allow. 

Though Hitler felt a particular urgency  and hatred  when dealing with Jews and Communists, he viewed the Catholic Church as a pernicious opponent, a deeply-entrenched threat that must be controlled and eventually uprooted from German life in order to establish his promised Thousand-Year-Reich. To help eliminate Catholic influence, he turned to Alfred Rosenberg, arch-ideologue, anti-Semite, and despiser of Christianity. In his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Rosenberg had formulated a "scientific" theory of racism. For him, the supreme human value was that of race: individual races possessed their own collective soul, a mystical "power of the blood and soil." Each race also possessed a religious impulse (in the case of the Aryan Germans, this was the pagan cult of Wotan, king of the gods). Christianity, for Rosenberg, was the distorted product of Semitic tribes who had tricked the Aryans into jettisoning their pagan truth. The Catholic Church, prime mover in this spiritual swindle, was singled out for sustained attack as the promoter of "prodigious, conscious and unconscious falsifications." Rosenberg claimed that Jesus Christ had been an unwitting tool of Jewish world conspirators, active as early as the first century AD. In some writings, he would go further and argue that Christ was possibly not a Jew at all, but a prototype Aryan, son of a Roman soldier stationed in Palestine. 

In February 1933 Hermann Goering banned all Catholic newspapers in Cologne, citing that 'political' Catholicism  ie commenting on government policy  would not be tolerated. Responding to protests, he denied this was part of a deliberate campaign against Catholics; the government, he claimed, would "seal its own doom with such a policy." Though the ban was lifted, it sent a warning tremor through the largely Catholic Rhineland, and gave an accurate indication of possible future government moves. A further straw in the wind was apparent when Storm troopers (SA) broke up meetings of Christian trade unions and the Catholic Centre Party. The Manchester Guardian reported one such incident on February 23, 1933  a prominent politician, Adam Stegerwald, was attacked while speaking at a meeting in Krefeld, and a number of priests were hurt in the fracas. 



Nazi Policy and the Catholic Church


From the very beginning the Nazis had mixed attitudes toward the Catholic
Church. Adolf Hitler, a nominal Catholic, was tolerant of Catholicism. Many other
Nazis were practising Catholics. A staunch Catholic and early Nazi patron who
will appear later in this study was General Franz Ritter von Epp. He commanded
one of the military groups which liberated Munich from Soviet rule in May, 1919.
Immediately afterward he ordered a Mass of thanksgiving, for which act of piety he
was dubbed by the impious as the  Virgin Mary General (Muttergottesgeneral).
Besides being opposed to what they called the red international of socialism
and the golden international od Judaism, many Nazis were also opposed to the
black international of Catholicism. Anti-Catholics among the early Nazis included
the leading Nazi philosopher and writer, Alfred Rosenberg, and Hermann Esser,
who before he was of age became one of Hitlers most effective speakers.3 Heinrich
Himmler, who joined the National Socialist Part y in 1925, was another
anti-Catholic who was to become a leading Nazi.
Because of this anti-Catholic aspect of National Socialism, because it made
race a kind of religion, because it stressed German nationalism while Catholics
were often separatists, and because Nazis attacked the specifically Catholic
political parties, there were important religious and political differences between
Nazism and Catholicism in the 1920's. After the spectacular success of the
National Socialist Party in the elections to the Reichstag in the summer of 1930,
Catholic bishops in Germany began forbidding Catholics to be members of the
National Socialist Party. By March of 19 31 all the German bishops had condemned
National Socialism, and some bishops instructed Catholics not to vote for
the National Socialist Party in the crucial elections during 1932 and on March 5,
1933.4


http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back Issues/CCHA1967/Cahill.pdf

12 Aug 1935 - CATHOLICS REPLY TO NAZI ATTACKS "Will Not Be Int...



"But there was a dilemma for Hitler. While conservatives, the Christian churches ''could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State.'' Given that these were the fundamental underpinnings of the Nazi regime, ''conflict was inevitable,'' the summary states. It came, as Nazi power surged in the late 1920's toward national domination in the early 30's.

According to Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German youth corps that would later be known as the Hitler Youth, ''the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement'' from the beginning, though ''considerations of expedience made it impossible'' for the movement to adopt this radical stance officially until it had consolidated power, the outline says."


Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity - New York Times


----------



## thewanderer

[/quote]

Okay, you remind me of Jamie Lee Curtis' line from _A Fish Called Wanda_.  "An Ape reads philosophy, he just doesn't understand it."

It's very easy to find the right action without believe in a Sky Pixie. 

1) Does my action harm another?  If so, is there a good reason to do so? 

If you can't answer yes to the first without a yes to the second, it's immoral.  

No Sky Pixie required.[/QUOTE]


You remind me of a smug college freshman who has no idea that he's embarrassing himself.  

Nothing in your reply addresses the problem.  

First of all, if there's no objective standard for morality, then there is nothing intrinsically moral about not harming others.   You still have nothing more than a utilitarian system fueled by ultimate self-interest, which is not true morality and furthermore which you have in no way convinced me is worthy of your pride.

But the real rub is this: who decides whether something is a "good reason" for violating rule #1?  Society?  Majority rule?  What about when the majority in this country thought it was fine and dandy to own slaves?  The individual?  Surely you see the problem with that as pertains to this topic.

Individuals and society both decide that they have all kinds of good reasons for harming others.  We can (and have) rationalized just about anything we want into justification.

If that's your definition of "morality," come back when you've come up with something that Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, or Camus didn't already think of first.  The atheists from that group of thinkers actually followed it out to its logical conclusion, and they were right.  Today's atheists somehow think they can have their cake and eat it too.  They can't.


----------



## JoeB131

thewanderer said:


> You remind me of a smug college freshman who has no idea that he's embarrassing himself.
> 
> Nothing in your reply addresses the problem.
> 
> First of all, if there's no objective standard for morality, then there is nothing intrinsically moral about not harming others.   You still have nothing more than a utilitarian system fueled by ultimate self-interest, which is not true morality and furthermore which you have in no way convinced me is worthy of your pride.
> 
> But the real rub is this: who decides whether something is a "good reason" for violating rule #1?  Society?  Majority rule?  What about when the majority in this country thought it was fine and dandy to own slaves?  The individual?  Surely you see the problem with that as pertains to this topic.




It wasn't a majority that the slaveholders decided to cite to rationalize their holding of slaves. In fact, quite the contrary, the plead states rights and tried to find every dodge to avoid the will of the majority on this subject.  

you know what they did cite?  The Fucking Bible.  God gave a whole shitload of rules rationalizing slaver, such as when it was okay to beat your slave, when it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, and so on .  




thewanderer said:


> Individuals and society both decide that they have all kinds of good reasons for harming others.  We can (and have) rationalized just about anything we want into justification.
> 
> If that's your definition of "morality," come back when you've come up with something that Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, or Camus didn't already think of first.  The atheists from that group of thinkers actually followed it out to its logical conclusion, and they were right.  Today's atheists somehow think they can have their cake and eat it too.  They can't.



As opposed to a religionist, who tries to pretend that all the bad shit they ever did wasn't their own fault.  

The Pope Collaborating with Hitler.  Well, he had a good reason. 
Inquisitions, crusades, witch-burnings, torture of heretics, molesting altar boys, etc. 

Well, that's no reflection on God.  The "NO True Scotsman Fallacy" applies.


----------



## thewanderer

JoeB131 said:


> thewanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It wasn't a majority that the slaveholders decided to cite to rationalize their holding of slaves. In fact, quite the contrary, the plead states rights and tried to find every dodge to avoid the will of the majority on this subject.
> 
> you know what they did cite?  The Fucking Bible.  God gave a whole shitload of rules rationalizing slaver, such as when it was okay to beat your slave, when it was okay to sell your daughter into slavery, and so on .
> 
> ...As opposed to a religionist, who tries to pretend that all the bad shit they ever did wasn't their own fault.
> 
> The Pope Collaborating with Hitler.  Well, he had a good reason.
> Inquisitions, crusades, witch-burnings, torture of heretics, molesting altar boys, etc.
> 
> Well, that's no reflection on God.  The "NO True Scotsman Fallacy" applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery.  Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else.  I _know_ that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation.  Treating women unequally.  Persecution of gays.  Pick whatever you want, the point still stands.  If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.
> 
> And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work.  Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.
> 
> As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it.  I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't.  But I _know_ that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

thewanderer said:


> [
> 
> I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery.  Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else.  I _know_ that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation.  Treating women unequally.  Persecution of gays.  Pick whatever you want, the point still stands.  If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.
> 
> And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work.  Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.
> 
> As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it.  I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't.  But I _know_ that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"



I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.  

As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"  

Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible.   12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)


----------



## thewanderer

JoeB131 said:


> I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.
> 
> As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"
> 
> Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible.   12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)



In kindergarten I was taught that when I pointed my finger at someone else I was also pointing three fingers back at myself, and that has turned out to be a good lesson over the years.

Take a minute, back up, and read the exchanges we've had with as objective a perspective as you can.  You are doing exactly what you (rightly) observe religious people doing.  

I've been attempting to get you and another poster to deal with a very real, historically acknowledged logical problem of atheism.  When a very shallow surface answer (complete with snide remark about a Sky Pixie) was exposed as such, you began to pretend the problem isn't there just like religious people pretend parts of the Bible are not there.  The other poster did too.  When faced with a difficult question, you both chose to focus on what religious people do rather than deal with the question regarding atheism.  That's a classic non-confront.

IME atheists tend to like to view themselves as being measured and analytical.  The truth is that when it comes down to brass tacks I don't find that to be any more common among atheists than I do religious people.  I still see people reacting emotionally and using logic to justify the emotional decision.

I can understand the reaction and the emotion; I live in the deep south and around here an atheist is considered only a very small step up from an Islamic terrorist.  I personally can't reconcile the logistical problem with atheism that I've referred to, which is why I do not consider myself an atheist.  On the other hand, I don't believe in talking snakes and resurrected zombies either.  

Just because I reject one, however, does not mean it's in my best interest to accept the other whole-cloth.  If I find a problem in either I must at least attempt to reconcile it, or else my only honest answer is, "I don't know, neither one seems 100% accurate and I can't figure it out," which is the only answer I've got right now.  One thing I do know, and that is: it is to no benefit to your side that the other side also has problems.

And so, the problem referenced here remains.


----------



## KevinWestern

thewanderer said:


> First, a sizable amount of the time it's not clear what action will afford the greatest utility for society, nor do we stop to philosophize to figure it out.  The philosophizing almost always takes place after the fact and IMO serves to justify or rationalize a decision already made by different processes.



Not sure I agree with a &#8220;sizable amount of the time&#8221;. I would argue that my explanation could apply to most everything, including why stealing is bad, or why rape is bad, or even why you should love thy neighbor. I think most all &#8220;good&#8221; actions (like being honest, courageous, sharing, etc) are all pretty straightforward in their helpfulness to both the individual and the community. Personally, I think you&#8217;d be rather hardpressed to find a Biblical &#8220;moral&#8221; that can not be explained through common sense. 

The only ones I can think of that cannot be explained through "common sense" - so to speak - are the morals such as loving God, avoiding blashphemy, etc.



thewanderer said:


> Those different processes are frequently called "common sense" by atheists to explain them away, but many of the things we intuitively feel are right or wrong do not conform to common sense, nor are they the best for a larger society. For example, it's not at all clear that democracy actually produces the best, most stable society for the most people.  I would make the case that a benevolent dictatorship that prohibited all behavior that we know is harmful (such as taking drugs or eating processed food) would do a much better job of that.  However, there's something within us that still feels that democracy, freedom, and equal participation in society is "right."


I don&#8217;t know wanderer. I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is squashed by the common sense notion that the dictator will eventually die and that ultimate power may fall into the wrong hands. The model simply doesn&#8217;t work and therefore it makes the most sense to choose a &#8220;democracy&#8221; and a sort of living, breathing gov&#8217;t based on the will of the people of the day.



thewanderer said:


> Second, a utilitarian explanation still doesn't establish a foundation for something being "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense.  What it does is reduce the idea of morality to selfish utility.  So why would the poster to whom I originally replied feel superior as an atheist for "doing what is right" for it's own sake when "doing what is right" merely means doing what will make him feel the best?



Yea, but why can&#8217;t morality be nothing more than a &#8220;selfish&#8221; utility for both the individual and society - what&#8217;s wrong with that? What&#8217;s &#8220;right&#8221; becomes essentially the action that produces the best outcome for all parties involved.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> thewanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I doubt seriously that the majority of American citizens in, say, 1790 were anti-slavery.  Even if they were, if you don't think that's an accurate example, fine, pick something else.  I _know_ that the majority of American society in, say, 1950 was A-o.k. with segregation.  Treating women unequally.  Persecution of gays.  Pick whatever you want, the point still stands.  If "morality" relies on society to define it and decide when "doing no harm" is o.k. to suspend then it has no more intrinsic meaning than the fact the I prefer blue to red.
> 
> And we can have a discussion about religion if you want, but attempting to avoid dealing with a logistical problem of atheism by turning the focus of this conversation to religion will not work.  Pointing out people's rationalizations regarding religion in no way answers the philosophical problem that atheism has with morality.
> 
> As I said before, there have been some really smart guys who have wrestled with this one, and they were honest about it and admitted that there was no way out of it.  I doubt anyone here, including me, is going to solve the problem when they couldn't.  But I _know_ that trying to divert attention by saying, "Ahhh, but what about 3 x 3?" will not help us when the actual question asked is, "How does 2 + 2 not equal 4?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that Atheism has a superior morality because the Atheist has to rationalize his position to reasonable people.
> 
> As opposed to the religionist, who can just point to his book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales and say, "See, says so right here. Stone the Gays!!!"
> 
> Of course, the way Religionists get out of it is they pretend the really bad stuff isn't actually in the bible.   12 years of Catholic Education, I didn't hear about the juicy parts like Jephthah butchering his own daughter until I became an atheist. (In fact, Catholic Schools avoided the whole book of Judges for some reason, and it's the best part of the book!)
Click to expand...







What's amusing is you militant atheists proselytize just as hard, and just as annoyingly as the deists.  Atheism is every bit the same as religion in that respect.  I'm an agnostic and have been for my whole life.  I RESPECT all viewpoints and expect my viewpoints to be respected as well.

Just like I am annoyed by deists trying to convert me to their way of thinking I am just as annoyed by you supposedly more "moral" atheists spewing your nonsense.


----------



## thewanderer

KevinWestern said:


> Not sure I agree with a &#8220;sizable amount of the time&#8221;. I would argue that my explanation could apply to most everything, including why stealing is bad, or why rape is bad, or even why you should love thy neighbor. I think most all &#8220;good&#8221; actions (like being honest, courageous, sharing, etc) are all pretty straightforward in their helpfulness to both the individual and the community.
> 
> The problems I have with the utilitarian model are these:
> 
> 1.  The following summary that I hooked from the first Google search I did on "utilitarianism" sums up my first problem quite well.  I simply disagree that determining the ultimate benefit to society is that simple:
> 
> "While utilitarianism is currently a very popular ethical theory, there are some difficulties in relying on it as a sole method for moral decision-making.
> 
> First, the utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions. But it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs. How do we go about assigning a value to life or to art? And how do we go about comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, the value of time, or the value of human dignity?
> 
> Moreover, can we ever be really certain about all of the consequences of our actions? Our ability to measure and to predict the benefits and harms resulting from a course of action or a moral rule is dubious, to say the least.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust.
> 
> During the apartheid regime in South Africa in the last century, South African whites, for example, sometimes claimed that all South Africans&#8212;including blacks&#8212;were better off under white rule. These whites claimed that in those African nations that have traded a whites-only government for a black or mixed one, social conditions have rapidly deteriorated. Civil wars, economic decline, famine, and unrest, they predicted, will be the result of allowing the black majority of South Africa to run the government. If such a prediction were true&#8212;and the end of apartheid has shown that the prediction was false&#8212;then the white government of South Africa would have been morally justified by utilitarianism, in spite of its injustice."
> 
> 2.  The idea is self-defeating, at least to some degree.  It requires that in circumstances in which benefit to society is in opposition to benefit to the individual, the individual sacrifice himself and choose the course of action that benefits society.  Now we're back to having to justify in some way why it is more "moral" for individuals to do this, which means we have to have some referee besides strict utility to provide the context.  We all think well of the fellow who dives on the hand grenade, sacrificing his own life for his friends in the foxhole, but if utility is our guide, it's not the foregone conclusion that we take it to be.  As a world in which people are willing to sacrifice themselves for others is of no use to a dead man, if that is our sole motivation we shall find it a rather ineffective one.  There has to be something to resolve the conflict, and it can't be mere utility.
> 
> ...I don&#8217;t know wanderer. I think the idea of a benevolent dictator is squashed by the common sense notion that the dictator will eventually die and that ultimate power may fall into the wrong hands. The model simply doesn&#8217;t work and therefore it makes the most sense to choose a &#8220;democracy&#8221; and a sort of living, breathing gov&#8217;t based on the will of the people of the day.
> 
> Dictatorships have worked much better than democracies throughout history.  Kingdoms and dynasties were dictatorships and they were very stable, sometimes lasting thousands of years.  Democracies have rarely lasted more than a couple of hundred years.  We're on borrowed time with ours right now.
> 
> ...Yea, but why can&#8217;t morality be nothing more than a &#8220;selfish&#8221; utility for both the individual and society - what&#8217;s wrong with that?
> 
> Nothing's "wrong" with it, per se.  But if that is all that truly exists (clearly IMO it's not), then there is no what I call "true" morality.  Morality simply becomes preference or perception.  And if _that's_ the case, there is really no reason to chose a "right" action over a "wrong" one unless the "right" one benefits a person (I mean actually benefits him or her...not "contributes to a world in which").  This violates how human beings act.  We live as though some acts are actually wrong, not just non-utilitarian.  So in evaluating what theory of life matches up most closely with what we observe, this point nags at the honest atheist viewpoint.



The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!


----------



## KevinWestern

thewanderer said:


> The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!



Just about to dip here but want to make a few points. 

1.) Obviously it's difficult to assign values to the Utilitarianism system, however (I believe) we are advanced spiritual beings that are far more intelligent, wise and intuitive than we believe and see on just the surface. I believe we are all connected - in a sense - so that when faced with a decision, we can quickly rifle through all of the possible actions and _know _the one that derives the most utility overall. 

We may not select that option (because we want INSTANT utility now), but deep down we know generally what the best choice should have been. Note that I know this is getting highly opinionated, as these are my own personal beliefs. 

I believe there is (at the highest level) no "self", as we are all part of the same thing. 

2.) Say you are religious, does the bible list out values to all of our daily decisions (ie is one thing worse than another, etc) in a comprehensive manner. We're still going to be guessing anyways in most cases. The point I'm making is what sort of alternative do any of the world's religions offer to our basic Utilitarianistic view?

3.) You mention Justice and the apartheid. Perhaps temporarily white rule would mean better conditions for the Africans, however, is that necessarily the best "end state" taking all factors into account? Perhaps the civil unrest, war, would be temporary and necessary to forming the _best _society? Also, perhaps the fact that the Africans were experiencing famine, war, etc in the absence of white rule was not due to the absence of white rule itself - but instead the fact that the Africans have been brutally repressed and exploited by the whites for centuries (and would continue to be exploited whether or not a white figure head was in place). 

4.) Definitely there are conflicts to self/society, but the fact of the matter is that we DO have the people who jump on the grenade (why is this if no utility is gained?). Perhaps it's because people do derive a great deal of utility and honor from saving the lives of others. Again, I'm a spiritual person and believe strongly in "oneness" of all. I think our actions are both consciously and subconsciously driven to reach an equilibrium benefiting both self and whole. 

5.) As far as I'm concerned, the democracy in America has brought its citizens more wealth and a better quality of life than virtually any other society in history. Even our poor have running water, refrigerators, cell phones, and access to cheap entertainment. Sure, democracies might crumble more easily, but is *stability *the key defining factor in what makes the best form of government? I certainly don't believe so.


----------



## JoeB131

thewanderer said:


> [
> 
> In kindergarten I was taught that when I pointed my finger at someone else I was also pointing three fingers back at myself, and that has turned out to be a good lesson over the years.
> 
> Take a minute, back up, and read the exchanges we've had with as objective a perspective as you can.  You are doing exactly what you (rightly) observe religious people doing.
> 
> I've been attempting to get you and another poster to deal with a very real, historically acknowledged logical problem of atheism.  When a very shallow surface answer (complete with snide remark about a Sky Pixie) was exposed as such, you began to pretend the problem isn't there just like religious people pretend parts of the Bible are not there.  The other poster did too.  When faced with a difficult question, you both chose to focus on what religious people do rather than deal with the question regarding atheism.  That's a classic non-confront.



Guy, I ain't going to play this sissy-ass High School debate club nonsense with you.  

You asked me why I think my morality as a Atheist is superior to a religionists, and I gave you two very succinct answers. 

1) When I do something, it's not because I'm afraid the Sky Pixie is going to punish me. 

2) In my life, I've never did... (whole list of stuff religions people did.)  

To me, that's a good enough argument.  





thewanderer said:


> [
> 
> 
> I can understand the reaction and the emotion; I live in the deep south and around here an atheist is considered only a very small step up from an Islamic terrorist.  I personally can't reconcile the logistical problem with atheism that I've referred to, which is why I do not consider myself an atheist.  On the other hand, I don't believe in talking snakes and resurrected zombies either.






I used to use this cop-out for a while.  "Well, yeah, I don't believe in XXXX, but gosh darn, there has to be a purpose or a reason for creation, etc. etc. "  

So let's get down to what probably keeps you on the superstition reservation.  Pascal's Wager, or as it often called "Fire Insurance".  We are all afraid of death, as we should be.  We are all afraid of what come after, especially when you have more years behind than ahead.  (The situation I find myself in now.)


----------



## MaryL

No, sorry kid. Superstition rules the world. It seems to always rule, they  hunt down endangered Rhinos and take their horns.  All those Chinese wankers KNOW  it's all bullshit.  How do we convince them other wise?


----------



## Capstone

westwall said:


> [. . .]I find it amusing that you guys will buy Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and claim to be critical thinkers when you are anything but.[...]



This from the one who posted a bunch of spurious quotes from a book that was long ago discredited as revisionist Christian propanda. Hilarious.



westwall said:


> [...]It is too easy to show what Hitler was.  A egomaniacle, *amoral*, vegetarian atheist.  Who also happened to be a mass murderer.  His beliefs didn't make him a mass murderer.  His *amorality* did that.[...]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]Click here[/ame].

Hitler was many things, but "amoral" wasn't one of them. You might say his ethic was horribly twisted, even _immoral_ by most standards, but his morals, such as they were, were definitely on display. For instance, he opposed homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, abortion, and pretty much everything else Germany's conservative Christians were bitching about at the time, which might explain his enormous popularity among conservative Christians in Germany ...and in pockets abroad. 

Now, since the rest of "_your_" post amounts to little more than a hodge-podge of copied and pasted opinions of _others_ (much of which is based on a common refusal or inability to account for the nuances of the many struggles between competing denominations *of Christianity*), I'm pretty much done with it ...and you. Sorry, but I hate the idea of arguing with people who aren't really here to argue back, just 'cause some schmo on the internet apparently likes to pass off their thoughts as his own.

In case anyone else is interested though, regarding the evolution of Hitler's antisemitism, the following excerpts are all from _Mein Kampf_, _Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna_:

"_[...]Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions[...] For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation.[. . .]


I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.[. . .]

At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.[. . .]


The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.[. . .]

*How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.[. . .]

 Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.*_"
________________________​

Just think, if not for the influence of Dr. Lueger and the flaming antisemitism of the _Christian Social Movement_, one of the most murderous leaders in human history might not have been.


----------



## westwall

Capstone said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> [. . .]I find it amusing that you guys will buy Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and claim to be critical thinkers when you are anything but.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from the one who posted a bunch of spurious quotes from a book that was long ago discredited as revisionist Christian propanda. Hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]It is too easy to show what Hitler was.  A egomaniacle, *amoral*, vegetarian atheist.  Who also happened to be a mass murderer.  His beliefs didn't make him a mass murderer.  His *amorality* did that.[...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]Click here[/ame].
> 
> Hitler was many things, but "amoral" wasn't one of them. You might say his ethic was horribly twisted, even _immoral_ by most standards, but his morals, such as they were, were definitely on display. For instance, he opposed homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, abortion, and pretty much everything else Germany's conservative Christians were bitching about at the time, which might explain his enormous popularity among conservative Christians in Germany ...and in pockets abroad.
> 
> Now, since the rest of "_your_" post amounts to little more than a hodge-podge of copied and pasted opinions of _others_ (much of which is based on a common refusal or inability to account for the nuances of the many struggles between competing denominations *of Christianity*), I'm pretty much done with it ...and you. Sorry, but I hate the idea of arguing with people who aren't really here to argue back, just 'cause some schmo on the internet apparently likes to pass off their thoughts as his own.
> 
> In case anyone else is interested though, regarding the evolution of Hitler's antisemitism, the following excerpts are all from _Mein Kampf_, _Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna_:
> 
> "_[...]Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions[...] For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation.[. . .]
> 
> 
> I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.[. . .]
> 
> At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.[. . .]
> 
> 
> The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.[. . .]
> 
> *How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!
> 
> My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.[. . .]
> 
> Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.*_"
> ________________________​
> 
> Just think, if not for the influence of Dr. Lueger and the flaming antisemitism of the _Christian Social Movement_, one of the most murderous leaders in human history might not have been.
Click to expand...







Heydrich presented Hitler with a list of German generals with Jewish blood in 1941.  Hitler took the list, tore it up, and told Heydrich "I'll tell you who is Jewish and who is not".  Hitler was many things, but religious wasn't one of them.  I notice how you avoided my second links like the plague and resorted to ad hom attacks.

You lose....


----------



## thewanderer

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I ain't going to play this sissy-ass High School debate club nonsense with you.
> 
> You asked me why I think my morality as a Atheist is superior to a religionists, and I gave you two very succinct answers.
> 
> 1) When I do something, it's not because I'm afraid the Sky Pixie is going to punish me.
> 
> 2) In my life, I've never did... (whole list of stuff religions people did.)
> 
> To me, that's a good enough argument.
> 
> That's fine.  I thought you might be inclined to seriously and critically examine your views and face the flaws, two things you seem to berate "religious" people for not doing.  I was wrong about that.  Carry on.
> 
> 
> I used to use this cop-out for a while.  "Well, yeah, I don't believe in XXXX, but gosh darn, there has to be a purpose or a reason for creation, etc. etc. "
> 
> That might be a cop-out.  Unfortunately for what you are claiming, however, it's not what I said.  There's a big difference in recognizing a specific flaw in the atheist line of logic (that has also been pointed out by major philosophers and thinkers throughout history) and being unable to swallow it and resisting it based on what you typed above.
> 
> 
> So let's get down to what probably keeps you on the superstition reservation.  Pascal's Wager, or as it often called "Fire Insurance".  We are all afraid of death, as we should be.  We are all afraid of what come after, especially when you have more years behind than ahead.  (The situation I find myself in now.)
> 
> I have the opposite experience.  I'm at middle age right now and the older I get, the less I fear death.  It is not scary to me to consider dying and having nothing come after.  Frankly, it is more scary to me to think that life continues on, and not because I believe in hell.  Life is difficult.  70-90 years of it is enough for me.



.


----------



## thewanderer

KevinWestern said:


> thewanderer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread button says my reply is too short...HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about to dip here but want to make a few points.
> 
> 1.) Obviously it's difficult to assign values to the Utilitarianism system, however (I believe) we are advanced spiritual beings that are far more intelligent, wise and intuitive than we believe and see on just the surface. I believe we are all connected - in a sense - so that when faced with a decision, we can quickly rifle through all of the possible actions and _know _the one that derives the most utility overall.
> 
> We may not select that option (because we want INSTANT utility now), but deep down we know generally what the best choice should have been. Note that I know this is getting highly opinionated, as these are my own personal beliefs.
> 
> I believe there is (at the highest level) no "self", as we are all part of the same thing.
> 
> 2.) Say you are religious, does the bible list out values to all of our daily decisions (ie is one thing worse than another, etc) in a comprehensive manner. We're still going to be guessing anyways in most cases. The point I'm making is what sort of alternative do any of the world's religions offer to our basic Utilitarianistic view?
> 
> 3.) You mention Justice and the apartheid. Perhaps temporarily white rule would mean better conditions for the Africans, however, is that necessarily the best "end state" taking all factors into account? Perhaps the civil unrest, war, would be temporary and necessary to forming the _best _society? Also, perhaps the fact that the Africans were experiencing famine, war, etc in the absence of white rule was not due to the absence of white rule itself - but instead the fact that the Africans have been brutally repressed and exploited by the whites for centuries (and would continue to be exploited whether or not a white figure head was in place).
> 
> 4.) Definitely there are conflicts to self/society, but the fact of the matter is that we DO have the people who jump on the grenade (why is this if no utility is gained?). Perhaps it's because people do derive a great deal of utility and honor from saving the lives of others. Again, I'm a spiritual person and believe strongly in "oneness" of all. I think our actions are both consciously and subconsciously driven to reach an equilibrium benefiting both self and whole.
> 
> 5.) As far as I'm concerned, the democracy in America has brought its citizens more wealth and a better quality of life than virtually any other society in history. Even our poor have running water, refrigerators, cell phones, and access to cheap entertainment. Sure, democracies might crumble more easily, but is *stability *the key defining factor in what makes the best form of government? I certainly don't believe so.
Click to expand...


I don't have time for a full reply here, but I did want to point out that your questions regarding what constitutes the best form of government (which in this discussion was based on stability simply because the poster to whom I was responding assigned that as a major value when he opined that benevolent dictatorships weren't stable enough to be considered the best form of government), whether initial unrest as pertains to apartheid are necessary for best form of government, etc. all prove my point.

The very fact that we're all debating what the best form of government is, etc. proves my initial assertion about utilitarian basis for morality.  It's very often difficult to determine what actually benefits the majority of people the most.


----------



## editec

MUCH OF THE USA_ is_ a third world nation, so this should not much surprise us.


----------



## Avatar4321

editec said:


> MUCH OF THE USA_ is_ a third world nation, so this should not much surprise us.



A third world nation is a non-industrialized nation. I suppose you can argue that with all our industry shipping overseas we are becoming one. But I dont really buy it.


----------



## BarryDesborough

johnsweeting said:


> I like to study religions and stats around it and I have found some interesting things.
> All the other western nations have a majority of the population being non-religious.
> Take a look at these numbers:
> 
> Is Religion important in your life - People who answer "No" in percentage below:
> Sweden 88%
> Denmark 80.5%
> Norway 78%
> Czech Republic 74.5%
> Hong Kong 75.5%
> Japan 75%
> United Kingdom 73%
> Finland 70%
> France 69.5%
> Germany 69%
> Australia 67.5%
> Canada 67%
> Netherlands 66.5%
> New Zealand 66%
> 
> 
> There is not one single "western" nation left now that haven't left religion behind. Even if you compare the "old" British colonies - Canada, Australia & New Zealand there is a big difference compared to America. Why is this ??
> 
> Western nation = Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand & Canada.
> 
> America is on the same religious level as third world countries like:
> Uganda
> Jamaica
> Armenia
> Uzbekistan
> El Salvador
> Honduras
> 
> ....which I don't think is a good thing.
> 
> Still Religious:
> 1. Third world nations & Muslim nations
> 2. USA
> 
> USA is the only western nation where you are not considered nuts if you believe in Noah's Ark and Creationism.
> 
> Will this ever change ?


It is not uniform across the country. I can't post links yet, but google "journal of religion and society gregory paul".


----------

