Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doomie

  1. Interesting topic. I am one of the few here to have voted yes, so let me explain my reasoning here.


    To be a Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ. Some of you say that it is also necessary to believe he is the son of God, but that is a bit difficult if you don't believe in God. And I don't think that's necessary at all. I think the most important part of Jesus's teachings wasn't "believe in God," it was "be a good person," and you can do that without believing in God. And if I remember correctly, in some of the early, non-canon gospels, Jesus was, in fact, not considered to be the son of God, but I don't have a source on that.

    There have been various schisms within Christianity, and there are many different variations of it based on different interpretations of the Bible. Many supernatural events are often taken to be allegorical, for example, the creation of Earth. Taking God as an allegory for an ideal is just one step further.


    I do not consider myself a Christian, by the way.

  2. (Communism and anarchy)


    I'd just like to point out that the opposite of anarchy isn't communism, it would probably be totalitarianism, and those aren't the same thing. In fact, it is my understanding that the ultimate goal of communism is something not too dissimilar to anarchy, with the elimination of the ruling class and the communal ownership of resources and all that.

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution

    Insects and bacteria - macroevolution happens very, very often among these. There are numerous brand new species of insects and bacteria every year.


    Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.


    Well, I stand (somewhat) corrected. Macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, but at least I was right about micro-evolution and macroevolution essentially being the same process.

  4. I have done considerable research into microevolution back in school, and yes, it does exist and is proven to exist. Macroevolution (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.


    I'll let you in on a little secret here; they're the same thing! biologists make no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, it's an arbitrary distinction made by creation 'scientists'. Little changes over time build up to a big change in a long time. So the proving of 'micro-evolution' also proves 'macro-evolution'.


    Yes, it is simply a theory, but that's just the way modern science works. No matter how much proof there is in favour, scientists will always account for the possiblity that one day a better theory comes along, so they will keep referring to it as a theory. But that doesn't imply a lack of proof or that it cannot be used to explain things.


    I prefer the theory of evolution to the theory of creation as a means of explaining how we got here. As for how it all started, I guess things could have been created, but I prefer to say I just don't know, and I don't think anyone does (yet).

  5. And finally, concerning 'theist propaganda': is the presence of the word 'God' really theist propaganda? Or is it just a word on a wall?


    A blank wall cannot express an idea, but a wall with writing on it can, so your example and mine aren't really equal. The word 'God' in the right context could actually be part of propaganda, so it's not necissarily just 'a word on the wall'. I would say that the words 'in God we trust' on the wall of a government building is a quite different context than just a wall with the word 'God' on it, but a blank wall is a blank wall wether it is part of a government building or not.


    EDIT: I'd like to add that the atheist group in question might be missing the point as well. The problem here is not really the engraving of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in a government building. It is probably meant to inspire nationalistic feelings rather than propagate theistic views. I think the actual problem is that the motto and the Pledge *do* propagate theistic views.


    (Not that that would be an easy problem to solve.)

  6. I don't think the point of this lawsuit is clear to all people reading this thread. This isn't about a bunch of atheists who are mad at seeing the word 'God'; the problem is that the word 'God' would be on a government building.

    No one would sue a church even if it had the words 'In God we trust' written all over it a thousand times. But by putting it on a government building the government endorses one belief system over all others. So it's not about offended sensibilities.


    The fact that it is the national motto also does not make the phrase immune to criticism. In fact it makes it worse because that in itself is an endorsement of one religion by the government, and it does actually imply that anyone who does not 'trust in God' is un-American, or less American than those who do.


    Phrases like 'Freedom of religion, not from religion' also imply that atheists shouldn't be treated the same as religious people.


    And finally, concerning 'atheist propaganda': is the absence of the word 'God' really atheist propaganda? Or is it just a blank wall?

  7. I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.


    It would be 'fair' if the opinions of the bigoted majority were simply disregarded. Sometimes the rights of the minority have to be protected. That's fair. A compromise will just make both sides unhappy and accomplish nothing.


    If a fat kid (anti-gay marriage) and a skinny kid (pro-gay marriage) are fighting over a cake (marriage), and the fat kid wants the entire cake while the skinny kid wants an equal share, would you say it is a fair compromise to give the skinny kid a few crumbs and let the fat kid have the rest? Would it be fair to give the fat kid the opportunity to bully the skinny kid into giving up his share?

    No, the fat kid is being greedy and irrational, this is where the parents step in and give each kid their equal share.


    Then the fat kid starts whining about 'activist parents' who don't respect the majority's will...


    (It's not even that accurate of an analogy come to think of it, because if gay marriage becomes legal, there is now an extra cake just for the skinny kid and the fat kid can have the entire original cake, just like he wanted. He just seems so opposed to the idea of the skinny kid having a cake as well...)

  8. When you take into account the actions of the Nazi party, and add in the comments made in Table Talk regarding religion and Christianity it paints a view closer to atheism rather than Christianity for Hitler. AND the book Inside the Third Riech (by Speer, who actually confirmed Table Talk's author) seems to back it up further that Christianity was only in favor so long as they openly backed National Socialism. Then add to it the threats and violence done against Christians and church leaders from the Nurenburg trials(link ALSO provided by me). Kinda hard to pretend that he was a Christian at the time. Perhaps you should actually read the links I provided rather than just dismissing them outright.


    I am not pretending Hitler was a Christian, I simply think that the proof is inconclusive either way. However nazism did have a Christian following, and Hitler's ideas did not originate from an explicitly atheistic line of thought.


    On the persecution of Christian churches: We had already established that Hitler wasn't fond of organised religion, and you don't have to be an atheist to persecute certain Christians. Perhaps the churches were persecuted for preaching the 'wrong kind' of Christianity (that clashed with the nazis' view of what Christianity should be), but this is speculation on my part. I just want to make it clear that their persecution of churches is no evidence of them being atheists and does not preclude them from having been Christians.


    From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion


    Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler’s own theology; he preached that his was a “true” or “master” religion, because it would “create mastery” and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, “in contravention to the facts”, were said to be “slave” or “false” religions. The man who recognized these “truths”, Hitler continued, was said to be a “natural leader”, and those who denied it were said to be “natural slaves”. “Slaves” – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.


    Regardless of Hitler's personal beliefs, this was the nazi party's stance on religion. It is not at all inconcievable for a Christian church that went against the nazi's to be branded "slaves" and "false". So the persecution of churches is not out of line with the public image that the nazi's portrayed.

  9. Wait. So you see the atheists as being unlikely to be a part of it? As mentioned earlier, Hitler ORDERED his top men to remain a part of the church BECAUSE MOST of the SS was LEAVING the church.

    Which may just be because they disliked organised religion rather than Christianity as a whole. Also, yes, I do find it unlikely for a political party that markets itself to the public as Christian to gain much support from atheists. It is possible that those who were in the party from the beginning were atheists but I haven't really seen any proof on that either way.


    Evolution is more of an atheistic view than it is Christian even today. Let alone back in the 40's.

    Actually I thought the Christian opposition to the theory of evolution came primarily from the Christian fundamentalist movement, which is even today a largely American and protestant movement. Germany is historically catholic, if I'm not mistaken (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).

    If someone has any sources though on what the common German man of the 1930s and '40s thought of evolution (or if they knew about it at all) we could probably settle this matter.

    The idea of breeding in more pure beings is closer to eugenics(actually it is eugenics) and that smacks of evolutionary theory far more than of religion.

    But as far as I can tell from the sources provided in the first post Hitler did not base his ideas on the theory of evolution. Even if he had, he had some really warped view on the theory of evolution. He could have also had an extremely warped view on Christianity that inspired him to do what he did, or maybe just a warped view on humanity. Whatever he thought, it was wrong, but that doesn't say anything about where and what he got it from.

    And as I said they're not even mutually exclusive; It is possible to be a Christian and believe in eugenics.


    So fine, Christians get the common man and soldiers, but atheists get the ones doing experiments on people.


    Does one 'side' have to be more evil than the other? In the end they were all nazis.

  10. They used symbolism to try trick individuals into following them, and also give people the impression that their actions were condoned by the church...

    And if people were tricked by this, and were under the impression that the nazis were a Christian party, do you think the atheists among the people would have joined? No, by defining their party as a Christian party the nazis ensured mainly Christian followers, regardless of wether or not they were Christians themselves.


    And I'll throw that right back and say being an Atheist doesn't make one superior to anyone else. Seriously if you think about it though, Nazism does more closely resemble Darwinistic views that only the strong survive.


    I did not claim to be perfect, I merely claimed that others aren't perfect either.

    'Only the strong survive' is a misrepresentation of 'survival of the fittest' and if you're trying to link nazism and atheism through this, you should know that Darwinism and atheism aren't synonymous at all.

    Furthermore it was clear from the first post in this thread that Hitler's idea of a master race was not influenced by Darwinism.

  11. To throw that right back, it is extremely improbable that there was not at least one Atheist that a Nazi...



    Seriously, this thread is nothing more than a typical smearfest.


    Not at all (as I explained earlier). I have no qualms admitting that there were atheistic nazis (although it seems unlikely, because as we can see nazi Germany was drenched in Christian symbolism). It's just that some people cannot admit that there were Christians amongst a group of people generally considered to have been the most evil people on Earth.


    Which, I repeat, says nothing about Christianity as a whole, except perhaps that being a Christian does not automatically make you perfect.

  12. The thread is called "Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity" and since I have no further arguments regarding Hitler's personal beliefs I thought I'd focus on the latter two parts of the thread title. It is extremely improbable that there was not at least one nazi who held Christian beliefs. Afterall, if they agreed with the public image of nazism displayed by Hitler, then they must have held these beliefs even if Hitler himself did not.

  13. Actually I did make a rather clear argument for Hitler NOT being a Christian. The SS had most of it's followers LEAVING the church. The book "Table Talk" makes it quite clear that while being publicly Christian, he did not like Christianity. As I said. At best we can make him out to be an Agnostic that used the church to keep the citezens from banding together to fight him. Divide and conquer if you will. Add to that keeping them in fear would also be quite handy.


    Just because he did not like Christianity as an organised religion that does not mean he did not believe in Jesus and the Christian God. Besides it has been pointed out that 'Table Talk' is not the most reliable of sources.


    I think it is entirely possible that Hitler *did* merely pretend to be Christian to be well-liked amongst the Christian populace. I did not mean to imply that Hitler was, without a doubt, Christian. I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments presented here cannot be used to prove Hitler was not a Christian, and also that saying Hitler is a Christian is not the same as bashing Christianity.


    Remember that the majority of people in Germany were not actually members of the National Socialist party. The majority of the soldiers fighting for Germany had no idea what was going on at the camps. It is very easy to see how he would want to keep the men fighting on the front lines. So yeah, him wanting to keep them thinking he was a good Christian makes perfect sense.


    Remember he was a public figure. Any time he said anything in public it was repeated through the ranks of the civilian and military populations. If he uttered that he was against Christianity those troops might have deserted. This wouldn't be a problem for his top aides who thought of him at a higher rank than Christianity. So if he utters negative things towards Christianity in private with them, it is more acceptable.


    Letters, recordings and phone calls.. they can be intercepted. So he has to be careful there.


    True, it makes sense... but it's not proof either way. If we assume Hitler to be a Christian, it would still make sense for him to say those things.

    Regarding Hitler's followers: They may not have known about the full extent of the horrors perpetrated by the nazi regime, but surely they must have agreed with some of Hitler's nazistic views, which he also spoke of in public and during speeches. So if we assume that Hitler said what the people wanted to hear, his followers were both Christians and nazis, or they would have disagreed with him and he would not have had the following he did.

  14. Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.



    The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.


    There was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist presented in this thread, perhaps it needs to be repeated a third or fourth time?

    To say that people in this thread are bashing Christianity and 'preaching that Christians are intolerant' is grossly misrepresenting what this thread is about. Hitler was an evil man. Hitler was a Christian. What does this say about every other Christian? Absolutely nothing. This is not intolerance against Christianity.

    Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.


    So there were good Christians and bad Christians in WWII. Gee, it's almost as if their belief system didn't really matter to wether or not they were good persons.

    Well he thought of the Germans as the master race, so I don't see where the idea that he believed in God comes from. Remember he had to be careful because if he started trashing God in his speeches and it got out that might have eroded some of his support and get some people to see past is charisma.

    The idea that Germans are the master race is not inherently incompatible with Christianity. Unless I missed the verse that said 'Germans are not the master race'.

    Also, if Hitler had to appeal to Christians to gain support, then does this not indicate that regardless of Hitler's beliefs, at least many of his followers were Christians? So were all the nazi's fake Christians, only pretending to be Christian for each other because they believed all the others to be Christian?


    Lastly, some grammar pet peeves. Atheist should not be capitalised unless it is at the beginning of a sentence and you should have used 'who' rather than 'whom'. You make this mistake a lot and it irks me every time.


    EDIT: I'd like to add that saying 'Hitler didn't act like a true Christian' or variations thereof are just examples of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Aside from that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'true' Christianity (especially among Christians) so this is obviously not a definition of 'Christian' we can work with.

  15. And what's to say the other tests weren't deliberately geared to make Religious people look bad, or the test had to do with an area that the Atheist had specialized studies in. This is an extreme example but say we the Aetheist is in the medical field and the religious person is a Mechanical Engineer, and the test is on Human Anatomy, which do you think would do better on the exam?


    IQ tests test your IQ, so the only reason an IQ test could be geared towards one group is if that group on average has a higher IQ than the other. I don't think this argument works in your favour.


    EDIT: Afterall, in your example it is a perfectly valid conclusion to say that the atheists, who specialised in the medical field know more about human anatomy. Is this unfair towards the religious mechanical engineers?

  16. Shouldn't they have the same consideration and tolerance as any other viewpoint?

    Most definitely.


    I do think "Praise Darwin. Evolve Beyond Belief," may be sending out a false message though. "Praise Darwin" seems to lend credibility to the belief some fundamentalists seem to have that 'evolutionism' is a religion. "Evolve beyond belief" sounds like a false dichotomy between evolution and religious belief.

    Ultimately I don't think this is even a pro-atheist message at all, but rather pro-reason. I just don't think it will be very effective at getting the message across.


    "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is definitely a message I can get behind though.



    ... And if atheists are so superior,

    These ads aren't claiming atheists are superiour to others at all.

    why do have a higher incident rate of depression?

    Being a persecuted minority (at least in the United States) may have something to do with it. Regardless, I imagine that in such an overwhelmingly religious country an atheist might feel lonely and misunderstood.


    I have thought it through, also there is the nativity scenes that people get sued over having up, the lawsuits over Christmas Tree lights, do I need to call up specific incidents?

    Were these nativity scenes and Christmas tree lights on private or on public property? Because if it's the latter, isn't it just in the interest of secularism to have them removed? I can't imagine someone being sued for putting a Christmas tree in his own backyard, so if that actually happened I would love to hear it.


    Edit: After some careful reading I must admit that "evolve beyond belief" does sound like it claims atheists to be superiour to theists. Like I said, I don't think it's sending out a very good message and it gets "belief" involved when it's unnecissary. If anything it may only harm the public opinion on atheists, unlike the bus ads, which send out a positive message.

  17. I really don't think the Mississippi should be under UN control, nor should the bridges that connect the Eastern United States to the Western United States be under UN control.


    It's not 'under UN control', it's regulated by a UN treaty.



    They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.

    This is a bad thing?

  18. I live in a country that has legalized gay marriage a few years back. Straight marriages haven't somehow devaluated, no one has come to indoctrinate me, no one has called for polygamous or pedophilic marriages and God hasn't smitten us yet. Why would this be any different in America?


    Also, if there is supposedly no difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, why does an artificial distinction need to be made between the two? Either call them both marriage, or neither.

  19. Your afraid of us don't be. We're not Russia. If we had nuks and no one would fear from us because if we had nukes and others didn't we would not fire on anyone. It's because we are not Russia. I know that's hard to believe since your so use to being around tyranical nations like Russia who we want to protect you from.



    Wait, what? Did I step into a time portal back to the fifties or something?


    The cold war is over man. Yeah, it's hard to believe but it was all over the news like seventeen years back.


    It's not as black-and-white as 'America is good and can be trusted with nukes, Russia is evil and cannot be trusted with nukes'. You have to consider their motives. If America saw a good reason to nuke anyone, they would do so, and if Russia doesn't have a good reason to nuke anyone, they won't. And as far as I can tell they have no reason to go and piss off the mightiest military and political superpower in the world. What the hell for? To start WWIII just for kicks?


    Frankly, if you're afraid of being nuked the moment you lay down you nuclear arms, I think there may be a problem with your foreign policy.


    PS. To be honest I'm more afraid of America starting WWIII right now than Russia, but maybe Obama will change that.

  20. This is the answer to Arcesiou's reply. Above. ^


    Some people are aware of this pieces of U. S. history.

    The MayFlower Compact


    ... Atheists are in contradiction to our founding fathers; however, they are also protected by our founding laws.


    The founding fathers did not come to America on the Mayflower, which arrived there in 1621, well before the declaration of independance was signed in 1776. At least some of them may have been religious (I don't know), but they nonetheless founded the United States as a secular nation. Thus, atheists are not in agreeance nor disagreeance with the founding fathers, who were apparently of the opinion that it doesn't matter what anyone believes.


    In other words, a person's views on god(s) bears no relevancy to their American status.

  21. Since you fail to comprehend what I explained I will lay it out step by step. Some sixteen year old teenager is on the Internet, on Google, looking up pornography. He's a teenager, hormones are raging, and he's bored with the stuff he has already and is looking for something new. He comes across one porn site, and porn sites being what they are they open up other porn sites and one leads to a small video of one giuy ****ing another guy up the ass. The teenager sees this and rather than being disgusted finds this is something that he enjoys, and so he may experiment on his own, he may seek out other men so he can experiance what he has seen. Can you grasp that at least or is it too much for you?


    He isn't disgusted. It's something he enjoys. So he was already gay before he ever even came into contact with the material. Nowhere in this story did he make a decision wether or not he would like men having sex with other men, he just found out that he did.

  22. Most people today don't what real hardships are. Even the "poor" live like kings compared to the real poor in other parts of the world.


    So far as stress is concerned, try living through the Great Depression or before modern medicine or during most of WWII or in the western parts of the U.S. before it was settled.


    Just because I have it better than most people in the world, I forfeit all my rights to be sad? Just because I have shelter, and enough food to survive, doesn't mean bad things can't happen to me.


    ~snipped quote~


    Cutting yourself =/= stupidity. It is not genetic. There is no way you can 'pollute' the gene pool with some sort of 'depression gene'. And even if it were possible, we don't tell other people with 'less desirable' genes (Mentally challenged people, or people suffering from genetic diseases) to kill themselves, do we?


    Also, depression, or any other state of mind that would make someone cut him/herself, can (usually) be cured, and the person can become a functioning member of society.


    Saying people who cut themselves are stupid is ignorant, and saying that they should die is, well... I have no word for it.

  • Create New...