You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheists, like Hitler, should be separated from the rest of the human race
The followers of atheism have historically made war. They swallow up the worlds resources making war weaponry. This lack of religion has a pattern of bringing the whole planet to the brink of a nuclear disaster which could wipe out most of the human race. This lack of religion seeks the approval of science. This lack of religion uses race baiting and scientific hypocracy to fuel hatred throughout the earth.... So I ask the question...for the good of all peaceful people on planet and the survival of the human race: should they be a continent and be forced to live there and thus be separated from the rest of the human race?
Hitler and the Nazis enjoyed widespread support from traditional Christian communities, mainly due to a common cause against the anti-religious German Bolsheviks. Once in power, the Nazis moved to consolidate their power over the German churches and bring them in line with Nazi ideals. The Third Reich founded their own version of Christianity called Positive Christianity which made major changes in its interpretation of the Bible which said that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but was not a Jew and claimed that Christ despised Jews, and that the Jews were the ones solely responsible for Christ's death. Thus, the Nazi government consolidated religious power, using allies to consolidate Protestant churches into the Protestant Reich Church, which was effectively an arm of the Nazi Party.
Dissenting Christians went underground and formed the Confessing Church, which was persecuted as a subversive group by the Nazi government. Many of its leaders were arrested and sent to concentration camps, and left the underground mostly leaderless. Church members continued to engage in various forms of resistance, including hiding Jews during the Holocaust and various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to prod the Christian community to speak out on the part of the Jews.
The Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland because of the Church's opposition to many of Nazi Party's beliefs. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy[77], were murdered; of these, 1,992 died in concentration camps. In the annexed territory of Reichsgau Wartheland it was even harsher than elsewhere. Churches were systematically closed, and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported to the General Government. The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland. In Pomerania, all but 20 of the 650 priests were shot or sent to concentration camps. Eighty percent of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939; in the city of Breslau (Wrocław), 49% of its Catholic priests were killed; in Chełmno, 48%. One hundred eight of them are regarded as blessed martyrs.[77] Among them, Maximilian Kolbe was canonized as a saint.
Protestants in Poland did not fare well either. In the Cieszyn region of Silesia every single Protestant clergy was arrested and deported to the death camps.[77]
Not only were Polish Christians persecuted by the Nazis, in the Dachau concentration camp alone, 2,600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries were killed.[77]
Outside mainstream Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses were direct targets of the Holocaust, for their refusal to swear allegiance to the Nazi government. Many Jehovah's Witnesses were given the chance to deny their faith and swear allegiance to the state, but few agreed. Over 12,000 Witnesses were sent to the concentration camps, and estimated 2,500-5,000 died in the Holocaust.
The Nazi Party, thus Adolf Hitler, persecuted a great many Christians. He 'created' a new denomination of Christianity to further his anti-Semitic agenda; in doing so he warped canonical religious texts into claiming that Jesus was, too, anti-Semitic and not Himself a Jew.
Religion was, and still is, a powerful tool for the politician. Religious voters - which have long made up the majority - would prefer to have a leader who shares their beliefs, thus by claiming to be religious he manipulated the people into giving him his political power.
You have to understand that there have been thousands of books written about Hitler, with varying degree of scholarly peer reviewing.
And offcourse because of how controversial Hitler is, and therfore how often he is used in politics (debates) for furthering ones ideas - You have to forgive me for not being satisfied (beyond a reasonable doubt) when people pick one out of a thousand books that happen to further their argument.
The name of the book also should be a hint that this is perhaps not the most verifiable historic book about Hitler.
But in all fairness, given how Hitler talked about himself and his ideals, I wouldnt be surprised if he frowned upon other religions; he practically concidered himself a diety, and my guess is that a megalomanical charecter like his would want to get rid of the competition.
So ill play along and assume that Hitler was not a devout christan (he was raised a catholic though, but never mind that)
Still like I said, I dont think he lacked the theistic sentiment - his book (Mein kampf) is full of relgious and occult allusions
And for this reason only, I think it is misleading (and even purposefully misleading) to assume his kind of Atheism (if you wanna call it that) is in any way similar to modern day Atheism.
I am not a big fan of the word "atheism" anyways, and I do not consider myself an atheist for the simple reason that I dont think not beliving in a far out fairytale defines my character - in other words, just because I dont belive the Lord of the Rings really happened either, does not mean that I need to make it a part of my character and ideal that I dont belive in elves and gobblins.
To me Religious literature is just that - literature - and I dont feel the need to define a philosophical stance just to say that I dont belive in fairytales
Oh, well that settles it then. The Catholics say he wasn't one of the,... so clearly he was an atheist who didn't believe in God despite all evidence being to the contrary.
Wait... when exactly did ATHEISTS claim him? Or does that only work one way?
"In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews. In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "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."
Sorry, what exactly were you trying to prove here?
I sincerely hope you say this in jest. As it is an intellectually vacuous and indefensible statement. Hitler in many instances professed his belief in the Almighty.
In the political relations with the churches in Germany however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes".[331] Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich.[334][335][336] The leader of the Hitler Youth stated "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" from the start, but "considerations of expedience made it impossible" publicly to express this extreme position.[334] His intention was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.[329]
Hitler and the Nazis enjoyed widespread support from traditional Christian communities, mainly due to a common cause against the anti-religious German Bolsheviks. Once in power, the Nazis moved to consolidate their power over the German churches and bring them in line with Nazi ideals. The Third Reich founded their own version of Christianity called Positive Christianity which made major changes in its interpretation of the Bible which said that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but was not a Jew and claimed that Christ despised Jews, and that the Jews were the ones solely responsible for Christ's death. Thus, the Nazi government consolidated religious power, using allies to consolidate Protestant churches into the Protestant Reich Church, which was effectively an arm of the Nazi Party.
Dissenting Christians went underground and formed the Confessing Church, which was persecuted as a subversive group by the Nazi government. Many of its leaders were arrested and sent to concentration camps, and left the underground mostly leaderless. Church members continued to engage in various forms of resistance, including hiding Jews during the Holocaust and various attempts, largely unsuccessful, to prod the Christian community to speak out on the part of the Jews.
The Catholic Church was particularly suppressed in Poland because of the Church's opposition to many of Nazi Party's beliefs. Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy[77], were murdered; of these, 1,992 died in concentration camps. In the annexed territory of Reichsgau Wartheland it was even harsher than elsewhere. Churches were systematically closed, and most priests were either killed, imprisoned, or deported to the General Government. The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland. In Pomerania, all but 20 of the 650 priests were shot or sent to concentration camps. Eighty percent of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of Warthegau were sent to concentration camps in 1939; in the city of Breslau (Wrocław), 49% of its Catholic priests were killed; in Chełmno, 48%. One hundred eight of them are regarded as blessed martyrs.[77] Among them, Maximilian Kolbe was canonized as a saint.
Protestants in Poland did not fare well either. In the Cieszyn region of Silesia every single Protestant clergy was arrested and deported to the death camps.[77]
Not only were Polish Christians persecuted by the Nazis, in the Dachau concentration camp alone, 2,600 Catholic priests from 24 different countries were killed.[77]
Outside mainstream Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses were direct targets of the Holocaust, for their refusal to swear allegiance to the Nazi government. Many Jehovah's Witnesses were given the chance to deny their faith and swear allegiance to the state, but few agreed. Over 12,000 Witnesses were sent to the concentration camps, and estimated 2,500-5,000 died in the Holocaust.
The Nazi Party, thus Adolf Hitler, persecuted a great many Christians. He 'created' a new denomination of Christianity to further his anti-Semitic agenda; in doing so he warped canonical religious texts into claiming that Jesus was, too, anti-Semitic and not Himself a Jew.
Religion was, and still is, a powerful tool for the politician. Religious voters - which have long made up the majority - would prefer to have a leader who shares their beliefs, thus by claiming to be religious he manipulated the people into giving him his political power.
You can only be a catholic as long as you hold all of the beliefes of the church. You cannot be halfway catholic. Killing massive amounts of people is not a beliefe supported by the catholic faith.
I'm confused. Are you disputing me? I said that Hitler was NOT a catholic (because he did not practice it) and that atheists should be separated from the rest of the population, not killed.
But I'm still baffled that anyone would ever dispute me ;)
Hitler wasn't just any atheist, he was an extremist that killed Jews. No one should compare atheists with people like Hitler, they are completely different things. Please don't even JOKE about that.
Separated...Absolutely, and we'll see which side prospers. Have fun living with people who don't believe in science and who can't think for themselves. Because Hitler has anything to do with Atheism?...
Definitely, I would love to be sent away to live with intelligent, logically minded people that aren't afraid to be themselves, and are free to actually carry out scientific studies without the pitchfork brigade banging on the door, telling them they are playing God, and legally petitioning to have it stopped.
I can imagine this Utopia to be medically and technologically advanced, with better prospects for life expectancy, and fairness.
The Islamic, Judeo,Christians can then get back to doing what they do best like burning people as witches, praying to heal the sick and creating wars with each other over how they all read the same book. Women will be dragged back to the kitchen and Catholic Priests will be free to molest to their hearts content.
In short both sides of the situation would get what they want and the religious will not have to tolerate those annoying Atheists with their ways :):):):):):)
By the way Stalin is a far better example of a war mongering Atheist as Hitler was supposed to have been Roman Catholic, and Religious people don't start wars, remember?:):)
This was exactly my thought as I read the prompt. I would much rather live in a society where science is not bound by the regulations of an oppressive (or repressive) religious majority. The other day, in fact, I was thinking if I became a billionaire, I would buy several islands and start a society somewhat like this. Although, it could be a little difficult to declare it sovereign.
All you'd have to do is use your money and get the top scientists to make an army of robot soldiers and a series of WMDs.....Oh, wait, scratch that:):):)
Separating everyone is never a good idea. Eventually one group would find some reason or other to get mad at the other group and then wars happen. Our best hope for peace as a planet is to find a middle ground, not to have various areas of different extremes.
I support you on these things, however Christians are considered warlike as an artifact of the Crusades. In which they killed plenty of people (crusades are similar to jihad FYI).
However that idea is outdated.
This debate could very easily turn into a useless flamefest like most here on religion.
Also I'm surprised you didn't use Machiavellian in your argument to describe those men.
EDIT: What about Iran? The Iran-Iraq war was clearly a religious war.
Do you know the cause of the Crusades? The Muslims were trying to conquer Europe - at the time they had taken Jerusalem - thus the Christians were trying to defend their land and their religion.
All atheists that have been mass murderers (like the ones you mentioned) have all been communists, whereas religious murderers have come from nearly every major religion, and have supported a wide variety of of ideologies.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, and not a communist then you're probably fairly peaceful.
All atheists that have been mass murderers (like the ones you mentioned) have all been communists, whereas religious murderers have come from nearly every major religion, and have supported a wide variety of of ideologies.
Therefore, if you are an atheist, and not a communist then you're probably fairly pea
The crimes perpetrated by Christians pales in the light of the crimes perpetrated by atheists.
(You know that you don't have to copy and paste my whole argument into yours, right? I mean I literally just wrote it, and it appears on top.)
I find your first statement kind of funny because it, is both incorrect, and misses the point. As I just stated, the crimes committed by atheists weren't because of their atheism but because of their communist ideology.
Name for me a few wars begun by Christians.
Almost every war in western history, because for the past 1,000 years almost everyone in Europe (and later the Americas) has been Christian.
But this isn't what you meant, right? You see I just did the same thing you did: I took all wars that Christians began, and then implied that Christianity was their cause. You obviously meant to say: "Name me a few wars begun because of Christianity."
I would be happy to:
The Crusades
The first crusade
The second crusade
The third crusade
The fourth crusade
The albigensian crusade
The fifth crusade
The sixth crusade
The seventh crusade
The Eighth crusade
The ninth crusade
The Northern Crusades
The numerous crusades against the Tatars
The Aragonese crusade
The Alexandrian crusade
The Hussite crusade
The swedish crusades
The European Wars of Religion
The French Wars of Religion
The first war
The second war
The third war
The fourth war
The fifth war
The sixth war
The seventh war
The war of the three Henrys
The war in Brittany
The war with Spain
Wars of Religion in Germany and Bohemia
The Schmalkaldic Wars
The thirty years war (one of the worst, killed 15 - 30% of all Germans)
The wars of religion in the Netherlands
The dutch revolt (eighty years war)
The wars of religion in England and Scotland
The Scottish Reformation
The English civil war
The scottish civil war
The Taiping Rebellion was the bloodiest civil war in history and resulted in the death of 20 million people. It was started by Chinese Christian Protestants over religion.
So there you go. It's more than a few, but it is not at all comprehensive, and could have been longer if I wanted to add more. I also did not include the numerous atrocities committed in the name of Christianity (killing of Jews, and witches) or the current worldwide oppression of of homosexuals in the name of Christianity.
So now I ask you: name even one war that was begun in the name of atheism, not just by atheists.
I find your first statement kind of funny because it, is both incorrect, and misses the point. As I just stated, the crimes committed by atheists weren't because of their atheism but because of their communist ideology.
Their communist ideology caused their atheism.
I shall only address a few.
The Crusades
Do you happen to know why the crusades occurred?
I take it that you don't.
The Muslims were waging war all over the Middle East. In an effort to save both Jerusalem and Europe from Muslim domination, the Pope urged all Catholics to head to the Middle East and expel the infidels. Had it not been for the warlike Muslims, the Crusades would never have occurred.
worldwide oppression of of homosexuals in the name of Christianity.
...and the Muslims. I'm sure that if you look deep enough, you'll find that there are others that object to homosexuality.
The English civil war
Was between the Parlimentarians and the Royalists.
The Taiping Rebellion
...was caused by the leader of a very warped form of Christianity.
The dutch revolt (eighty years war)
Also caused by excessive taxation.
So now I ask you: name even one war that was begun in the name of atheism, not just by atheists.
I recommend a course on European history. The crusades were begun by Christians when they invaded Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews and Muslims who were living there (Jews and Muslims living peacefully together, surprising right?) at the Seige of Jerusalem in 1099 (a.k.a. the first crusade).
In addition, did you hear the phrasing you used: "expel the infidels." Doesn't that sound eerily similar to what we hear from muslim extremist terrorists today?
Anyway, you are also mistaken about the nature of Muslims back then. They were expanding there empire, but they were not the violent extremists we think of today. In fact, they preached religious toleration, and (as I mentioned earlier) lived in peace with Jews and Christians in their empire. It was the Christians who were acting intolerantly, and had been killing jews by the thousands in Europe.
...and the Muslims. I'm sure that if you look deep enough, you'll find that there are others that object to homosexuality.
I agree, but you asked about Christianity. Just because others are oppressing homosexuals as well doesn't make it any better that Christians are doing it.
From the wikipedia article about the English civil war:
One of the first events to cause concern about Charles I came with his marriage to a French Roman Catholic princess, Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon. The marriage occurred in 1625, right after Charles came to the throne.[5] Charles' marriage raised the possibility that his children, including the heir to the throne, could grow up as Catholics, a frightening prospect to Protestant England.[6]
So religion once again did play a part.
...was caused by the leader of a very warped form of Christianity.
I would argue that any war fought in the name of a religion is a warping of religious texts. It says "Thou Shall Not Kill" in the 10 commandments and yet we see all of this violence. I'm not arguing that Christianity always leads to war, I'm merely disputing your point that atheists have committed atrocities (in the name of atheism) that are far worse than Christians.
The dutch revolt was caused by a number of issues, but the oppression of Protestants by Charles V and Philip II played a significant role.
Many of the wars I mentioned had numerous causes but in all of them religion also played a part.
The cold war was not fought because of atheism. This is one of the stupidest things I've heard you say yet. As I've stated before, the only atheists that killed were communists: I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand. I am strongly opposed to communism in general and especially opposed to the actions that were taken by Stalin, Mau and other communists who have killed in the name of their ideology. Their atheism was a symptom of their communism not the other way around. They all also believed in gravity, but this likely didn't influence their decisions to kill people either.
So once again: any non communist, atheist mass murderers? Didn't think so.
The Muslims had been attacking the last Christian 'outposts' for centuries. What is now Tunisia had fallen years earlier, now Constantinople was all that remained of the once-vast Roman Empire.
Constantinople was being attacked frequently, and the Holy Lands had been taken by the Muslims.
Anyway, you are also mistaken about the nature of Muslims back then.
Is this about that 'expel the infidels' quote? It was not meant to be connected with modern Islamic extremists, but rather with the Catholic opinion of the time.
They were expanding there empire, but they were not the violent extremists we think of today.
Did I not expressly mention that? I believe it was in my response to your dispute in which I stated that the Muslims were attacking Europe to both proselytize the Christians and gain lands.
In fact, they preached religious toleration, and (as I mentioned earlier) lived in peace with Jews and Christians in their empire. It was the Christians who were acting intolerantly, and had been killing Jews by the thousands in Europe.
That's precisely what I've told many others - to their great surprise.
I would argue that any war fought in the name of a religion is a warping of religious texts.
I've said that to others, as well. Ofttimes I mention something along the lines of "A religion is the sum of it's canonical texts. How others interpret those texts is not the fault of the religion."
It says "Thou Shall Not Kill" in the 10 commandments and yet we see all of this violence.
That's because people - not just Christians, mind you - are experts at manipulating others. They'll always find something to justify their actions.
The cold war was not fought because of atheism.
I do not believe that I meant to expressly state that the cause was atheism. The cause was communism - however (and this is a minor note), would the rest of the world (a great percentage of the world is Christian) have feared communism as greatly as they did if atheism was not a fundamental aspect?
As I've stated before, the only atheists that killed were communists: I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand.
And as I said, communism encouraged atheism. If it were not for that fact, all those people would never have been killed as they were.
Their atheism was a symptom of their communism not the other way around.
I do believe that's what I meant by 'Communism encouraged atheism'. Had I meant the opposite, I'd have written 'Atheism encouraged communism'.
P.S. Please note that this is probably the first time I've ever supported you.
The Muslims started the Crusades. The Muslim Empire was going to invade Europe, and they had captured Israel. The "Crusades" against the Tartars had nothing to do with religion. And the Conquest of Alexander the Great was for land and power, although it did spread Hellenistic culture. The French wars were just the French Empire growing, not because of religion. Most of those wars have nothing to due with Christianity.
The muslims began some of the crusades, definitely not all. In addition the crusades as a whole were begun by Christians invading Jerusalem and killing Jews and Muslims. Read about it here.
Statistically, the crimes perpetrated by white people pale in the light of those perpetrated by black people. Either it's time for some ethnic cleansing, or you're full of shit and comparing apples to oranges. Does the phrase "isolated incident" mean nothing to you?
How about that other debate about Christians, Jews, and Muslims being separated from the rest of the human race?
That thesis received a fair amount of approval. Why is it that atheists can't be treated as shitty as Christians, Jews, and Muslims? They've committed crimes as well!
Hitler wasn't an atheist, but I agree with the sentiment of this debate.
Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, Castro, Marx, Stalin: they were some of the worst people in the history of the world, and yet they were atheists.
And yet atheists claim that Christians are warlike !
Come on, you're smarter than this. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, that each of these men belonged to or founded an EXTREME POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
You're making the same exact false association that anti-rap/video games people do when they try to explain violent crime. Just like you, it doesn't matter that the kids [men] who did this were psychopaths [or tyrants] but no, it MUST have been the rap music and video games that made them go on a killing spree [in your case atheism].
Hitler was a vegetarian by the way, I guess this means that vegetarianism leads to mass murder.
An EXTREME POLITICAL IDEOLOGY which encouraged atheism, and thus encouraged the persecution of all theists!
it MUST have been the rap music and video games that made them go on a killing spree [in your case atheism].
Again, I've been misinterpreted.
Violent video games can lead to violence - but rarely.
That is beside the point.
Marxist Communism encouraged, or rather, demanded, atheism. For them to demand the extermination of religion, then irreligious behavior must be the cause. If they had not cared about which religion the people subscribed, then I would agree that atheism was irrelevant to the Red 'reign of terror'.
Hitler was a vegetarian by the way, I guess this means that vegetarianism leads to mass murder.
This is a generalization - I've attempted to point out (to little avail) that Christianity has not entirely been responsible for the wars it caused, and at the same time acknowledging the fact that Christianity has been partially to blame.
The Crusades were meant as an endeavor to save Christianity from Islam and the Holy Lands from Islam. The Muslims instigated the fight. (That is, if you planned on using the Crusades as a source).
His vegetarianism is irrelevant - you could easily claim that any aspect of his lifestyle leads to mass murder. However, if one's political ideologies demanded the execution of all omnivores/carnivores, then I'd say that vegetarianism was responsible.
An EXTREME POLITICAL IDEOLOGY which encouraged atheism, and thus encouraged the persecution of all theists!
Atheism has no ideology. Therefore any persecution of theists falls under the purview of the extreme ideology. Is this really so hard to grasp or is it just that you really really want symmetry in this debate point?
Marxist Communism encouraged, or rather, demanded, atheism. For them to demand the extermination of religion, then irreligious behavior must be the cause. If they had not cared about which religion the people subscribed, then I would agree that atheism was irrelevant to the Red 'reign of terror'.
Marxism also demanded the redistribution of wealth, and a brief establishment of autocracy. Focus on these facts. The atheism is a red herring that you just can't seem to let go of.
His vegetarianism is irrelevant - you could easily claim that any aspect of his lifestyle leads to mass murder. However, if one's political ideologies demanded the execution of all omnivores/carnivores, then I'd say that vegetarianism was responsible.
Good. Now replace "vegetarianism" in that statement with "atheism" and you'll understand what I've been saying all along.
Marx is awesome. Stalin sucks and mao sucks, castro eh, and Lenin had some bad ideas. What ever you consider bad about them probably doesn't correlate directly with them being atheists.
Why is it that Christians can be insulted and harassed and nobody gives a shit, yet if you say something bad about a Muslim, or even an atheist, people will be angered?
This debate was a response to a recent debate entitled 'should Christians, Jews, and Muslims be separated from the rest of the human race,' or something to the effect.
People wrote about how horrible Christians have been in the passed, and stuff like that. I attempted to point out that atheists have also done bad things. What do I get? Banned and further ridicule.
Atheism was directly responsible for what Lenin and Stalin did. They wanted an atheist state, and thus persecuted all religious people.
It does correlate directly with them being atheists!
you seem emotional at the happenings in another debate.
They wanted an atheist state for economic and political reasons, not as some sort of replacement (non)Theology inherent in atheism. It would of been smarter to have harvested the power of religion instead of trying to get rid of it.
Christians are naturally imperialistic, after all if their not their best friends and family are going to hell. Their children will be raised in a heathen society resulting in them going to hell, etc.
you seem emotional at the happenings in another debate.
I seem emotional? That's a first - most of the people who know me would swear I don't have emotions.
They wanted an atheist state for economic and political reasons, not as some sort of replacement (non)Theology inherent in atheism. It would of been smarter to have harvested the power of religion instead of trying to get rid of it.
Yet that doesn't negate the fact that they did want an atheist state. Christians have fought war in the name of Christianity, just as atheists have fought wars in the name of atheism !
These disputes are not in the least based on logic.
I wrote:
And, as I said, atheists have also been responsible: Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Mussolini.
Aveskde wrote:
It perplexes me when believers use this argument, because they are both tacitly arguing that belief systems cause followers to commit murder, including their own religion, and completely missing the mark that the men on their list had no religious belief system but instead political ideology, sprinkled in with a helping of misanthropy.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of atheism. One'll make a list of Christians who have started wars - that's perfectly acceptable - yet one is mistaken if he tries to make a similar list of atheists. That's what I'd call double-standard and illogical.
It perplexes me when atheists use this argument, because they are trying to exempt themselves from responsibility, whereas they put all responsibility for Christian wars on the Christians.
Explain this:
Why can't a Christian use the argument against an atheist that atheists have been responsible for war, if the atheist is allowed to use it vice versa?"
I seem emotional? That's a first - most of the people who know me would swear I don't have emotions.
You're grasping at straws, this is emotional.
Yet that doesn't negate the fact that they did want an atheist state. Christians have fought war in the name of Christianity, just as atheists have fought wars in the name of atheism !
Atheism is a negative association. It's the opposite by definition of theism, which makes a positive claim. It cannot be an ideology that motivates anything because it exists as a lack of theist ideology. Therefore any violence associated with atheism must arise from an ideology, like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, etc.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of atheism. One'll make a list of Christians who have started wars - that's perfectly acceptable - yet one is mistaken if he tries to make a similar list of atheists. That's what I'd call double-standard and illogical.
Maybe you'll understand your error better if I highlight it with word replacement.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of asantaism.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of amorality.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of atoothfairyism.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of apoliticalism.
Yet he is forgetting that, while wars have been fought in the name of religion, other wars have been fought in the name of nothing.
You can't fight a war in the name of a lack of something, so what were those wars actually fighting FOR?
Communism? Fascism? Maoism?
One'll make a list of Christians who have started wars - that's perfectly acceptable - yet one is mistaken if he tries to make a similar list of atheists. That's what I'd call double-standard and illogical.
It perplexes me when atheists use this argument, because they are trying to exempt themselves from responsibility, whereas they put all responsibility for Christian wars on the Christians.
It would be illogical, correct, if atheism was just another belief system like Jainism, or fascism, or objectivism, or Buddhism. If atheism were a belief system it would be a double standard, correct. However atheism is NOT a belief system. Apart from no belief in god, there are no values that any pair of atheists must share.
Why can't a Christian use the argument against an atheist that atheists have been responsible for war, if the atheist is allowed to use it vice versa?"
Christians have a theology. In addition to the belief that god exists, they are joined by the belief in Jesus, the trinity, and so on.
Atheists lack belief in god. That's all. Just because there is a tendency for atheists in western culture to enjoy science doesn't make it a part of ideology. Have you ever heard of the concept where people, acting alone, reach conclusions that associate them with a group? Atheism works like this, because there is no dogma or central theology, group consensus comes from people acting independently and associating in beliefs and values by coincidence. Authorities may be spread through word of mouth, but it is never dogma.
So therefore being an atheist cannot be tied to warmongering. If you want to tie warmongering to something, look for political ideology. Atheism is a red herring that you follow because you automatically assume that because religious people start wars out of a group mindset for their theology, it must follow from symmetry that atheists do the same. Learn to acknowledge this red herring and look for political groupings and motivations, and your arguments will be smarter.
Because atheism isn't a specific belief system, it's a lack of a particular belief. The difference of thought among atheists is far more varied than among christians, simply because defining yourself as believing in one particular god and following the particular tenets of a religion is infinitely more specific than not believing in a god.
The term "atheist", in and of itself, tells you next to nothing about the individual in question. That's why using Stalin as an example for all atheists is completely ludicrous - it's like saying that all brown haired people are Nazis because Hitler had brown hair. Stalin was a single individual who managed to get dictatorial control and decided to spread his personal ideals through violence. He does not reflect the views of anyone but himself, because there is no universal atheist set of beliefs.
The argument for christians being violent, on the other hand, stems from the fact that certain areas of the bible can (and have) been interpreted as being violent, imperialistic, and warlike. When people act on THESE ideas, it can be directly traced back to a common source, the bible. While this still doesn't reflect on every christian, it does show that parts of the bible can and have been used over the years to justify violence.
Because atheism isn't a specific belief system, it's a lack of a particular belief. The difference of thought among atheists is far more varied than among christians, simply because defining yourself as believing in one particular god and following the particular tenets of a religion is infinitely more specific than not believing in a god.
So because atheism is more complicated they can't be generalized?
The term "atheist", in and of itself, tells you next to nothing about the individual in question.
In my experience it has told me quite a bit.
That's why using Stalin as an example for all atheists is completely ludicrous
And using Pope Urban as an example for all Christians is also completely ludicrous.
it's like saying that all brown haired people are Nazis because Hitler had brown hair.
Blond hair. Surely you know nothing about the Third Reich.
Stalin was a single individual who managed to get dictatorial control and decided to spread his personal ideals through violence.
And he was an atheist. One of his goals was to spread atheism, just as Saladin's goal was to spread Islam during the Crusades. That wasn't Saladin's only goal, but it was one of them.
He does not reflect the views of anyone but himself, because there is no universal atheist set of beliefs.
Neither do those religious peoples who commit acts of violence.
The argument for christians being violent,
This is a generalization, by the way.
When people act on THESE ideas, it can be directly traced back to a common source, the bible.
Is the Bible the cause of the violence, or the justification of such?
Their argument is that religions have inherent properties which support war like actions. They point to history and historical figures as evidence. The people your pointing to were more then just atheist, all of them have been lumped together under the term "communist". There are confounding variables in your evidence, you'll have to clearify how atheism leads to wars, and why many other atheists who are not "communist" do not support wars. I clarified how christainty supports imperialistic actions in my last post, I can also show a path of how it could be against it as well(its less common though). you should be able to do the same on the position your supporting. Lenin, ccastro, stalin, mussolin happened to be athiest, they did not start wars because of their atheism.
Aveskde doesn't seem to be forgeting anything, you have yet to show him the accuracy of your position. What you quoted seems reasonable.
I might be wrong, but I have never heard an athiest claim atheists are morally superior to anyone - a claim that the big three religions all do without much evidence. Athiests (and I) though, do claim that religions give people very dumb reasons for killing others (if they, are gay, women and have been raped, are of another religion - they all deserve to die according to the bible - and doctors are apparently also fair game according to seom revisionist bible nut cases)
Also 95% of prisoners are religious (higher percentage than in every day society)
showing that religious people might be less law abidant
Now like I have said before: I dont think people who are religious have any lesser capacity to be generally smart (and you can train to get better score on intelligence tests - and they also just rate general intelligence, and not special abilities)
I just think the reason that religious people have lower grades in intelligence tests is because religious sentiment (espeicially in the bible belt in America - and in the middle east country´s) is a barrier for further learning. Religious peoplen shy away from learning things that might open up their brain capacity.
So I dont think atheism is a key to morality, nor have I heard such claims, but I do think religious thought often aids in being immoral (and stupid - and these two very often go together)
Wait, what? "onwards Christian soldiers, marching of to war"
So the fact that they were Christian soldiers is the sole reason they were going to war correct? Not for their land or their lives... but because they we're Christian? BS
"I do think religious thought often aids in being immoral (and stupid - and these two very often go together)"
Seriously? You think believing in a god that will damn you for wrong doings makes it easier to do wrong? Also Immorality and stupidity VERY RARELY go together... Hitler was not stupid, retarded maybe, but stupid he was not. Doing the wrong thing usually takes cunning and determination, even a dog can tell when it is causing undo pain.
"I just think the reason that religious people have lower grades in intelligence tests is because religious sentiment"
For the love of god ( mine ) please reword that, I hoped you meant to say on AVERAGE, because if not there is absolutely no reason to continue this discussion.
Let's just be honest, it is easier to be immoral when you don't have to live by a code of morality correct? Yes religion has been and is involved in more than a few wars, but at the very least their religions won't ask for a holocaust...
the full quote was: "I just think the reason that religious people have lower grades in intelligence tests is because religious sentiment (espeicially in the bible belt in America - and in the middle east country´s) is a barrier for further learning. Religious peoplen shy away from learning things that might open up their brain capacity"
It is very hard to argue with a person that is only gonna read half a sentence and then start criticizing it as if it was the whole.
Seriously? You think believing in a god that will damn you for wrong doings makes it easier to do wrong?
You forget one very improtant thing about cristianity - If you accept Jesus Christ as your saviour your sins are supposed to wash away, therefore people can just accept him on their deathbed or when in prison (as many have done) and get this "get out of hell free card" pretty easilly.
So yes I am very serious in thinking that the bible (both new and old testament) are very confusing mismatch of different morality´s that in no way go together. I think people generally pick and choose what happens to fit for them out of this book, and i dont think that kind of hack morality helps in any way - and I am afraid the best way to excuse ones evil doings is to have that kind of incongrruent hogwash to go to from where you can pick and choose when to be moral and when not to be, and still be able to count yourself amoung the "saved"
Immorality and stupidity VERY RARELY go together... Hitler was not stupid..
Colin Wilson Criminologist and one of the best FBI agent/profilers (I forgot his name but he was an consultant on Silence of the Lambs) have both said that criminal genius is very rare. "There are no Hannibal lecters in this world that we know of..." most criminals have average intelligence - but offcourse the smart ones usually get famous, because they are more scary and their behaviour is more interesting.
Like I said 95% of prisoners are religious - and Prisoners have a slightly lower IQ than the average citizen (so prisoners also have that in common with relgious people)
Contary to popular (American) beleif - Hitler was not an Atheist but a Catholic
(many crazy genocidal murderes have been atheists though - and I dont think atheism neccesarilly has much moral highground - other than that we have very few athiests in prison Per capita - and also very few (allegedly) in political office)
Atheism is not neccesarilly a panecia for morality (but obviously neither are organized religiouns) but atheism surely has strong evidence for itself as raising IQ´s - for whatever that is worth
You obviously didnt read what I said. There is a tendancy for people who are religious to get lower IQ scores - that does not mean that all religious people are stupid - just that they (on average) have a tendancy to be dumber. Now I said that I think it highly likely that the religious mind set, where you are deterred from valueing evidence, and should take it on the word of your masters (the curch leaders) that things are as they say: this mentality I think is probably the reason that religious people train their mind less, and therefore get lower IQ
You are quite right - many religious people have been geniuses. But most of the people you mention are too old to have known all the evidenve about how complex multicellular organisms (like ourselves) can evolve from single cell organisms, that then basically came out of a puddle of simple chemicals.
And on the list of living geniuses there are going to be fewer and fewer religious people as time passes. Basically because religions are social constructs that have gotten way passed having any purpose as science has slowly but surely debunked all the theories the church has claimed to be the true represantation of the universe.
All religion has got left is a very very vague idea of some sort of sky daddy, and as science gets better and better at explaining mysteries away, then religious leaders are very crafty in making the idea of God more and more vague, so as to save him (the sky daddy) from death by their vaguness.
that you call statistical analysis with doubleblind experiments: an "argument" shows that you didnt get what is being said here.
I am not surprised I need to explain this to a religious person but: you dont argue against statistics of averages by pointing out a few anomalies. A few anomalies are counted for in those statistics -This is a measurement of averages not fundementals.
I did not make the arguement that religious people have (on average) a lower IQ than non-religious people: the people who partook in the test made the argument themselves collectivelly. Now my argument was that I though that this was not some sort of concreat thing about religious people that they couldnt get rid of, but rather that the mindset they get used to by being a follower of the big three, makes them not willing to streach their imagination (and at the same time their brain neurons). Then there are some people who have a high capacity for juggling in their mind abstrakt and contradicory thoughts - those people are smart and can (if they want) be religious at the same time as being smart in other fields - but they average Joe, as the statistics show, is not able to do so - and therfore his mind becomes specialized and non-responsive.
So now that I have explained my arguement (again). How come you think pointing out smart people who where religious, is going to show a fallacy in this argument
Do you really think you can point out a few anecdotes to topple wide ranging statistical studies - Is this really how poor the american school system has become
The doubleblind experiment is fallible. If anybody dare to make the assumption that there is anything which is infallible, I shall direct them to this quotation by Jung:
"Any absolutist attitude is always a religious attitude, and in whatever respect a man becomes absolute, there you see his religion"
I am not surprised I need to explain this to a religious person but:
I hold this as a derogatory remark, as well as being highly fallacious.
In other words: Fuck you.
Do you really think you can point out a few anecdotes to topple wide ranging statistical studies
No, I was simply attempting to keep you from using that fallacy; you do mention it extremely frequently.
Is this really how poor the american school system has become
I am not American. Also, I am an autodidact (look it up, PungShiti).
P.S.
I didn't even bother reading your entire first argument; you use that 'religiosity and intelligence' thing so frequently that all I meant to do was to show you the error of your ways.
The doubleblind experiment is fallible. If anybody dare to make the assumption that there is anything which is infallible, I shall direct them to this quotation by Jung:
"Any absolutist attitude is always a religious attitude, and in whatever respect a man becomes absolute, there you see his religion"
I love how religious people tend to pick up scientific arguments and pass them of as arguments for religious beleif
I agree with this statement (and so do all scientists) but this is where scale comes in. If you have 9999 test that show gravity as x in strength, and then there is one test that gives out a slightly different result - then that does not makes us all float now does it.
The same goes for your legue of extraordanary gentlemen.
You cant just say to every experimental result you dont like that "all experiments are possibly fallable" - because these experiments are done multible times. If the experiment gives out widely different results each time, then surely there is something wrong with the method of the experiment, but if the results vary very little, then you can say that the experiment is sound to a given degree.
I point out the IQ relgiosity phenomena because it is well documented (been done several times by different parties) and because I love to hear the arguments that religious people have agianst it: and the arguments are usually simple minded statments about the philosopical limits and properties of scientific testing, like yours - and it seems non of you relgious lot know anything about how theorems are tested and made into sound theories.
You are right about one thing. I did have to look up "audodidact"
So you are self-taught - doesnt seem to have worked too well for you (fuck you too :)
I love how religious people tend to pick up scientific arguments and pass them of as arguments for religious beleif
More generalizations.
(and so do all scientists)
Another generalization.
The same goes for your legue of extraordanary gentlemen.
More insults(?)
I point out the IQ relgiosity phenomena because it is well documented (been done several times by different parties) and because I love to hear the arguments that religious people have agianst it: and the arguments are usually simple minded statments about the philosopical limits and properties of scientific testing, like yours - and it seems non of you relgious lot know anything about how theorems are tested and made into sound theories.
Aveskde apparently agrees with me that it is a highly fallacious argument. Here's what he said: "It's not a very useful argument, because if you're trying to call a person stupid for believing, it doesn't work (population versus individual) and if you're trying to say that religion makes people stupid, it doesn't work (stupid people are drawn to religion, not the other way around)."
You are right about one thing. I did have to look up "audodidact"
So you are self-taught - doesnt seem to have worked too well for you
Doesn't seem to have worked well?
Tell that to the people who come to me frequently for answers to just about any subject. Tell that to the people who, after meeting me once, tell others that they must be careful what they say around me, because I will never forget anything they say.
Aveskde apparently agrees with me that it is a highly fallacious argument. Here's what he said: "It's not a very useful argument, because if you're trying to call a person stupid for believing, it doesn't work (population versus individual) and if you're trying to say that religion makes people stupid, it doesn't work (stupid people are drawn to religion, not the other way around)."
I am not calling any one person stupid for believing: I (and the statistics) point out that for some reason religious people tend to get lower IQ´s, on average (meaning that smart individuals can be religious - they are just less likely to be religious)
Then my argument was that this lack of skill in general intellegence tests might have something to do with how religious groups (especially recently in America and Brittain) shun learning about important factors of the universe, society physics and biology because it goes against what they belive.
It might very well be that "stupid people being drawn to religion" is also a big (and maybe bigger factor) like Aveskde says, but that hardly changes much my argument - I mean, why would stupid people be drawn by religions - could it be because it gives them simplfied answers (so they dont have to think much or train their brain)???
Well that would be my argument exactly - That religiouns give people false hope and security and acts as freezer for the church goers brain capacity
Your friends are obviously very nice and complamenting
I congratulate you on being multi-luangistic, but you obviously do not have as big an English vocabulary as at least most of the people in this debate, seeing as you misused the word "ironic" in your last sentence.
By the way, in that link you put up above, did you notice that hardly any of the IQs passed 100? 100 is the average for a 5th grader. I find the graph to be misleading, seeing as the maker did not address the age of the people. I conclude this to mean that the maker of the graph was most likely an Atheist. It doesn't take my 12 yr old IQ to figure that out.
This study has been done numeral times by different parties with the same results. Wether the guys doing the experiment are Atheists or not matters none since this is basically people telling if they are religious or not and then taking a standardized test (not made by the supposed atheist testers) and the test results are then put up on a XY graph.
Congratulations, you just fucked up a string of comparatively intelligent retorts with your offtopic nitpicking. Plus...
"I conclude this to mean that the maker of the graph was most likely an Atheist. It doesn't take my 12 yr old IQ to figure that out."
Are you trying to play the smarter-than-you nitpicker, or the wanna-be-comedian? Pick one and roll with it; you look retarded pointing out minor spelling errors one second and then making lame ad hominem jokes the next.
Everything I posted just recently had to do with intelligence, it was completely on topic, seeing as he was staying that Atheists are smarter than religious people. I'm not implying that I am smarter than you or that I want to be a comedian.
"I conclude this to mean that the maker of the graph was most likely an Atheist. It doesn't take my 12 yr old IQ to figure that out."
Was meant to be a minor insult, seeing as he wasn't acting to kind towards Terminator.
A single person's intelligence (especially inconsequential spelling mistakes) does not reflect on the intelligence of a group spanning millions of people. To use a single individual as the definition of a whole is, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Pretty fucking stupid". That goes for everyone, religious and atheist alike.
"Was meant to be a minor insult, seeing as he wasn't acting to kind towards Terminator."
So you generalize and insult the entire demographic he's associating himself with. That makes perfect sense.
(yes i am entirely aware that everyone in this debate is doing the exact same goddamn thing. one person at a time)
It might very well be that "stupid people being drawn to religion" is also a big (and maybe bigger factor) like Aveskde says, but that hardly changes much my argument - I mean, why would stupid people be drawn by religions - could it be because it gives them simplfied answers (so they dont have to think much or train their brain)???
Perhaps they are drawn to religion because, having a lower intelligence, they can only find acceptance in a religious group?
Your friends are obviously very nice and complamenting
They are not my friends. Nobody knows me, truly. The people who think they know me best couldn't tell you the first thing about me.
That being said, I am a different person on this site. I will bring up questions just because I love to debate. You seem to think that I am stupid (you already have a bias) for questioning you. Remember one thing: I question everything. Whether or not I need to be told the answer, I'll still mention it if only to 'spice up' the debate.
Surely you are capable of comprehending that the words I used are superior to the supposed 'intelligence level' you have prejudged me of being?
Also, remember that I think faster than I can type, thus I ofttimes get misunderstood.
There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.
Just to level with you, I am not assuming you are stupid, even though I throw a snidy remark here and there. I just like it better when the debates arelively. Swear words bring out the best in people, I think.
I point out the IQ relgiosity phenomena because it is well documented (been done several times by different parties) and because I love to hear the arguments that religious people have agianst it: and the arguments are usually simple minded statments about the philosopical limits and properties of scientific testing, like yours - and it seems non of you relgious lot know anything about how theorems are tested and made into sound theories.
I think you're misinterpreting those studies however. Even though religiosity impedes critical thinking, it is a selective phenomenon. This is why, for example, we can have brilliant doctors who believe in creationism (they think critically about diagnostics but can't quite apply that to their dogma). There have also been, historically, a great many brilliant but religious minds that frankly dwarf us in their genius. They clearly could think critically, and indeed many of them tried desperately to reason their religion out and justify it, in vain. Religion appeals to simple people, however and this may explain the discrepancy. Simple-minded people like the big questions to have easy-to-digest and pre-packaged answers. They are also the most vocal, and open about their religiosity. Brilliant people can be heterodox with a complex mental justification for their beliefs, or they can completely avoid thinking about that area (selectivism). It would make sense that these people are less likely to give a direct answer to their religion, it'll either be vague (like Spinoza's god) or deeply personal, or they may fear being heterodox. We're also forgetting that many intellectuals HATE organised religion, even the religious ones.
I would therefore suggest an explanation that religiosity attracts the simple-minded and so they make up the bulk of the "religious affirmative" pool. The intellectuals tend to be atheistic in modern culture, but also intellectuals may be private about their belief, or be deeply distrustful about organised religion, and so exclude themselves from the affirmative, being falsely labelled as negative.
This to me would seem to be a more reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the religious and irreligious in IQ tests.
Actually, William James Sidis was an atheist. When in court after being arrested for a protest, he said he did not believe in any theistic conception of God. Furthermore, you are committing multiple logical fallacies Terminator. For one, you are cherry picking. Two, you are saying that if someone does X and is part of a group X, this is directly reflective of that group, which is a complete non sequitur.
"Why is it that Christians can be insulted and harassed and nobody gives a shit..."
You are making another fallacy in the form of an argument as an appeal to emotion. How Christians are treated in relation to other groups of people is not relevant to the truth-value of a premise. Your statement "It does correlate directly..." is yet another fallacy. Please see correlation does not imply causation.
"Name me a few wars begun by atheists..."
Another fallacy. Particularly, this is a red herring. Being able to pick out a certain event or group of people isn't relevant to the truth-value of an argument. So that is about five fallacies and one factually incorrect statement. I ask that you please refrain from committing so many fallacies in the future.
Here are your sources buddy. Wikipedia, politics and arrest section:
"During the trial, Sidis stated that he had been a conscientious objector of the World War I draft, did not believe in a god, and defined himself as a socialist." You can also go sidis.net to get the rest of the information.
"I do commit them for a reason..."
So...you commit fallacies for a reason? So you're intentionally illogical? Ok then.
"If they won't handle non-believers why should I not think that they've something to hide?"
I am not following you here. This makes no sense. I am not even going to bother to read through the rest of this. The entire response reads as if it is written by some whiney 12 year old. Also, all caps makes you right. Nice logic fail.
He totally rejected formal theology and religion- while having no doubt that a higher power existed...
Review of Sidis' biography
"I do commit them for a reason..."
People are extremely fallacious. If I am to convince them of something, I must use a fallacy.
Take, for instance, the 'appeal to the emotions'. I will write an emotional reason to accept what I am saying, even though most who know me believe me not to have emotions.
I am not following you here. This makes no sense. I am not even going to bother to read through the rest of this. The entire response reads as if it is written by some whiney 12 year old. Also, all caps makes you right. Nice logic fail.
Your arguments on here are completely useless. All you do is say 'this is a fallacy' and 'this is a fallacy'. What's the point?
Also, I write in such a manner because it will elicit an emotional response - depending on the reader - from the reader.
I am not going to apologize for being logical. If someone makes a formal error in reasoning, I believe they should be called out on it. Since people don't like being called out on being illogical, they react emotionally instead of sticking to the topic at hand. That's simply not my problem.
Of course. Pathos is a strong communication technique. But I judge someones argument based on if it makes the most sense, not if it elicits the strongest reaction from someone.
Personally, it doesn't matter what you think, because realistically, this could never occur. However, I agree that we atheists should all be moved somewhere to start an empire bounded only by the laws of nature. This gets what everyone wants.
Absolutely. We'll occupy southern France. Christians need to struggle in order to prove themselves in the eye(s) of God. Atheists need to lie on the beach and drink good wine after a lifetime of combating ignorance.
I signed up just to respond to this old a$$ argument. All these posts were so quick to say what religion Hitler was and back and forth - rubbish. Anyways, my answer is Yes. Atheists, like Hitler, should be separated from the rest. Anyone at all, like Hitler, should be - atheist or not. See what I did there? :)
I don't think Hitler was ever separated from the human race. Until he killed himself, that is.... So...good luck subduing and separating all the atheists.
Religion starts wars, atheism only correlates with them. So if we're banning things in the name of peace, let's start there.
Mao and Stalin are commonly pointed to be atheist, but they simply hated most religion because they saw it as a enemy to their power, so they made themselves a religious cult to be worshiped.
atheism never starts a war, something that can not be said for religion.
Communist-Atheism kills people. During Stalin and Zedong's reign they prosecuted religious people, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. I used Zedong instead of Mao because we are using Stalin's last name, so I think we should use Zedong's last name, too.
Mao and Stalin are commonly pointed to be atheist, but they simply hated most religion because they saw it as a enemy to their power, so they made themselves a religious cult to be worshiped.
Well, I would hate having to spend my days with Hitler, Mao and Stalin... fuckin' Atheists.
Yes, I am a major Atheist, but even I hate other atheists (really, just the Liberal kind, which are a lot). I mean, Secular Humanism has to be the gayest thing to ever come out of Atheism.
Why can't more of them be Libertarians? Ass fuckers.
I have friends who I consider pretty great who are atheists, so I'm with you here. And I'd be kind of ticked if they all had to move. I only know like ONE guy who is an atheist who I'd be okay with moving to Australia or somewhere, but that's because he's a jerk, not because he's an atheist. x]
Why can't more of them be Libertarians? Ass fuckers.
Because libertarianism is for the naive well-wishers who think that no government intervention will make everyone suddenly play nice with each other, and the selfish pricks who want to be able to own monopolies with sweatshop conditions while they take in all the profits.
Libertarians don't believe in fairy tales like Anarchists or Communists. They're well aware of the consequences of a free market, they just prefer it over a much too powerful government.
Libertarians don't believe in fairy tales like Anarchists or Communists. They're well aware of the consequences of a free market, they just prefer it over a much too powerful government.
Believing a free market can work is the same as believing in a fairy tale. It's one of those things that is so obvious, it hardly needs explanation.
A free market can and does work. Are we talking Anarcho-Capitalism? No, we're talking your basic Capitalist structure with little to no regulation. People point to The Great Depression, as if that SOMEHOW it was because of free market. No, it's because of people. We've had plenty of depressions and recessions WITH government regulation. Why? Because people fuck shit up.
Making government powerful isn't a cure all, because guess who runs government: people. Just a handful instead of the majority. Under free market, everyone runs themselves, under Socialism, everyone is ran by a small amount.
A free market can and does work. Are we talking Anarcho-Capitalism? No, we're talking your basic Capitalist structure with little to no regulation. People point to The Great Depression, as if that SOMEHOW it was because of free market. No, it's because of people. We've had plenty of depressions and recessions WITH government regulation. Why? Because people fuck shit up.
I'm pondering whether you believe this out of insanity (the old adage an insane person believes doing the same thing will yield different results), or ignorance.
You're arguing that the same type of market that gave us us sweatshops, monopolies like the oil barons from the 1800s, and harsh penalties against worker's unions, amongst all sorts of power imbalances because of how companies were able to rape and pillage the land and their workers with no oversight, would somehow magically sort itself out if we reverted back to it.
A free market was tried, in many countries, and it failed. That's why we don't have it any longer.
Making government powerful isn't a cure all, because guess who runs government: people. Just a handful instead of the majority. Under free market, everyone runs themselves, under Socialism, everyone is ran by a small amount.
A free market has nothing to do with individual liberty. A free market has only to do with CORPORATE and INDUSTRY liberty. See the little trick you pulled? You took the liberties that only employers and executives would want, and made the assumption that those liberties apply to everyone, including the employees.
A free market gives these few people the power to mistreat you. If you're one of them, hey I guess that's why you want MORE power. But if you're an employee or consumer (remember the pharmaceutical laws that banned quackery products from being sold as legitimate cures? remember all those bills and acts that hold companies accountable for say, selling you radioactive water? that's government regulation that doesn't exist in a free market) you don't care about "employer rights."
once again trying to match anarcho-capitalism with Capitalism.
Capitalism would have safety regulations (such as clean shit and no false advertising) as a means to end deception, keep people physically safe and abide by contract. This is called law enforcement and is not the same as Socialist regulation.
Socialist regulation entitles the government to control how a business is operated. Be it worker's rights, wage, anti-trust laws, etc.
And monopolies and sweat shops are not proof that a free market doesn't work...
once again trying to match anarcho-capitalism with Capitalism.
So when it's capitalism you don't like, it's anarcho-capitalism, when you like it, it's capitalism.
This reminds me of two parents fighting over a troublemaking son "well look what your son did! MY son?! He's YOUR son!"
Capitalism would have safety regulations (such as clean shit and no false advertising) as a means to end deception, keep people physically safe and abide by contract. This is called law enforcement and is not the same as Socialist regulation.
Right. This is what we have now, barely, since corporations still exert huge political pressure (but forgetting that we still have what you just described).
Socialist regulation entitles the government to control how a business is operated. Be it worker's rights, wage, anti-trust laws, etc.
Sounds fair to me.
And monopolies and sweat shops are not proof that a free market doesn't work...
They are the end products of a free market. No restraints means someone is going to exploit his workers and buy out competition.
1. You're still forgetting that Capitalism doesn't equate Anarcho-Capitalism... like talking to a wall.
2. We also have massive government control over private property, the enforcement of labor unions, and the idea that somehow businesses that are striving to be the best should be REGULATED by the government. It takes away the very ideal of competition. I do not mind massive tax breaks for small businesses (which is another thing that government has done the OPPOSITE of), but punishing a business for doing a good job seems... idk, illogical.
3. And yes, people will exploit their workers. And workers can quit if they want to. As I pointed out, there should be safety regulations to prevent physical issues, and small children shouldn't work around dangerous equipment, but somehow stretching that out to basic Union rights, minimum wage, and Affirmative Action is fascist (i would say Socialist, but that would entitle Government Control, which is something that government does as well, but not in the case of government regulation. regulation isn't control, so we have both Fascism and Socialism... holy shit).
2. We also have massive government control over private property, the enforcement of labor unions, and the idea that somehow businesses that are striving to be the best should be REGULATED by the government. It takes away the very ideal of competition. I do not mind massive tax breaks for small businesses (which is another thing that government has done the OPPOSITE of), but punishing a business for doing a good job seems... idk, illogical.
They are regulated for the same reason that athletes are regulated, for the same reason that you are regulated. That reason is: allowing companies, people and athletes free run under the banner of competition always leads to cheating, corruption, and abuse of power. Businesses are in the position to hold lots of money, which means that they have more power than the average citizen when it comes to politics. Do you see where I'm going with this? Unregulated businesses will make deals with governments for special favours. This leads to more corruption.
3. And yes, people will exploit their workers. And workers can quit if they want to. As I pointed out, there should be safety regulations to prevent physical issues, and small children shouldn't work around dangerous equipment, but somehow stretching that out to basic Union rights, minimum wage, and Affirmative Action is fascist (i would say Socialist, but that would entitle Government Control, which is something that government does as well, but not in the case of government regulation. regulation isn't control, so we have both Fascism and Socialism... holy shit).
Holy Toledo do you have no clue what you're talking about. Fascism is a type of government which puts the needs of the state way above the needs of the citizen. Seeing as regulations are for the benefit of citizens... do you see the contradiction? Socialism is government ownership of businesses in order to control wages and distribution of wealth so that it reflects a more "fair" distribution (where "fair" varies from government to government).
Do you know why union rights had to exist in the first place? Hundreds of years ago when we actually had free markets, there was an industrial revolution. Workers lost power over their employers and could be forced to work long hours for minimal pay, with no benefits or healthcare or safe conditions. Then workers tried to band together to pressure employers to stop this, but early on union formation suffered heavy punishment, death actually.
But hey, this is all about those poor companies that are so oppressed by laws which don't let them dole out a dollar an hour for heavy work in bad work conditions. Companies should be able to pay what they want, hire only white men, and be able to fire employees for no reason at all, with no benefits.
If you aren't catching it, I really hate dumb statements and arguments, and your "#3" took the cake for me today.
I wish I had a scanner because there is this great graph in my Econ textbook which shows the U.S. growth rate from about the last 200 years. I can't find a similar graph online, but if you want an idea of what it looks like imagine someone drawing peaks and valleys around a middle line, and as they move toward the present the peaks and valleys become less extreme. What the graph is meant to show is how more recent monetary and fiscal policy (mostly based on Keynsian theory) has had a "smoothing" affect on GDP growth. What this means is, in the last half of the century we have had fewer, and shorter recessions and longer periods of sustained growth (especially in the last 30 years). A part of this has to do with increased regulations on the market.
Obviously we should allow the market to operate freely in most cases, but there are areas where regulation is necessary, because financial institutions often times will take risks. Often times these risks end up having negative consequences on the economy as a whole, causing the volatile changes in GDP and rises in unemployment characteristic of the pre-Keynsian economy.
Here is a point I feel like I need to make very clear:
No one is advocating socialism
Socialism sucks: not only does it severely limit freedom, it doesn't work. The only redeeming quality is that it promotes equality, but the result would only be a society where everyone is equally poor.
What I and others like myself are advocating is a mostly free economy with some necessary regulations to protect against serious economic downturns.
I don't have a problem with your point of view: I can understand and respect it. What I don have a problem with is the fact that you right off those who disagree with you as somehow delusional. I promise that I have good reasons for the opinions I hold whether you want to believe it or not.
But that doesn't matter, just right me off as an elitist lefty liberal who has no idea what he's talking about.
I assumed that you supported laws against sweatshops and child labor, and this wasn't to what I was referring. These laws, though necessary from an ethical standpoint, don't necessarily help the economy.
What I am talking about is regulation of financial institutions, and an active counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
...Well, I doubt that you actually support this, Joe, because it's obviously a horrible idea, so I'll argue the other points in the description. First of all, there have been plenty of wars waged by religious people. I seem to recall a hundred year long war taking place among pretty religious people. And what about the crusades? PEOPLE, not ATHEISTS, are capable of atrocities. Atheism is not the problem. Tell me how many atheists have made wars, and I'm pretty sure I can show you at least an equal number of religious people who have done the same thing. Also, how are "atheists" using up resources making war weaponry? The US makes weapons, and it is a country probably made up of more Christians than anyone else(I haven't looked at any statistics lately, but it's clear that we are not anything close to a nation solely of atheists).
Of course, this is Joe I'm talking to, so it's definitely a possibility that you're being sarcastic/mocking someone elses arguments about religious people/trying to piss people off. x]
Is there some similar debate that I haven't seen regarding religious people? 'Cause this kind of sounds like a response to attacks on religious people, but I could be wrong.
You point out how many, many atheists have caused battles and deaths. What about terrorists? Everything they do is based around their religion. What about the Crusades? Hundreds of unneccessary wars have been fought over who's god is the real god and other such nonsense. Certainly more wars have been started by them then by atheists. Also, Hitler didn't decide to commit mass homocide because he was atheist, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. On the other hand, most religious battles were CLEARLY fought because of people's different religions. Very few wars are started due to LACK of religion. Look at all wars that are currently being fought. Hmm. They are all either wars over religion or over something else which is completely unrelated religion or atheism. I don't see any wars because of atheism. Religion instead appears to be the leading cause.
Well, it looks like you want to separate and segregate all of humanity. What next "Blacks, like Hitler, should be separated from the rest of the human race"? Everyone should be able to live together and it's people like you who seem to be very intolerant to other views that are holding us back from world peace.
Only criminals and sex offenders should be seperated from the rest of the human race.Secondly, liberty to believe what you want is the greatest thing and a God given right (lol). Thirdly, only pussies want to remove any competition/competing views because their ideas have flaws.
Coming from a Christian Liberal, no. I should also like to note that Hitler was Conservative... National Socialism was not his idea, it was a name he took and corrupted even further than it already was. Either way, politics isn't even the point here. The point is, no group is entirely wrong or entirely useless. I'm a firm believer that it takes all kinds (and any self-respecting Conservative, Liberal, Believer, or Atheist should hold that view) and that everyone has something to offer this world. Even then, anyone who wants to eradicate the opposition as opposed to turning them to your opinion has it wrong.
Hitler was catholic. Seems like most religious people don't know their history as well as the fact that religion is the cause of most wars. Not Atheism.
In the political relations with the churches in Germany however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes".[331] Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich.[334][335][336] The leader of the Hitler Youth stated "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" from the start, but "considerations of expedience made it impossible" publicly to express this extreme position.[334] His intention was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.[329]
Author Konrad Heiden has quoted Hitler as stating, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."[28]
Even if I were to indulge, that any of these statements were accurate or a representation of Hitler's actual views, considering that some of his private statements are entirely made up...Hitler speaks for example....where in any of this, anywhere is there evidence that Hitler was an atheist?
The entirety of your argument rests upon a false dichotomy, if Hitler doesn't like the christian church that de facto makes him an atheist...sorry, it doesn't work that way....this argument was fallacious from the beginning.
Goebbels noted in 1939 that Hitler was "deeply religious" (albeit "profoundly anti-Christian"). According to Richard Steigmann-Gall, "No matter how much he vituperated against Christianity or the churches, Hitler gave no indication that he was now agnostic or atheistic: He displayed a continued attachment to a belief in God."
OK, so you'll believe that Obama was born in Hawaii without any valid proof but you wont believe Hitler was an atheist without any valid proof. Although I don't see how religious he could possibly be if he goes around committing mass murder ;)
OK, so you'll believe that Obama was born in Hawaii without any valid proof
We do have proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. We have a birth certificate, a birth announcement in a local newspaper, confirmation for the hospital staff, confirmation from department records, and the word of his mother, whereas all we have to the contrary is a bunch of right-wing kooks who think that anybody with a funny name must be foreign, and a forged Kenyan Birth certificate.
you wont believe Hitler was an atheist without any valid proof.
There is absolutely no evidence that Hitler was an atheist. Hitler is a highly polarizing figure and nobody wants one of the most infamous figures in history as part of their group, so they try to push him off onto a disliked minority group (ie atheists) despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a connection.
Although I don't see how religious he could possibly be if he goes around committing mass murder
You seem to hold this false understanding that "religious" means helping old ladies across the street. Many terrible things have been done in connection with religious dogma, by religious people, with religious beliefs. Many bad things have been done by people who think they are acting in accordance with "God's will". It's just an illusion, if only you could see it.
Hitler is a highly polarizing figure and nobody wants one of the most infamous figures in history as part of their group, so they try to push him off onto a disliked minority group
OK, I tell you what. Lets push him (Hitler) off onto the Radical Islamists ;)
Hitler was not a practicing Roman Catholic - his ideas were not that which was tagught by Christ. He would be excommunicated for his ideas and actions. His actions were more in-line with atheism. Most wars nowadays are not done in the name of God but of Satan. Trying to explain to atheists what is the reason behind their wars is like atheists trying to explain the same to supposed religious people.
Most "wars" or genocide (Iraq, Afghanistan, Native Americans, Unborn Babies, etc. are not done in the name of God but in the name of Satan or man or atheism - really depends how much you care to put it in a spiritual context - obviously, if youre an atheist you will not chategorize yourself in a spiritual context and this is why all the above murderous activities do not get acknowledged; because you cannot put your finger on who this group of people/thinkers are.
The only practicing Catholic president of the US was Kennedy and look what they did to him. The rest were atheists/satanists. Here I would like to make the distinction - you can believe that there is no God/life after death whatever and not kill anyone or you can kill and either pretend to be athiest but really worship satan or just not know who you are really worshipping indirectly (Satan) and just go about your killing/power trip thinking that there is no God and claiming you are an atheist. For the latter, an atheist for sure but with that added sinister touch of satanism that you cannot recognize or refuse to as you do not believe in the supernatural.
If baby Hitler was babptized a Roman Catholic but acted like a Satanist or an atheist on a killing spree - this does not make him a Roman Catholic full stop!!
I'm not sure how many of you really think that Hitler was an Atheist or Catholic or whatever, but if you would do your research before you post idiotic stuff like this, we would all be in a much better place. In different books and research studies, it shows for a fact that he was born to Catholic parents, but some say that he was Christian, and others say that he frown upon the Christian belief. You can't just automatically join together a belief with someone who is looked down on by a lot of people. Not all Atheists are bad. I, for one, love to do charity work because I love to see their smiling faces when I help make things that much easier for them. Wanting Atheists separated from the rest of the human race is like me saying that I want Christians separated because they believe in a false deity, and have no proof over all the "miracles" that occur in their lives. It would be best to just accept everyone as they are, and to see who they are underneath the religion and skin color.
