Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 12-17-2002, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
The Nazis weren't atheists, Ed. They were theists. Most of them were Christians.

Their hatred of the Jews was partly due to envy of their wealth (itself caused by religion: the Jewish near-monopoly on banking for centuries dates back to a medieval Christian prohibition on "usury", or lending money with interest), and partly on blaming Jews for the death of Jesus.

But you prefer to inhabit a parallel Universe.

Most of the Nazi leaders were either evolutionary pantheists like Hitler or atheists like Martin Bormann. And the few that were theists did not accept the authority of the scriptures, ie they were theological liberals and believed the scriptures were full of errors and influenced by Judaism too much. This was also true of most of the ordinary protestant Germans and lower level Nazis. Read "Hitler" by Ian Kershaw and the "Twisted Cross" by Doris Bergen. Your first reason (economics) was probably the main reason that they hated jews but also it was just an irrational hatred with no real basis. It was only for propaganda reasons that they mentioned the killing of Jesus for the religious Germans, but see above about most German Christians regarding the authority of the bible.

winstonjen · 12-17-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

And the few that were theists did not accept the authority of the scriptures

So what, Ed? Most people today do not stone their children to death for disrespect, nor do they massacre innocent people with wanton fury. The ones that do follow the scriptures exactly turn into fuckheads like Pat Roberton.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-18-2002, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Most of the Nazi leaders were either evolutionary pantheists like Hitler or atheists like Martin Bormann. And the few that were theists...

Hitler was a THEIST, Ed. Part-Christian, part-Nordic-mythology, part-occultism, but all THEIST.

So you've declared that ONE Nazi was an atheist. And the few Nazis who were not Martin Bormann (i.e. every single member of the Nazi party except one)...

There is PLENTY of sound Biblical justification for the Holocaust. Just try using your own excuses for the massacre of the Amalekites.

Butters · 12-18-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Most of the Nazi leaders were either evolutionary pantheists like Hitler or atheists like Martin Bormann. And the few that were theists did not accept the authority of the scriptures, ie they were theological liberals and believed the scriptures were full of errors and influenced by Judaism too much. This was also true of most of the ordinary protestant Germans and lower level Nazis.

This last sentance is blatently false. I base this on living in Germany for six years. The protestant Germans were no more liberal than the Catholic Germans, which is to say not at all.

Ed · 12-18-2002, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


Ed:
They were basically just acting on their feelings, they didnt like jews so they slaughtered them. Most modern atheists like all humans but since both actions are based on feelings, why are the actions of modern atheists any better than the actions of Nazis?

nogo: Ed, when you answer my posts and if you get to the logical conclusion of the arguement you will see that the Amalekite massacre is just based on feelings as well. It is hateful revenge.

Killing children for the sins of the parents is morally wrong and Yahweh is no better than the Nazis. Yahweh is a myth.

You are hiding from reality, Ed, so that you can maintain this ridiculous notion that morality comes from the Bible.

If you are honest and want to see the truth then answer the posts.

No, the killing of the Amalekites was justice being meted out not based on feelings. According to the biblical understanding of death, all death is the result of man's inherent rebellion against God so this was the underlying reason for their death itself, the timing of their death was punishment for what their fathers did and probably given what we know about human nature and God's character for how they had commemorated their victory over the Israelites. So y9ou are partially right, the timing of their death WAS punishment for what their parents did. The Nazis killed the jews not for what they did or even what their fathers did but because of who they were. So you should always remember that what you do today could have far reaching effects on your children and grandchildren.

winstonjen · 12-18-2002, 09:22 PM

Quote:

So y9ou are partially right, the timing of their death WAS punishment for what their parents did. The Nazis killed the jews not for what they did or even what their fathers did but because of who they were. So you should always remember that what you do today could have far reaching effects on your children and grandchildren.

The people slaughtered by the Israelites in the Bible were also slaughtered for who they were, and for being unlucky enough to be born there. So what makes them any better?

So you finally admit that the children were punished for what their ancestors did. And yet you STILL claim that to be justice?!?!?

It is not justice, unless you live in a facist dictatorship (in the case of Biblical civilizations, God was the dictator).

In the ancient days (A period which you still think exists worldwide), our actions ONLY affect our children and grandchildren if orders from a power-hungry god are followed. In addition to this, what if I don't have children? Then I would be free to sin because nothing bad could happen to them. Or I could do whatever the fuck I liked, and my children would get punished, not me. Sound fair?

Ed · 12-19-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:

sb: Hi Ed, have come full circle. Although you will not come out and say
it, your definition of “rational” is distinctive.
In your way of thinking an atheist that was committed to caring
about all of humanity would not be “rational” simply because they did
not believe in god.

You are misunderstanding my point.
All philosophies and worldviews need a rational basis in order to be considered valid by anyone that values rationality.
Since generally atheism claims that morality comes from impersonal time
plus chance, ie amorality. Christianity claims that morality comes from an objective pre-existing morality, ie the character of the
creator. So if a moral creator logically exists (as I demonstrated using the law
of causality)then Christians have a rational basis for morality (A-->A). However
since atheists believe that amorality produced morality (simple logical formula ~A-->A) which
is irrational given that ~A -//-> A.

Quote:

sb: Perhaps you are correct that Nazis behavior was based on their feelings, but how is that any different from Christians?

See above.

Quote:

sb: Isn’t it a Christian requirement that one accept Christ into one’s
heart not just one’s mind? , we need to accept Christ with all of our being both
mind and emotions.

My point is just to demonstrate that although Christianity also allows us to emotionally embrace its truths, its truths are grounded in rationality and reality.

Quote:

sb: Ed your arguments might have some credibility if being a Christian
really did make people behave morally. Look around you Ed, 85% of the US
population claims to be Christian, yet it is mostly Christians who rob, steal, rape, kill and
deceive. Christianity doesn’t work, it has never worked. All it creates is a platform from which the power hungry can control the populace. It has no place in a working constitutional democracy.

Actually as I noted in another post, studies
have shown that Christians that regularly attend church are more law abiding that those that don’t attend church regularly. I can pretty much guarantee that practically all those “christians” that do those terrible things you mention do not
attend church regularly. And as far as not having a place in a constitutional democracy, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin all said that Christianity was indispensible for it to even function.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-20-2002, 12:38 AM

Quote:

You are misunderstanding my point.
All philosophies and worldviews need a rational basis in order to be considered valid by anyone that values rationality.
Since generally atheism claims that morality comes from impersonal time
plus chance, ie amorality. Christianity claims that morality comes from an objective pre-existing morality, ie the character of the
creator. So if a moral creator logically exists (as I demonstrated using the law
of causality)then Christians have a rational basis for morality (A-->A). However
since atheists believe that amorality produced morality (simple logical formula ~A-->A) which
is irrational given that ~A -//-> A.

Or, in plain English:

Atheism (to be precise, metaphysical naturalism) has an explanation for the emergence of morality from non-morality: evolution.

Whereas Christianity does not: the Christian answer is "...um, it came from God". When asked where God came from, or why God exists at all, or why God should have morals, or why the Biblical God keeps breaking his own moral code: the answer is "...um, I dunno".

So the atheistic answer is "better" than the Christian non-answer?

No further questions!

Jack the Bodiless · 12-20-2002, 12:45 AM

Also, you need to learn some actual logic, rather than just making up garbage and littering it with quasi-logical jargon.

What you've cited is a horribly mangled version of the Law of the Excluded Middle: there is no condition A such that an object can be both A and non-A at the same time.

There is nothing illogical about morality arising from non-morality.

A few more examples of your "logic":

Computers do not exist, because computers cannot arise from non-computers.

America does not exist, because America cannot arise from non-America.

We cannot die, because death cannot arise from non-death.

Rousseau_CHN · 12-20-2002, 02:46 AM

It's my first time in this post, and I wonder why it is still here...it should be thrown somewhere in the humor section.

It sounds very much like the Hu joke.

I'll start...

go on...

go where...

don't

By the 14th thread, i was already tired with the joke. It might have been a beautiful discussion, but you two, Starboy and Ed, sure messed it up.

It has 200 posts...wow...why am I not surprised?

by the 200th post you'd still be arguing about nothing, I'm sure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2002, 12:45 AM	#259
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Also, you need to learn some actual logic, rather than just making up garbage and littering it with quasi-logical jargon. What you've cited is a horribly mangled version of the Law of the Excluded Middle: there is no condition A such that an object can be both A and non-A at the same time. There is nothing illogical about morality arising from non-morality. A few more examples of your "logic": Computers do not exist, because computers cannot arise from non-computers. America does not exist, because America cannot arise from non-America. We cannot die, because death cannot arise from non-death.

12-20-2002, 02:46 AM	#260
Rousseau_CHN Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Nowhere Land Posts: 441	It's my first time in this post, and I wonder why it is still here...it should be thrown somewhere in the humor section. It sounds very much like the Hu joke. I'll start... go on... go where... don't By the 14th thread, i was already tired with the joke. It might have been a beautiful discussion, but you two, Starboy and Ed, sure messed it up. It has 200 posts...wow...why am I not surprised? by the 200th post you'd still be arguing about nothing, I'm sure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.