o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:
I am seriously and utterly confused as to what point you're trying to make. Anything resembling an argument is now adrift in a see on non-sequitors, speculation, and unintelligible babble. Are you saying Hitler was an atheist or a pagan? Are you trying to say that atheists are pagans? Are you trying to say that not believing in deities is related to worshipping the sun (which by the way would be neopaganism, and not paganism)?
Let's make this really simple. Your original claim was that Hitler was an atheist. I presented plenty of evidence that goes against that fact, (and then you went on some kind of rant about paganism). Do you have any evidence to suggest Hitler was an atheist or were you simply talking out of your ass with the kind of nonsense that creationists tend to use (not saying you're a creationist but it's a common and flawed creationist argument)?
So, if you have any evidence that Hitler was an atheist, as per our current meaning of the word, present it. If not, then I'll consider my point sufficiently made and be on my merry way.
|
"Can you please show me where I've said that Christians are essentially pagans? "
"Paganism was generally incorporated into the Catholic Church. " i will concede though that i was a bit extreme with that post but you are basically saying here that the church is preaching paganism which is the truth
Nope. That's not what I'm saying at all. Do not misrepresent me.
It is a known fact that pagan traditions were incorporated into the Catholic Church. In fact YOU were the one who brought this fact into this debate. That's not to say that the church preaches paganism because, most people distinguish between the past and present.
no if i had meant to say that i would have posted that what i said is that the movement's goal was based on evolution and i've realised that again you've ommited the fact that it was not just these people but all people outside of the aryan race
I didn't omit it. I adressed that it wasn't true.
the people he left alive were those who fit his standard for being aryan ( his enemies were generally similar in appearance to his people anyway ) everyone else was killed.
Yeah... so I guess those Aryan Japanese were left alive because they looked so similar to Hitler? Like I said, those were the only groups he targeted for extinction.
the concept of evolution existed before darwin... it existed as almost all beliefs have previously in one of the older religions and again this is where the movement pulled their inspiration
You're confusing me further and further. So it's based on relegion or atheism? Can't be both.
i didn't take your quote out of context when i said that you seemed to believe that hitler came up with it one day while daydreaming you replied that this is what happened due to what was said in his book
No, I didn't. You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you need help with basic reading skills. What I said was,
"He actually speaks of this, and part of the reason is aesthetics. At any rate using a symbol does not necessarily endorse that religion."
I was addressing why he used the Swastika, and never said anything close to him creating it. And by saying it didn't endorse that religion, I am obviously indicating that the Swastika was already associated with a religion. Lying lying is no fun. Lying lying hurts someone.
therefore if you acknowledge that it is indeed an ancient symbol then you were wrong and hitler was lying
Nope. Because neither Hitler or I ever said that he created the Swastika. I expect an apology for both me and for Hitler.
"What you are describing is not atheism, it is antitheism."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism "a disbelief in the existence of deity the doctrine that there is no deity"
It would appear to me that you again lack reading comprehension. The Oxford and Merriam dictionaries that you provided include the definition I gave.
"A person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." As in a person who does not believe there is a god, which is exactly what I said.
"A disbelief in the existence of a deity" Again exactly what I was saying.
Now, first of all, Hitler was neither of the definitions you gave. Secondly, if your knowledge of atheism consisted of anything more than 2 minutes of googling, you'd be aware of how the word is used now.
i suppose atheist in the past few years have begun to realise that it makes them look ridiculously stupid to form an ideology around such a stupid claim and have tried to rebrand it but the definition remains the same
this relates back to what i said about ideologies having different goals at different times or eras here you have a perfect example
Nope. This has been the atheist position dating back far more than a few years. I'm not here to spoonfeed you research, so look into it yourself.
And I get your point that ideologies have different goals at different time, but it was an is a dumb point that is completely irrelevant. If you're trying to say Hitler was an atheist, it would be understood by any one with a firm grasp on common sense that you're using our current understanding of the word. And you'd be wrong no matter what definition of atheism you use.
what i'm saying is that all the ideologies that we practice today come down from ideologies that came before us an only an idiot would believe otherwise
You keep repeating it, and it doesn't get any less stupid with repetition. Even if atheism came from paganism, that does not make pagans atheists. People evolved from apes (or an ape ancestor to be precise) but that does not mean they are apes. Diamonds were once coal, but that doesn't mean you shoud burn diamonds to run a factory. Feces was once food, but that doesn't mean you should eat shit.
atheism for example did not just start a few decades ago it has been a thing for eons, whether you believe that or not is up to you
i suppose you believe that because scientist of our era started experimenting with the environment more and gained what we consider now to be a greater understanding that atheism arose naturally as a result well lol that's not the case at all
Dude, you have a serious problem with lying. Please show me where I said that atheism started a few decades ago. Also please show me where I said that I believe "scientist of our era started experimenting with the environment and gained what we consider now to be a greater understanding that atheism arose naturally as a result". I wouldn't ever say anything like that, because I have a firm grasp on the English language, and I have the ability to form sentences that are coherent. Seriously, I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
I apologize if English is not your first language, but that sentence makes no sense. Not trying to be rude but use punctuation please.
and i did not make that claim what i claimed is that in the case of hitler's movement the pagan religion they drew inspiration from was atheistic
So again, I'm vastly confused. Are you saying that Hitler was not an atheist? If so, then you've corrected your mistake, and we're done here.
i should have typed catholicism but my point remains which you can't seem to address
So wait... you admittedly made an argument based on something I never said, and then complained that I didn't address it?
And even if you said catholicism, you would STILL be wrong. The catholic church accepts evolution, but many catholics do not. (which isn't really sensical since they're supposed to believe in church doctrine, but then religion doesn't always make sense.
actually it has everything to do with this and you amusingly helped to prove my point within this post when you tried to rebrand atheism
Again with the lies. My definition of atheism fit with the ones you presented, and if you do any more than a google search you'll see that atheists have been defining themselves like that for a very long time.
this site explains some of what i've been trying to convey to you
http://www.aldhiaa.com/english/book/book/Philosophy_and_irfan_library/books/global_freemasonry/005.html
i should clarify though that i have been conflating humanism and atheism throughout my post because ultimately i don't think any sensible person can deny that they are very similar in terms of the disbelief in god
Well conflating two different terms is probably why your argument makes absolutely no sense. And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist. And that's bat shit crazy.
This is actually the most basic of logic fallacies.
If some humanists are atheists, that does not mean all humanists are atheists, or that atheism is the same thing as humanism. Look at Lewis Black. An atheist, but certainly not a humanist.
If you're a humanist, you place the greatest value humans. If you are an atheist, you do not believe in a god. Two completely distinct concepts. You can be both, but you can be one without the other. There are in fact many Christians who would identify themselves as humanists. Look up Christian Humanism. I would wager that a fair number of Christians who posted in this topic would accept the label of humanist.
So yeah. Don't accuse me of rebranding atheism and then try to say atheism and humanism are the same thing. Because that would be pretty hypocritical.
"but anyway both beliefs arose out of ancient religions anyone who is interested in finding out can do so... scientist of our current era did not magically come up with these ideas one day"
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler being an atheist.
|
